Average User Score: 7.2Feb 13, 2013I was biased. I WANTED to love this game. Baldur's Gate II is in my top five games of all time, no question. Baldur's Gate wasn't as polished,I was biased. I WANTED to love this game. Baldur's Gate II is in my top five games of all time, no question. Baldur's Gate wasn't as polished, but it was a great buildup for the superior sequel. When I saw EE out, I dropped the money without hesitation. Before I knew it, I was drawn right back in and pounding through the game once more with a Sorcerer.
God damn was it frustrating!
On the good side: the new characters are fantastic, though their balance is questionable. All three have such good voice acting and character development that they honestly feel as if they were there from the beginning. As to the balance I mentioned, Dorn is a killing machine that puts Minsc to shame. Neera is a wild mage... which... well you know about wild mages. Rasaad is a meat popsickle. I liked his character, so I played with him the entire game. He was terrible, simply because low level monks are worthless in this edition of the D&D ruleset. Ironically they scale incredibly well, so by the end of BG2 Rasaad is going to be a rampaging god of death. But he is simply dead weight in BG1.
On the bad side: they say they added over 400 improvements? Well they broke just as many things. The game is riddled with bugs, and considering how many hours I've put into the original BG1 and BG2, I feel rather sure that a lot of these bugs weren't around before. Nothing is game breaking (except for one big one I'll mention in a second), but its a lot of very pervasive minor stuff. Characters will audibly confirm a movement order, then not move until you click a second time. Characters won't autoattack when they should. It was enough that halfway through, I was feeling pretty disillusioned. I could have bought the gog non-enhanced version for half the price, and except for the new characters been perfectly happy. The nail in the coffin for me did not come until the very end however.
I beat Sarevok in the final showdown, the game pauses and gives the message 'congratulations on beating Sarevok! Your game will now be saved for export to BG2!'. And then it crashed to desktop. A quick google search showed that this is a bug that was well known before the beta, quite a few people have experienced it, and they released the game with it still there. I didn't get to see the ending cinematic. I don't really care. I just feel ripped off that on top of all the small bugs, this huge bug made it through to production. It ended the experience on a giant, wet and floppy sour note.
I won't be buying BG2:EE.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.4Mar 26, 2012The graphics are amazing. The music is amazing. The game itself? It's awful. Terrible. Horrible. Here's a summary of the missions. SpoilersThe graphics are amazing. The music is amazing. The game itself? It's awful. Terrible. Horrible. Here's a summary of the missions. Spoilers ahead:
Mission 1: drive to forgettable dirty city area, kill some people.
Mission 2: drive to forgettable dirty city area, kill a person
Mission 7: drive to forgettable dirty city area, kill some people
Mission 29: drive to forgettable dirty city area, kill some people
Mission 72: drive to forgettable dirty city area, kill person
That is the entire game. I am trying to play through it for the second time, and I just can not make myself finish. I'm at the last sequence of missions, and it's miserably boring due to the repetition. They made a beautiful game. A masterpiece of videogame art. But they forgot to make it fun.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Oct 18, 2010Civ2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games keptCiv2 was amazing, Civ3 and Civ4? Amazing. Civ5? At first glance, it is equally amazing. But this feeling doesn't last. Previous Civ games kept their charm after hundreds of hours of investment. By your second time through a match of Civ5, you'll start feeling frustrated.
The good: Graphics are great, especially the diplomat renderings. The sound effects are mostly the same as old civ games, giving some nice nostalgic moments. The soundtrack list is huge. Combat is an enormous improvement over old games: the combination of hexagonal tiles, and no unit stacking makes it much more dynamic than previous Civ iterations. The bad: Simplification! Civs aren't action games. Civ players don't want action games. They want a cerebral experience that challenges them over and over again, each time they play. Firaxis has taken steps to streamline the experience that end up detracting from the game as a whole. Civ IV's religion and civic system is now a non-dynamic culture system, where you spend accumulated culture points for a once-off gameplay bonus. It is a step backwards. Diplomacy is terrible: the opaque system leaves you in the dark about what is going on. Want to enter a pact of secrecy? Uh, sure... I have no idea what that is!
The ugly: The soundtrack! Civ4's soundtrack was a masterpiece. The choice to progress the time period of origin for music based on the age of your civilization lent a feeling of progression to the game, as you ushered your civilization from the ancient era, to the future era. In Civ5, the soundtrack is now based on the (real life) origin of your civilization, and further whether it is engaged in war or peace. While the song-list is enormous (possibly larger than Civ 4's), you'll find that if you play a mainly peaceful civilization, you listen to the same songs from 4000BC to 2050AD. The fact of the matter is this: after months of Civ4, I still loved the soundtrack. After a week of Civ5, the soundtrack had become repetetive to the point that I started muting it.
The REALLY ugly: Remember how bad Civ4 used to tank your system when the AI was thinking during the later portions of the game? Remember how your computer would slow to a crawl for 20 seconds when you clicked 'next turn'? Civ5 is worse. By the 1800s, clicking 'next turn' becomes a dreaded thing: it means your computer will be out of commission for 30-60 seconds while the AI slogs through what it wants to do next. I find that post-1800AD, I typically spend more time reading stuff on my cell phone, or watching TV, than I do during my turns. It is bad enough that after playing through my first four or five full-length games, I had no desire at all to take another game into the later stages, as it was just tedious. Don't blame this on my system: it was built recently, and is more than capable.
Add to this a large list of other bugs, such as(the camera wildly swinging around as the game auto-selects units available for action from across the map, even though it is already positioned directly over another such unit, and you have a game that wasn't ready for primetime. For the civilization series, 5 was a step forward, and multiple leaps backwards. If you have a hankering for a good game of civilization, fire up Civ4. You'll have a better time.
On top of all of this is the single worst part of the game: the computer AI takes entirely too long to think on its turn. Civ4's early days had a similar problem, with the late-game turning into a slog-fest as clicking 'next turn' inevitably resulted in anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds of down-time during which your computer tanks to a crawl. By the end game, I typically find myself spending more time reading news on my cell phone than actually playing the game. As such, it got to the point where playing past 1800AD was more chore than fun. (Don't try to… Expand