anyone else diappointed with the gamespot review?

[johndo]

reading the gamespot review i can only say: DISAPPOINTED!!!!!! we in europe are still waiting for the game and still wonder what it is really like. has anyone had any experience with the game so far? i prefer the experience of gamers who loved the bg series since they know more about the forgotten realms.

[jimthegray]

The article is a pretty fair review.
maybe a little high "i am easier to please than most"

Originally posted by johndo:
<STRONG>reading the gamespot review i can only say: DISAPPOINTED!!!!!! we in europe are still waiting for the game and still wonder what it is really like. has anyone had any experience with the game so far? i prefer the experience of gamers who loved the bg series since they know more about the forgotten realms.</STRONG>

[Firephoe-Ex]

I agree with Jimthegray , It's a fair review , The game isn't all that Wonderfull , I find it a nice passtime but i wonder when i'll say enough and call it quits , But for now it keeps me busy, there's no other new Ad&d Rpg game out there

[johndo]

where did you get it from. you come from holland and the game isn't here till the 16th of november. is it a warez or what?

[HighLordDave]

You can find the Gamespot review here.

I think it's a fair review of the game and I must say that I am more than a little disappointed with the gameplay aspect. I have only heard rumours of the technical glitches some others are having, and I would say that the patch will probably fix most of those.

Part of ROMD's problem is that Baldur's Gate and Baldurs Gate 2 really raised the bar of expectation for D&D games (and other CRPGs in general). Unfortunately, the ROMD engine lags behind the Infinity Engine in terms of efficiency and user-friendliness and the story is a mere shadow of what it could be.

There are many reasons not to like ROMD, but the foundation is there for a really great game. However, it has a "rushed to production" feel about it. If you liked the BG series, you will probably feel very let down by ROMD, which is a shame because the original SSI Pool of Radiance was an absolutely fantastic game.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: HighLordDave ]

[VoodooDali]

You know, what I can't understand is why some of these companies keep trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to RPG's. Given BG's success, a company really could not go wrong to just develop a very similar game. All I want is another RPG like BG, non-linear with interesting interactions with NPC's and a good story! I've just recently purchased PoR and Arcanum. Arcanum is okay, but the story line is not as exciting as BG and there is no interaction or fun banter or romances with NPC's. Don't the developers look at these forums and realize what it is that people love the most about BG? I think all of us would welcome a new RPG--it doesn't have to have new D&D rules, or different graphics or anything, just a good story and good interaction!!! Is that so much to ask?

[fable]

@VD, PoR was in development before BG2's release. Instead of trying to do a BG1 clone, they wanted to update the "dungeon crawl" atmosphere of the original SSI gold box editions. Personally, I agree with those who find all the Interplay CRPGs much better in every respect (and not just graphics) than SSI's cookie cutter gold box products, and with far broader appeal--but that's evidently what they tried for.

[HighLordDave]

The problem for ROMD is that for a good "dungeon crawl", we already had Icewind Dale. People forget how good the original SSI games (original POR, Curse of the Azure Bonds et al) were for their time, when the only competition was Ultima and Bard's Tale. Aside from the deficienies in the gameplay and interface, ROMD failed to bring anything new to CRPGs, so even if it worked perfectly, it would still not measure up well to the benchmark in the genre, BG2.

As a side note, maybe this will shut up everyone who uses the words "aging" and "Infinity Engine" in the same sentence. I rather like it. While it's nice that there's more than one company licensed to produce D&D CRPG products, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[UberJason]

I read one review that really sums up my feelings on the game. It went something like this "if you are making a turn-based combet game thats fine, but make sure the combat system is good!"

I think that turned based tactical fantasy games are great, that's why the original gold box games were so much fun. I really wanted to like this game, but the whole interface in this system is, well clunky.

Pathfinding is almost non-existent, the embedded menus are difficult to use. the fact that there is no real character customization just adds to the frustration. I mean I spend most of my timetrying to get my spells in position to be cast correctly. Sometimes the icon indicates I can't attack a monster, but if I run up close, I end up being able to.

I finally cleared up my gameplay issues by upgrading my Monster 3D 2 16 MB card to a Geforce 2 MX400 64. (I figured it was about time!) But even with the upgrade the game has a very clunky feel.

More frustrations:

I cannot move the cursor onto any areas of the map not in the immediate vicinity of my characters. This occasionally means I cannot target far away enemies with missle weapons as I should!

Clerics turning ability either is insanely powerful against undead or does absolutely nothing.

A very "Monty-Haul" feeling to the game, I mean I found a +3 weapon in the beggining of the first dungeon. That ain't right.

Save Game problems....

Experience is gained painfully slow. I mean I shouldn't have gained only 100 XP per character after 7 battles. At this rate it will take me 70 battles to advance 1 level! Except of course for my rogue/monk, who will be level 50 by that time because he gets all the xp for finding traps.

I guess BG2 just spoiled me.

UberJason