Recommend me a D&D computer RPG

[Battlehymn Republic]

I'd like to get a relatively old one that my weak Costco Acer can handle. Presumably something along the lines of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape Torment, etc. All of these have excellent reputations, however I'd prefer to get whichever one has the least flaws.

Any suggestions?

Just for the hell of it, if there's another RPG in this genre, such as either Fallout or Arcanum which are superior to the D&D ones, plug one, please.

I think I'll just get one installment of any game for now, so please mention whichever one you think is best. So Baldur's Gate 1 or 2, or Icewind Dale 1 or 2, or whatever.

[Vendetta]

Baldur's Gate, Fallout, and Planescape: Torment are at the top of the tree. Any one of them will set you right.

Personally, I got on best with Baldur's Gate, and that has the advantage that if you get both, you can use BGTrilogy or BG1Tutu to turn them into one giant game.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Are you looking primarily for single-player content (which I assume you are) or multiplayer? If you do have an interest in multiplayer, you might take a look at NWN - its original campaign is mediocre, but with the expansions it has some excellent online content, either in the form of roleplay with other people or the veritable treasure trove of user-created stuff to play with.

If that isn't your bag, I'd say go with BG and especially BGII. The second game is probably one of the most titanically massive CRPGs to date in terms of amount of content. Its dialog is rivaled only by Torment, which in turn may win out due to sheer verbosity.

Generally speaking: The Icewind Dale series leans fairly heavily toward combat-centered action RPG (though it is still a pure RPG, mind, not a hack'n'slash by any means), while Planescape: Torment is at the opposite end of the spectrum in being almost pure intellectual, thoughtful roleplay with significantly less emphasis on combat. Baldur's Gate hits a very accessible balance between the two.

EDIT: If you go for the Icewind Dale series, get IWDII - it's the last game to ever use the Infinity engine and looks damn fine as a result, compared to the other Infinity games which, with the possible exception of BGII, all look like ass nowadays with GUIs from hell. Plus it uses the 3rd Edition ruleset; no more idiotic THAC0.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

I would go for Baldur's Gate 2. While BG1 is good, it is not the masterpeice the sequel is, and you said you only wanted one. Of all the exceptional games mentioned, BG2 has the most bang for your buck in terms of story, length, and mods. Simply put, I don't think that any CRPG has the number of quality mods and expansion on the gameworld that BG2 has.

Of course, when you finish BG2 you will want to get the expansion and possibly BG1 as well. Nowadays, though, the entire trilogy comes packaged together so I would just pick up all three at once.

[White Haven]

I can't recommend Planescape: Torment strongly enough; it easily ranks as one of my favorite games of all time. Great characters, great environment (Sigil forevah!), spiffy writing, great sense of humor... Sure, it looks mediocre now, and sure, 2e rules are icky, but it's still fantastic.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Apart from the raw godly awesomeness that is Baldur's Gate 2, The Throne of Bhaal & Planescape Torment, for oldish CRPGs I'd reccomend Fallout 1 & 2. Brilliant games, more open than BG2, even if the UI is even more dated and it's a bit less polished (But it's fantastic, and is better than even Planescape at the whole "Choose how You want to solve everything" option)

[Netko]

I'd actually skip Fallout 1 at this point - its very heavily dated, so much that some things simply jump at you as failures of design. But Fallout 2, however, is great, and much superior to its predecessor.

[Thunderfire]

Planscape is really good. NWN is an option if you are on broadband. There are many excellent usermade modules available for NWN. The Witcher is a good game but I am not sure if your computer is able to run it.

[Oskuro]

About Fallout, I agree that the sequel corrects many of the flaws present in its predeccessor, but if you're in it for the story, then I'd recommend you play both.

[Sarevok]

Regarding multiplay I recommend Diablo 1. It's a silly game but a very addictive one.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'd actually skip Fallout 1 at this point - its very heavily dated, so much that some things simply jump at you as failures of design. But Fallout 2, however, is great, and much superior to its predecessor.

Who the fuck cares about dated? I'll still happily use my old Qeust for glory or Monkey Island games (including the EGA ones) in dosbox simply because I havent played them in years and I enjoy doing so.

I'm playing Fallout 1 now as well too because I have never played them, and while I'm aware its very old in terms of graphics nad performance, none of that bothers me in the least bit. I love the storyline and atmosphere, I love romping around trying to figure out what to do. I even love (occasionally) taking an evening and just going around seeing what towns I can massacre for shits and giggles with my minigun and flamethrower.

Considering that you can probably get both Fallout 1 and 2 for the same price as either apart nowadays, there's very little reason not to get or play both.

[Connor MacLeod]

Regarding multiplay I recommend Diablo 1. It's a silly game but a very addictive one.

True, but it becomes repetetive after awhile. I played Diablo 1 mostly for the story, but Diablo 2 is VASTLY superior to its predecessor, even if it is still the same formula (there's so much variety you don't even notice.)

Edit: Arcanum is kinda dated too, but its like Fallout during a more the 1800-1900s theme mixed with more fantasy elements. The story line is weak ins ome ways, but the scope of the world and the things you can do and explore is great.

[Sarevok]

Diablo 2 looks quite ugly compared to the predecessor's charming graphics. The combat is also easier and removes the tactics part. While both games are clickfests Diablo 2 is moreso. At least Diablo 1 required some thinking to tackle monsters. Not saying Diablo 2 is awful but it feels like generic online fantasy games like Runescape.

[Ghost Rider]

I'm playing Fallout 1 now as well too because I have never played them, and while I'm aware its very old in terms of graphics nad performance, none of that bothers me in the least bit. I love the storyline and atmosphere, I love romping around trying to figure out what to do. I even love (occasionally) taking an evening and just going around seeing what towns I can massacre for shits and giggles with my minigun and flamethrower.

Considering that you can probably get both Fallout 1 and 2 for the same price as either apart nowadays, there's very little reason not to get or play both.

Finally you're playing it .

And as for recommendations...pretty much the same.

Baldur's Gate(all of it) is engrossing with some good silly shit around it(If you want an insane challenge, find the True Demogorgon Patch).

Fallout 1&2 are excellent games, filled with atmosphere and just well done gameplay.

Icewind Dale 2...I'm not too hot for it, but it is a good hack and kill D&D style game. Very very large battles.

Arcanum is very awesome in the Fallout 2 style of gameplay, but with a more steampunk look and feel.

Planescape: Torment is one of the best in terms of story. Here there combat, but very engrossing in both characters and story.

[Connor MacLeod]

Finally you're playing it .

Been playing it since oh... I dunno. Last summer. I go in bouts on and off. I still haven't touched Baldur's Gate or Temple of Elemental Evil yet Or KOTOR.

[Bedlam]

Been playing it since oh... I dunno. Last summer. I go in bouts on and off. I still haven't touched Baldur's Gate or Temple of Elemental Evil yet Or KOTOR.

I'd probably give Temple a miss from what I remember its not much fun. Many stupidly hard fights that you have to save every turn or die followed by some easier fights before the difficulty ramps up again.

[Connor MacLeod]

Diablo 2 looks quite ugly compared to the predecessor's charming graphics.

There was a difference? Not that I ever played Diablo or Diablo 2 for graphics. As long as I could tell "Good guy" from "Item fodder" I was content.

The combat is also easier and removes the tactics part.

There were tactics in Diablo 1? Basically you had 3 characters who were slightly different in certain respects, but I never really had to vary tactics beyond "fighter killing things melee, Rogue shooting things, and mage blasting with magic." Except maybe in changing weaposn for the fighter/Rogue or the type of spell used for the mage.

In Diablo 2, you had five different character classes, who could fight in different ways and develop different abilities, even within the same class due to the skills system. The fact you could have hirelings was also a variation. If you add the Lord of Destruction add on, you get two MORE characters who further add to the variation.

While both games are clickfests Diablo 2 is moreso. At least Diablo 1 required some thinking to tackle monsters.

It did? You mean something more than "what direction should I try hacking at Diablo from?" Or are you talking about taking on the inevitable "huge hordes of monsters that would swamp you if you just rushed in headlong?" Diablo 2 had that too in spades.

What's more, Diablo 2 had a literal shit ton of variations in it - skills, weapons, NPC assistants, etc. With the fact you had a limit to how many skill and attribute poitns you had per level (per game), you had to consider carefully how to develop your character. And then in deploying those skills against the enemy. Necromancers and LOD's Assassins are prime examples of this.

Not saying Diablo 2 is awful but it feels like generic online fantasy games like Runescape.

I played Diablo 1 exactly five times. Oncec with each character from the original, once with the "monk" chracter tacked on by the Sierra "Hellfire" add on (which was stupid, I might add.) and the unofficial "bard" type character.

I've played Diablo 2 countless times, in countless variations. I have at least seven or eight characters that are still sitting on my HD, along with the game. The onyl time I've ever uinstalled the game was when I had to install a new HD.

[Netko]

Temple is a unique game in that it copies its source module painfully faithfully - enough so that you can actually finish it in under 15min if you know where to go and do the entire game with dialogue. It also contains an interesting interpretation of the D&D ruleset that I really wouldn't have minded seeing again with original content that is a bit more tailored to computers. Plus, it had really pretty graphics at the time (not technically advanced, but artistically).

As for Fallout 1, my complaint wasn't about the graphics (they're practically the same in F2), but rather about the actual design. Yeah, the storyline overall is great, however the dialogues are much less clear then in Fallout 2, less colourful. The NPCs are dumb as bricks and you can't do any real interaction with them compared to F2. And finally - and this is admittedly a personal preference - the atmosphere lacks that tounge-in-cheekness present in F2. Maybe the problem is that I played F2 to death before ever playing F1 - the problems just leap out at you when you do it in that order. It is simply weaker - you see things and concepts that are executed much better in F2 which have unrealised potential in F1.

[Jaevric]

I enjoyed Arcanum once, played through as the "engineer"-style character. Didn't get a real urge to play back through the game, but I have fond memories of blowing doors open with dynamite then using a flamethrower on the zombie hordes inside the next room. And mages screaming at me to get the hell out of their shops before I broke something.

BGII is a great game if you want a combination of combat and RP. Still haven't played Planescape: Torment, though I keep meaning to buy it.

Diablo I and Diablo II really don't qualify as RPGs in my mind, though I played both of them extensively, particularly over battlenet.

[Joviwan]

Does Syndicate have a storyline? I just remember that game being hideously fun (Persuaditron!).

Echoing Baldur's gate series sentiments. icewind dale 1+expansions and 2 are fun along similar lines, but the story simply isn't as interesting as the BG series; Because you create your whole party, there isn't any real story behind you characters, and NPC interactions don't ever feel quite as in depth.

I tried to play Temple of Evil, but I never got particularly far, and then my disc was scratched up to heck.

I remember having lots of fun with a Monolith gem called Septerra Core. It was clunky and odd, mechanically, but the game itself was fun.

[DesertFly]

I just picked up the Fallout trilogy last year, and while it's been languishing on my hard drive since I got my new computer, I got to the very bitter end in Fallout before my old comp up and quit. It was a ton of fun; it actually felt like you had a world to explore, and different ways to do things. The graphics are quite dated (and I admit, Fallout 3 looks awesome in that respect at least), but it was still awesome. I played for about five minutes in Fallout 2, so I haven't seen what so amazingly super-duper better about it yet. I would definitely recommend those. I've tried Baldur's Gate with Gametap, and I wasn't impressed. I'll probably give it another try at some point, though, after I clear off my gaming plate some.

[NeoGoomba]

Argh yet another thread detailing my FAIL at never having played Fallout

[Battlehymn Republic]

Thanks for the recommendations, everyone. I guess I'll check out Planescape Torment, followed by Baldur's Gate II and Fallout 2 eventually. And then the preceding installments. Just curious, do any of them have the same sort of thing that you have in Icewind Dale where there's local town heroes who will fight you if you start acting all Chaotic Evil and such?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Torment is pretty open to how you play Nameless One... being Planescape, and all. I played through it as Lawful Good, so I'm not sure if the Harmonium and/or the Lady of Pain will smack you if you start murdering people in the streets (aside from the Hive, obviously).

In BGII, you'll get whipped if you start blatantly ignoring the laws in the city. Casting arcane magic in particular will get you killed pretty quickly (wizards must be licensed in Athkatla).

[Netko]

In BGII, you'll get whipped if you start blatantly ignoring the laws in the city. Casting arcane magic in particular will get you killed pretty quickly (wizards must be licensed in Athkatla).

Unless you're sufficiently powerful to dismember their attempts to do so, of course.

Anyhow, for BG, I'd recommend starting with BG1, especially if you can use one of the mods to transfer the content into BG2's engine. The storyline is integrated, and while BG2 gives a pretty fair overview in its prologue, its a much more rich experience continuing on from BG1. It also sets up with more detail some of the most memorable NPC's that also appear in BG2. Also, you get to feel your character grow, while BG2 begins with your character at a very respectable level for D&D right at the start. Essentially, unless you hate the "poor peasant with a destiny" opening chapters of a story (the integrated BG story in this instance) I'd go with BG1 first. Its far smaller in scope so it shouldn't be too difficult to go through it relatively fast, especially if you skip the whatsitsname northern expansion which is mostly self-contained story-wise.