I have not played any of the GTA games except for Chinatown wars on DS.

I have never played Grim Fandango, the Myst games, Tales of Monkey Island games, or AC games (among games) Would love to play the first three, don't care much about the last one.

Let me start by saying that I have no issues with Baldur's Gate because it's an older game. I played Fallout 1 when it first came out and bought Fallout 2 a few days after it was released. I still have the original discs for both games and I still play them. When I heard that Black Isle and Interplay were releasing an official D&D ruleset game, I was pumped. I bought Baldur's Gate when it was new. Having already played lots of D&D in my youth and Fallout on the PC, it was very easy for me to get into the game. The problem is that I didn't like how the game played. To be fair, Baldur's Gate starts out great, the opening with the scared foot soldier running up to the rooftop and the big guy in that cool armor, it's just awesome! I ran around, talking to everybody and doing all the errands I could find. Then tragedy strikes, your given a companion and sent out into the world. That was when the game started to sour for me.

The game is essentially party based, I've heard that it can be solo-ed, but only by hardcore veterans. In Fallout I could choose to build a group or be on my own, and I chose the solo route most of the time. In fact I think I have only done two playthroughs of Fallout 1 and three in Fallout 2 where I formed a party. So, when given the choice I prefer to play a single character. Baldur's Gate doesn't give this option, a little annoying but not a deal breaker. What really got to me was the group combat mechanics, there is tons of potential but the game engine doesn't use it. The biggest issue, for me, revolves around Real-Time vs Turn-Based combat. Part of the fun in building a party is to see the strengths and weaknesses of on one character and to augment or complement them with the strengths and weaknesses of the others. The game gives you a wide variety of characters to recruit, each with their own unique and interesting set of weapons and skills. I can have my warrior stand out front, flanked by an archer with a mage in support. There is even a guy that carries around a pet hamster to act as his spiritual adviser, how awesome is that? However, when combat starts all these characters just start hacking away at whatever the nearest threat happens to be. I have to keep telling my archers to fire arrows and my mage to keep casting spells, otherwise they just take off on their own. If I'm expected to be constantly issuing orders to each character all throughout a battle, then what's the point in having a real-time system?

Then me, as the player, has to try and keep up with what each of my party members is doing. One character may be using an ineffective technique or piece of equipment, but I can't really tell because I'm too busy trying to watch every other character on the screen all at the same time. I never really get a chance learn any one person. These are unique and somewhat complex characters, I want to connect with them and learn their various strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. But I can only interact with them like the faceless mobs in an RTS game. I could lose a party member in the middle of a battle and not know exactly what happened or what I did wrong. How am I supposed to care enough about these characters to even have a passing interest in the story?

By now you are saying "But it's a Real-Time with Pause system". I have heard time and again that the "proper" way to play is to have the auto pause feature turned all the way on so that time pauses after every single action. This basically makes the game a pseudo-Turn Based system. Except that it lack the strategy, tactics and everything else that makes Turn Based combat what it is. If the officially recommended way to play the game is to constantly stop all action and issue commands, then why bother making it a Real Time system in the first place? The developers could have easily made this a Turn Based game, but didn't. In fact the Infinity Engine can't even handle true Turn Based mechanics, otherwise I'm sure there would be mods that changed the combat.

Maybe if there were options to better set each party members default behavior then it might not have been as bad. For example I could tell my archers to stand their ground and attack the furthest away target. Then my warriors could wade in and attack who ever is closest and my mage would always act to protect the most injured character. This would have, at the very least, solved some of my gripes about the AI. But again, this is not something that the Infinity Engine can do.

To make the game playable for me the engine would have to be completely scrapped and redone. Given how many more games were made using the Infinity Engine I'm guessing that I'm in an extreme minority with my opinions. I think it's also safe to assume that, since my issues are with the core design of the engine, they will also be found in all the other IE games as well.

Is it an over-addictive game? :D

Candy Crush
Farmville

What?

More in line with the spirit of the thread:

The Hitman games.
The Assassin's Creed games.
The Ultima games.
The D&D based RPG. (Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc...)

The thing is that I own most of these. And there are more that I played a little but never went very far like the Wing Commander series, the Myst series, the first Gabriel Knight, the Age of Empire series, the first Fallout games, and many more.

Then I want it! :)) Added to my wishlist.

Skyrim has been available on Steam at ridiculously low prices at several big sales, but always only for a very limited time. If you have patience and s bit of luck, you should be able to make a good catch (;

I find it completely dull and lame and couldn't waste more than an hour on it without filling with hate for how empty and soulless it was and baffled that so many think it is so great. It's a trash game, really.
That all makes it quite clear, to me, that it is you, not the games or the engines.

Most games I know I have played them briefly via friends PCs, consoles or handhelds... with a site like GOG I am beginning to expand my PC horizons and also getting the chance to obtain some precious jewels one more time (e.g. Master Of Magic). With that into account, I should say that I would have loved to play DOOM II from beginning to end, Metroid II: Return of Samus, being a Super Star while dancing on a Pump It Up! machine, experiencing the whole of Final Fantasy VII and actually playing Dragon's Lair on Arcade, just to name a few... as for a more "Highly Acclaimed Game category"... The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Portal may be clearer examples.

REDVWIN

Shovel Knight? I think it's a popular game. Can't quite find the courage to buy and play it right away because it's not yet done and the price is too steep for me. Already on my wish list, though.

A lot of PC exclusives (Baldur's Gate 1-2, DOOM games, Morrowind, System Shock 1, etc.).

I haven't played most of them. Looking at a list like this, I played a handful (Space Invaders, Pac Man, Tetris, a bit of Doom, a bit of Half Life, some KOTOR, some HL2, some Bioshock, some Portal). I'm sure it would be the same with most other lists.

It's hard for me to even come up with one. I'm sure there a few, but I tend to give almost anything a fair shake. I'm very much into equal opportunity in my gaming habits. ;) Well, aside from MMOs, but I'm only thinking of proper single player games.

Minecraft (neither interested in sandboxing nor in online multiplayer - I'm gaming to get away from people for a while)
Call of Duty (American military, ugh - probably DRMed too)
Skyrim (DRM)
Fallout: New Vegas (DRM)
Diablo 3 (DRM, no LAN-play)
Starcraft 2 (DRM)
Half-Life 2 (DRM)
GTA 4-X (DRM, HipHop gangster style and lost interest in the gameplay mechanics after the first three games)
System Shock 1+2 (I'll get to play those two in the next time)

You can see a pattern there...