• Avicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        All very good games but mind that BG I was released in 1998, IWD two years later. I see some people playing BG I for the first time and then saying stuff like “it is quite dull compared to BGII” but when BG I was first released, I think it was the first isometric computer rpg (in a fantasy setting) ever of that scale (taking into consideration not just the story and the world for which there were probably precedents but also graphics, music, voice acting, npc interactions etc etc). There was fallout I that came out in 1997 (what a golden age for computer games!) but again that is a different context.

        I remember the first time I played it as a kid (coming from table top rpgs), I might have peed a little from excitement seeing how detailed the game was. IWD I was more like a small scale repeat of BG I in a different context. So can’t really call that genre defining. If anything I would put Divine Divinity before IWD I (it was also released in 2002) but had a higher level of physical interactivity with the world than BG I.

        Similar story with BG II and IWD II. BG II took style of BG I and built an even grander RPG with more detail in NPC interactions and the world. I don’t think one can even compare IWD II to BG II despite it being a very good game. I am not even sure there has been an isometric game of that scale in a fantasy setting for the like following 10-20 years after BG II.

    • Aspharr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just a side note I wouldn’t necessarily put Witcher 1 on the same pedestal as witcher 2 and 3. You could enjoy it, thematically and story wise it’s spot on Witcher, but it’s pretty klunky mechanically speaking and really shows its age. 2 and 3 are Fantastic in every way though. I hear they’re potentially remaking 1 and I’m all for it if it’s in a style similar to 2 or 3.

      • Corn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Nah, Witcher 2’s combat was an improvement, but still bad enough I know multiple people who gave up due to seemingly impossible fights.

        • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Even Witcher 3 controls are quite janky. Especially with a controller. I played W3 after playing Uncharted 4 and the difference in character control was staggering. Felt like several generations behind Uncharted’s controls. Took me several days to get used to Witcher 3’s system.

          • hkspowers@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            Yep tried to play Witcher 3 several times and gave up because of the ultra janky controls. I work in the industry and I just don’t understand how control schemes can still be so shitty when other games have nailed it as far back as N64. That’s not even counting how much I despise the overall industry shift towards prioritizing flowery character animations over player input, so your character always feels like there is a huge lag between player input and onscreen actions because your character is still doing the 4th twirl on his sword strike from the button you pushed 8 buttons ago…

            In my opinion all characters in games should be as responsive as a fighting game when it comes to input and onscreen actions. I think the Ninja Giaden series nailed this down perfectly, compared to this level of responsiveness pretty much every modern game I’ve played feels like the characters are underwater.