I have played PoE... I think it's ok, and I feel the BG1 vibe in it - and I appreciate that a lot, but those loading times are killing me! Exploring isn't so fun, when every few minutes I have to wait another minute watching a loading screen.

I've kinda given up on PoE, for now I just can't watch another loading screen just to enter a small building and another just to exit it. So many loading screens!!

There's fun to be had in PoE, I think it is the best BG-clone made so far, it's just ... ugh loading screens. I'm ambivalent on the combat and magic, I've seen better, I've seen worse. It's kinda bland I suppose, but it works(ish).

But I can't praise the BG1 like exploration in PoE enough though, it's lovely! PoE is a rough diamond, given more development and love, it could have been much better I suspect. But it is what it is and I'll pick it up again and finish it when I find the time.

I won't judge it completely until I finish it, maybe the latter half of it blows my mind or something :P

I remember BG1 also had long loading screens on current PCs when it was released. Reloading for Max HP was utter nightmare...

The loading times were longer with older machines and slower hard drives and slower CD drives, but I didn't mind it so much and I've seen (plenty modern games with chronic loading time syndrome), especially as at the time you had a big thick manual to read through, with tables of interesting information and background info. A lot of the manuals in the past were nice that way and made it all quite bearable. Useful for turn based games where the AI took its time thinking.

With the seemingly never ending release of pixel art and pixel based retro games (etc.) I think it hints that graphically BG has held up nicely. Not top end by any measure, but still acceptable and playable for a game and even nice looking in parts. "Serpent in the Staglands" is a recent release on GOG and has a similar look and feel visually to BG's style but with a lower resolution and quality of visuals. The 2D (or pre-rendered) art of BG and the IE games in general has held up longer than the old 3D attempts of the past did, but I found most of them ugly at the time too, although still technically impressive at the time (and often added for no other reason than to stick a "NOW IN THREE-DEE!!!!!!!!" type sticker on the box for marketing purposes, sometimes destroying or ruining a good franchise to force it). Old style, but done to a high quality by good artists. Good art might date in style but it's still good art.

The music is still good, and I enjoy the voice over acting as well as much of the flavour text. There's things that were and still can be criticised about the writing or dialogue, which is a key issue for something that isn't a very basic dungeon crawler RPG, but there's so many utterly crap stories and dialogue choices in AAA or other new and big budget games that BG still holds up for that in the context. There may be quibbles about interface or game mechanics, but there's plenty more that came after it that had far worse sins than it and for the most part it was helpful and obvious, even without the big manual that came with it. At least the interface was made for a keyboard and mouse and not an awful sloppy conversion from a console controller interface.

The main thing that holds it up are the technical issues of keeping it maintained and playable with changing operating systems and hardware and issues with multiplayer, these all having various work arounds over time. If you sorted that main issue out and released this today instead as some sort of "retro" pixel-art RPG homage or similar marketing phrases there would be many people delighted with it and impressed by it.

Overall I feel there is very little I can criticise BG 1 for that isn't also an issue still with current gen games, while many current gen games actually feel like a step backwards compared to this particular gem from the past. If you wanted to start a discussion on what's the best overall or what is is the best out of a group of RPGs or games then that's another matter, but as part of the sea of mostly turds out there that one is still a gem by comparison for certain and worth playing today. I'd certainly be happy if I'd somehow missed it back then and bought it today to try for the first time.

Personally I think BG was a good game but PoE is a p.o.s. Why? Because it tried to clone the Infinity engine experience and that isn't what made the infinity engine games great. What made these games great was their innovation for the time, bringing tactics to D&D setting, great characters and engaging stories with enjoyable exploration. Pillars of Eternity is not innovative at all, in fact it is a huge step backwards. Not backwards from all those infinity engine games but a step backwards from the present. it has been 17 years since BG was released as I recall, why go back and make a game that looks like it is 17 years old?

I am not simply talking about the graphics but menu design, the User interface, story direction (direction as in directing the story with tools of the trade like a director would.) All those tools that close to two decades of innovation provided, that designers have added to the tool box of game design are simply ignored. I am sure I am a minority but I think PoE is not a step in the right direction. I enjoy going back to the old infinity engine games but I do so for the nostalgic feelings, to relive the joy I had when playing it in my 20's. I do not want to play a new game that is designed as if the game in the 90's. Games shouldn't be static they should improve and PoE fails to take the BG experience and improve on it and that is why I gave up on it.

Does it really matter that a game isn't innovative? Games first and foremost are supposed to be fun, if it's fun and not innovative, who freakin' cares?

How exactly were Infinity Engine games innovative? Everything they've done has been done before. All they really did was a lot of streamlining, which is good, don't get me wrong, but they never had any particularily new elements, and when it comes to characters and storytelling, they were in my eyes already surpassed by Fallout.

You do realize that the game has been funded by fans who wanted a game which would be as close to IE games as possible, right? Besides, of course PoE improves upon IE experience. Flow of the story is a bit more modern, the games makes effort to make all character builds viable which is something a lot modern RPGs have not learned already... In fact, would you please elaborate on how exactly does the game not use modern tools? All I can see are rather static NPCs and... That's about it, really.

The infinity engine improved on the isometric design, they made the sprites isometric not just a flat 2d sprite in an isometric design. Not sure what I mean compare the sprites on the Darksuns game vs BG. Streamlining the UI is actually part of innovation so acknowledging that it was more streamline is saying it was innovative. The infinity engine games took a genre RPG that was thought dead and showed it was not how? By making them more about the story being told (at least bioware's Infinity engine games.) than the dungeon crawl. They introduced the idea of the multiple NPCs that join your party not just for a short time but become part of your team with your own personalities, not just create your whole party at the start. Having your party in various formations was innovative it allowed for actual tactics vs the first person dungeon crawl combat of wizardry done D&D style with the beholder series. While Darksuns had tactics too it could get a little silly depending how your party popped into combat as in non combat only one character was on the map.

Yes I realise that the game was funded by fans which is WHY I stated I know I am in the minority here in my post. I don't expect people to share my opinion. I also find it incredibly bad form for a larger studio like obsidian to use crowd funding to create games. Before investors in games got an actual fraking return on the money they invest now companies are saying hey you fans invest in our game sight unseen and for the risk of investment get NOTHING but the game and some pointless extras. A studio like obsidian can't afford to make the game? That is a lie. This is a studio that made KOTOR 2, Neverwinter nights 2 and Fallout: new vegas all AAA games that were successful and what it can't afford to make a fraking game? It is only because of pre-order culture that is ruining the industry that gamers think hey if I crowd fund a game that is a win win. It isn't a win win, it is a win for the developer who laughs at us because now they get the sales of the game and wont have to pay for developing cost or share the profits with an investor namely all those fans.

I already elaborated how the game isn't modern if you can't understand my position I suggest you stop looking at it from "I like the game I must defend it" position. Nothing I said counters anyone else's opinion of the game I simply gave MY opinion. If you like the game have fun. I found it boring, and annoying and very dated. But here is a perfect example of them being "dated." The voice overs were in the style of the 90's. where they don't fully voice all the NPCs or all their dialogue which was really annoying. Because you couldn't just listen to what they said as vital info would be missed. Which resulted in you having to listen to NPCs and then have to read what was just said. It was redundant. That part voice part not voice was jarring and immersion breaking for me and very dated. Which 15 years ago wouldn't have been jarring or dated but innovative as voice was just starting to be added in games during the 90's. It isn't like Obsidian doesn't have experience with voice overs either, but nope they couldn't be arsed to do it because what? The idea they put any money upfront to develop the game was too crazy? Or did they decide that because infinity engine games were not fully voiced for their NPCs that means they couldn't do it? If so that illustrated my point of them not using modern development "tool" in their tool kit. PoE would have been a great game 12-15 years ago today it is dated.

If you like it then enjoy it, I don't like it and don't feel the need to pretend to like it just because I enjoyed similar game from the past or pretend to like it because it is a fan favourite. Nor do I think my opinion is "right" as it is subjective, so it can be neither right or wrong. Just as anyone else's opinion. I gave a solicited opinion aka I was asked so I answered. What? I have to agree with people for it to be valid?

No, you don't and I never said your opinion is wrong or attacked it. By means of discussion we come to a greater understanding of ourselves - but there's no discussion without opposition, don't you think? And.. Well, why even post on discussion boards if discussion is not what you want?

Anyway, to start off with facts: No, Obsidian is not swimming in money. All of their previous projects were funded by a publisher, which means they were paying Obsidian to develop a game and then took most of the profit from sales. Pillars of Eternity was the first project Obsidian tried to achieve without publisher money and so they raised about 4 million via kickstarter. For comparison, the original BG cost over 4 million dollars, BG2 over 5 million dollars, and that was 15 years ago. To put that into perspective, Mass Effect 3 cost over 200 million dollars - suffice to say that the modern technological tools are rather expensive to fully implement, and you wouldn't believe how expensive voice acting is. So yes, Obsidian did need the money from communuty to make the game possible and they have actually funded part of its development from the limited funds they have aquired trough the years. The kickstarter vs. preorder discussion is completely irrelevant, so let's just not go there.

As for your given example of voice acting being implemented poorly - you are correct, but that is not dated design, that is bad design. The fact that VA skipped lenghty descriptions and made you read the whole thing, anyway. Personally I would prefer Obsidian to skip voice acting entirely in such a text-heavy game. Why did they not do a full voice acting is something I have answered already - voice actors are really, really expensive. Ridiculously so. Then again, that doesn't really answer much - you say they did not use modern tools and design advancaments, but I still don't understand full extent of these, I mean surely it's not just poor voice acting.

All right, now, our misunderstanding might quite simply come from different expectations, so let me ask you a question: How many low budget RPGs have you played recently?

It still feels bizarre that you would fault Obsidian for doing what they very clearly stated they'll do, like saying that you bought a bike and hated it for being a terrible boat. Then again, I guess it's a perfectly valid reason to dislike a game, I mean I dislike sports games for being sports games.

If you don't like reading then story based RPGs like BG, Planescape, PoE, etc. are not for you. Expecting a novel's worth of text to all be voiced (especially as people will want it to be voiced well by multiple actors and not awful programmer art/voice level of quality or else it will be jarring and sound...dated) is unreasonable at anything other than hundreds of millions budget, like the top AAA titles might get and therefore expect top of the line. Even games of that level typically have far more limited amounts of conversation and dialogue, reuse great amounts of it or have the cheap "false choices" and "false responses" in the text conversations to give the very flimsy illusion of more - by this I mean giving the player three choices which all lead to the same response, which is carefully worded so that it can fit anything the player chose. It's not so much a conversation tree as a conversation broomhandle (which greatly limits the writing from the start as it must fit all these criteria and crippling limitations). Far less writing and story as a result. This is what ends up having to happen if you expect Hollywood quality voice overs for everything and you're too lazy to read.

I don't believe reading is dated in any way.

Some people don't like reading books. Some don't like looking at paintings art galleries. Some don't like card games. Some don't like ball games. Doesn't mean any of those are dated at all. They are different experiences. It's just not for you. Doesn't mean someone is a bad person. Also doesn't mean someone should perpetuate the falsehood that any of those things are "dated" and therefore potentionally discourage others from making these games or others from enjoying them.

As for PoE specifically - Fenixp is absolutely right. It was advertised as a "as close as legally possible to IE game experience" from the funding stage and all the way through. It'd have been madness if they just made a Mass Effect clone after all that, especially as many of the funders and fans were not a fan of that style of game either. I've plenty criticism for elements in the game, but doing what was promised is not going to be one of the issues I have with it.

There should be care when making claims of what is "dated" when in actual fact the issue is "this is not my personal preference in style". Very different.

Edit: Didn't realize this was an old thread. My bad...