Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Wormerine
I am not even sure if Baldur's Gate1&2 were good RPGs, when put against fallout1&2 or Planescape - but they were pretty darn enjoyable campaigns which decent replayibility.

Although I admire Planescape, I don't think it is on the same scale of player agency with personal and regional choices and consequences like Fallout. I like Planescape system of truth/lie/changing alignment but it rarely has any consequence. In that sense, I think BG2 had more meaningful choices and consequences and more interesting companion interactions.
PST had more outcomes to the player's choices when it came to the main character, imo. In BG1 and BG2 there aren't any consequences to the choices you make in the main questline, and it doesn't matter what character you play. The only different outcomes are in the hell trials, and it still doesn't change how the events in ToB unfold. The yes/no question at the end of the saga is basically "which epilogue you want".

The end in Planescape is not much different, just little variations, nothing like Fallout, it doesn't matter if you are evil or good. Although your alignment changes in response on how you roleplay, it has minimal consequences. Also most of the choices you make have immediate self-limited consequences nothing far-reaching, just like most of BG2.

Sure, you can build characters based on intelligence or wisdom but the events unfold in the same way, meaning no extra gameplay or late consequences. The choice is to essentially skip a battle or not, and since combat there is very limited the difference between the 2 approaches are minimal. I honestly prefer to have choices that leads to new gameplay sections such as Bodhi vs Shadow Thieves.

In fact, PST is very rigid as well. If you kill Trias the first time you see him, you get that message that you've killed an important person to the game's plot and you have to reload.

Last edited by IrenicusBG3; 06/08/21 03:10 PM.