EGM scores. Some pretty big games.

[OB1]

Fire Emblem is all dialogue, that is true. But it's a great game with a great script that is presented really well. Movies or books? Probably both. But that is a great example of a game with a really good engrossing story. It's only missing one thing: interactivity. This is where some of those games you bash so much shine, you know... these are "interactive games" so ideally the story too should be able to be bent by player choices. This isn't true for most console games (or indeed most strategy games in general, PC or console). Still, FE has a great story that is pretty interesting. It is a little confusing at times, but it eventually explains things, so that's okay...

I love Fire Emblem, probably much more than even you do. But I wouldn't call the the story "great". It's good for a game.

Pretty much, yeah, you have. You've complained about games where you spend a lot of time reading, said that a game where you spent a large percentage of the time reading text boxes would be bad, said you hate BG in a large part because the story is told by conversation, etc, etc... it's a clear and consistent point of yours in these arguements.

Reading the length of an entire novel would be a pain, but mainly because of how stressful it is for the eyes to read on a tv or pc screen.

And again, BG's storytelling method is not archaic. An archaic PC RPG storytelling method is the one in, say, Wizardry VI -- "There is an evil thing. Go and kill it!". Maybe this is backed up by some well written segments, but they are few and far between compared to the amount of just fighting and wandering around. Compared to older PC RPGs, Baldur's Gate is a definite step forward. ... well, Fallout was, but everyone ignored Fallout.

Brian. Seriously. You are wrong. You've proven to me that you don't know anything about stories aside from the fact that you like some of them. You don't understand pacing, execution, or the narrative form in general. That's okay, you've never studied any of this. But continuing to talk as if you do know anything about this is getting very boring.

You keep repeating that but you don't explain it so it means nothing.

I've explained it at least a dozen times in this thread. You must be dyslexic. That's the only explanation I can think of.

It's different in setting and style from most adventure games (the Mexican Day of the Dead motif), but not in substance or how it is structured, I thought... I just thought that it was the best adventure game I'd ever played.

Well you can't tell the difference between great story-telling and not-so-great story-telling, so that comes as no surprise. Just like how many people can't tell the difference between Once Upon A Time In The West and Tombstone. Or how many people can't tell the difference between Crash and Mario.

That comment proves that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about when it comes to PC RPGs and adventure games. No clue at all. You constantly complain to me about saying more than you can back up with your own personal experience, and I think that here is a perfect example of the other way around. It's very sad to see you attacking whole genres with a broad stroke... especially when you then go and selectively pick out one or two games from that group that are somehow done far better even though in presentation and substance there isn't much of a difference, no matter how well versed you are in "understanding storytelling"...

Oh yeah, and I was saying almost the opposite of what you imply my meaning was, so whether you agree with my previous paragraph or not the issue is irrelevant. You took what I said and flipped the meaning around almost 180 degrees.

Your rebuttals keep on getting better and better, Brian. How you saw that as a response to my post is beyond my comprehension. You said that BG tells a great story, while it does not. You did not address any of my points. Not one. You're just mad because deep down inside you know that what I said about you being one of those immature gaming nerds is true.