Does this game look cool or what? It's turn-based too! Tell us how much you love it. Or hate it. Or don't care.

I am pretty psyched about this one for some reason.

Yeah, it does look cool... I just hope it won't turn out like Vampire (boring engine demo). Random dungeons are a big plus, if they make a good combat interface it could be a better Diablo than Diablo 2.

By the way, is Mattel really publishing this game? Shouldn't that be the investment group that purchased their computer games division?

"By the way, is Mattel really publishing this game? Shouldn't that be the investment group that purchased their computer games division?"

Good question. The webpage doesn't indicate that the name changed. Gores Technology may have the rights to call the division Mattel Interactive still. I think Infogrames gets to call Hasbro Interactive just that.

Yeah, Vampire turned out to be more tedious than fun, even with the patch. That's too bad.

Yep, it looked cool back when it was named "Baldur's Gate".

Well, Baldur's was a 2D game and Pool is 3D. Baldur's was an AD&D game and Pool is Third Edition. Finally, Pool will have randomized dungeons.

looks very good, and i'm kinda looking forward to this game more than NWN! just a little. . .

Besides those features, Mark, the thing I'm most looking forward to is a partly interactive environment. You won't be able to knock down walls, and fireballs won't set foliage on fire, but furniture and stuff can be moved/knocked about/climbed on. Maybe it won't have a tremendous effect on gameplay, but it's a step in an interesting direction. I'm not a big fan of the largely static environments of RPGs like the BG games (although I like plenty else about 'em).

"You won't be able to knock down walls, and fireballs won't set foliage on fire, but furniture and stuff can be moved/knocked about/climbed on."

Hmm, shades of Nox. :) I thought it was pretty silly after a while how your character would scoop up furniture as he moved. I trust PoR won't be quite so, umm, disorderly.

It would be cool to have fights where you can stand on a table for a combat bonus against guys under you. Or the classic swordfight up the staircase. But I'm with you, Jason. I'll take moderately interactive environments over pretty ones any day of the week.

-Tom

When I saw Pool at Gen Con, I don't remember any environment interactivity. It must not have been in yet.

I think one of the things that's a bit more appealing about Pool as opposed to NWN is that it just seems a bit more contained. It's a single-player game with a multiplayer option, and so forth. With NWN we'll get a bunch of linked modules.

I still have my gold box edition of the original Pool of Radiance. I never did finish it. Maybe I should break it out and play it, so I can port my characters to the sequel? ;)

Hey Mickey! Will they let you do that? That actually sounds kind of fun. I wonder if the original will run under W98? I'm sure it's a download from one of the underdog sites.

One thing I keep hearing about Pool 2 is that you have to see it moving to appreciate how good it is. I've heard it has very fluid animation that is far beyond the stuff in BG and BG2.

--Dave

What I like is the fact that the game is turn-based. I know it's customizable, but I never liked the combat model in the BG games.

I'll tell ya though, the RPG I'm eagerly awaiting is Neverwinter Nights!

Tom: "Hmm, shades of Nox. :) I thought it was pretty silly after a while how your character would scoop up furniture as he moved. I trust PoR won't be quite so, umm, disorderly.

"It would be cool to have fights where you can stand on a table for a combat bonus against guys under you. Or the classic swordfight up the staircase. But I'm with you, Jason. I'll take moderately interactive environments over pretty ones any day of the week."

Yes! Give me Errol Flynn's Robin Hood! I never played Nox, after figuring from the reviews that I probably wouldn't like it too much.. but yeah, I hope that PoR will do a better job with the "fiddly bits."

The decline of interactive environments in RPGs seems encouraged by the move away from tile-based game engines. It's interesting how tile-based systems are seen as inferior these days, now that computer artists can, with relative ease, create beautiful, fully-rendered "sets" for the characters to move about in. The advantages to tile-based engines -- customizability and potential interactivity -- have been largely overshadowed by the dazzle produced by talented background artists.

I'm truly in awe of what these guys have produced -- certain screens in Icewind Dale or BGII have made my jaw drop -- but I remember even back before the first Baldur's Gate came out I was disappointed to find that, despite being able to wield all manner of magical mayhem, the world of BG itself was indestructible, from bush to barrel to blade of grass.

I'm eager to see what the Gollops come up with in Freedom Ridge. They've pushed the envelope in this area more than any other developer. And the next potential victim of the "superhero curse" also sports the NetImmerse engine, promising entire buildings that can be leveled. That I will definitely have to see to believe. But here's hoping...

To me, a "moderately interactive environment" like Tom advocates is fine, IF that moderate interactivity actually has an effect on game play. If you can move boxes and what not around to climb over walls and block doors, that's great.

But if you're just going to get meaningless craters ala Tiberian Sun, I'll take the detail of the rendered BG scenes any day.

"To me, a "moderately interactive environment" like Tom advocates is fine, IF that moderate interactivity actually has an effect on game play."

Absolutely. Nox is an example of utterly useless moderate interactivity. Or UUMI.

-Tom