176 réponses à ce sujet

[Alesia_BH]

wanderon wrote...
You know I see this sort of thing alot - people complaining that certain spell combos or other tactical choices are too powerful and make combat boring - what I have never been able to figure out tho is where is the guy with the gun thats forcing them to continue to use them if they think their effects spoil the game.  

The same thing could be said about BG2 - make a ranger/cleric and you can pretty much solo the game if you wish but other than a few die hard D&D folks no one was saying it broke the game and the "too easy" posts were much less prevelant there.

 
I got a chuckle out of the graphic, but I do agree Wanderon. Back when BG was first released, one could easily have put together something similar: Step 1- Breach, Step 2- Auto Attack...

I also agree that one can find challenges in the Dragon Age world if you look for them. Restrictions on builds, potions, and reloading can all go a long way towards rebalancing the adventure.

Best,

A.

Modifié par Alesia_BH, 28 juin 2010 - 03:53 .

[AlanC9]

Alesia_BH wrote...

Whether that is a "disaster" or not is a matter of perspective of course. If you are playing No Reload style and losing a battle means rolling up a new character in Candlekeep, some might say it qualifies (I'd hesitate to use the word "disaster"  at all in the word of gaming though ).

Personally, I never enjoyed playing with reloads. If getting as second chance at life (and then another, and then another, and then another) isn't God Mode then I don't know what is. If my characters can't do it without reloading, they can't do it. From that viewpoint, a 5% chance of losing a battle (or in BG a comrade ) is unacceptable. Solica may have a similar way of looking at it.

Are you saying that you play in no-reload style all the time, or that you just approach the game as if you were?

Again, I think this would be just as punishing in DA as in BG.  When you open a door in DA and get hit with three Holy Smites right away, you're probably done for. I think we all know which door I'm talking about.

 
In the umodded adventure, you didn't "need" to take advantage of the spell systems complexity but it did grant you a number of means of accomplishing goals. For example, above you mentioned that a caster can fight Beholders with Summons. That works without mods. But you'd have a number of other options at your disposal. You could use Spell Shield + Spell Immunities + Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Shield + Specific Protections, Polymorph Self: Mustard Jelly + Wands and those are just a few flavors you could choose from. It was nice to have so many options- there was a lot to explore if you took the time to do so. That was fun.

In retrospect, I think it might be a mistake to think of DA as the easier game. In DA we all gravitate to the most efficient strategies, but in BG it sounds like we didn't have to. Personally, I'd never use anything as buff-heavy as SS/Immunities, etc., but that's just because I find buffing a colossal bore. Which probably influences my overall take on the two combat systems a lot.

You may have thought of Secret Word here because I mentioned it when discussing that hypothetical buff regime but it isn't especially helpful against high level protections: it only works on Spell Shield and the Minors. It was only relevant in that situation because of the Spell Shield- an exceedingly rare spell in the unmodded adventure. You may have been thinking of Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Actually I thought of it because I almost got my head handed to me during my replay when I hit a fight where someone had Spell Shield and I only had Pierce , etc. I knew SW but hadn't memorized any. There's a little black hole where you need SW, and after that you can rely on Ruby Ray, KWW, etc. I really don't miss having to keep track of which level spell you need to produce a nearly identical effect.

Protection From Evil helps against save-or-die stuff.

I'm guessing you were thinking of Death Ward here- that's the Divine Spell which protects against FoD and the like. Pro Evil grants some helpful bonuses against evil critters which aren't as common in BG as many would think (As an example, try checking Irenicus's alignment the next time you play unmodded BG...). It's perhaps best used to protect against Gated Demons: they'll ignore you.

Actually, I was just thinking of +2 to general saves for the whole party. I haven't found Death Ward to be worth the trouble since it protects against so few things; did I mention I don't like buffing? Unless the FoD targets my PC I'm not particularly concerned about it. Even if he blows the save, just raise him and move on.

Oddly enough, something about installing Ascencion and Divine Remix screwed up Pit Fiends, which now attack regardless of Protection From Evil. Kind of hilarious to watch several of Irenicus' lackeys in Suldanesselar get killed by their own summons.

[Suron]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Swoo wrote...
Remember, Imoen was a Rogue who didn't have a line of dialogue after Candlekeep that wasn't a normal party bark and just popped traps for you if you didn't want to take a psycho-thief like Montarion or Triax, or the so-so 'I will never stop whining' Skie. By the end of the second game she was a blood relative that had been tortured and mentally broken down until she was questioning her very sanity and humanity, while still retaining some of her previous charm and exhuberance for life.

Yeah, poor Imoean. Added at the last moment in BG1, intended to be killed in BG2 so there's almost no conversation with her
And she's not blood relative i guess. I mean, she can't be a gnome/dwarf/elf so Bhaalspawns don't share DNA, only their taint.

But she's cute damsel in distress to rescue. Yeah, Dragon Age lacks of proper damsels in distress!!! There's only princess stabbity. 

Srsly now. After beating DA I thought BioWare just lost their mojo for good... Luckily ME2 restored my faith in them. Funny, because I was always more into fantasy than sci-fi.

yah because having the same father means you're not a blood-relative right? amirite?

wth you smokin.

we may not have dwarves, asslings, or gnomes in the real world..but are you telling me that if my caucasian mother remarried a chinese or african american or whatever man and had another child that looked like the ethnicity of my mothers new husband that that child wouldn't be my blood brother or sister?

go back to school

[Seagloom]

It doesn't work that way with Forgotten Realms gods, Suron. Bhaal used a proxy to impregnate his victims. In other words, an avatar. The nature of an avatar can and does change at a god's whim. The game implies that he morphed into the appropriate race each time he slept with a woman. Otherwise Sendai would be a half-elf(drow), Abazigal a half-dragon (I mean a true half-dragon, i.e.; how he appears before he morphs into his full size--except he would only have a humanoid form), Yaga Shura a half-giant, that wacky kobold and chicken Bhaalspawn could not exist, and so on...

The rules of BG's universe aren't like ours. Plus: a wizard did it.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 juin 2010 - 04:59 .

[Alesia_BH]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you saying that you play in no-reload style all the time, or that you just approach the game as if you were?

Pretty much- aside from the occasional solo game. If I'm doing a Nightmare solo in Dragon Age or a Tactical Mod solo in BG, then I'll permit reloads. In RPed party games, death means gameover for me though.

Btw. There is a sizable No Reload community in the Baldur's Gate world.

Again, I think this would be just as punishing in DA as in BG.  When you open a door in DA and get hit with three Holy Smites right away, you're probably done for. I think we all know which door I'm talking about.

Unmodded, I find BG easier. That's partly because I know the game world better, but also because there are so many ways to protect yourself.

With intelligent scripting, Dragon Age becomes a comparatively smooth ride.

In retrospect, I think it might be a mistake to think of DA as the easier game. In DA we all gravitate to the most efficient strategies, but in BG it sounds like we didn't have to.

Referring to the vanilla versions, I'm not inclined to say which game is "easier" in the general case because that becomes a bit tricky.

The power tactics in BG are less accessible. And since the scripting in the original adventure was fairly simplistic, most never really got around to discovering them. The scripting really didn't push the player hard.

I suspect that a higher proportion of Dragon Age players have approached the power ceiling.

Personally, I'd never use anything as buff-heavy as SS/Immunities, etc., but that's just because I find buffing a colossal bore. Which probably influences my overall take on the two combat systems a lot.

Understood. I'm sure a lot of Dragon Age fans are glad to be free of the tyranny of buffing .

You may have thought of Secret Word here because I mentioned it when discussing that hypothetical buff regime but it isn't especially helpful against high level protections: it only works on Spell Shield and the Minors. It was only relevant in that situation because of the Spell Shield- an exceedingly rare spell in the unmodded adventure. You may have been thinking of Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Actually I thought of it because I almost got my head handed to me during my replay when I hit a fight where someone had Spell Shield and I only had Pierce , etc. I knew SW but hadn't memorized any

Pierce Magic, Breach, et al work just as well on Spell Shield. In fact, even lowly Spell Thrust will do. Aside from the Beholder Anti-Magic Ray, Spell Shield is consumed by any targetted protection removal spell.

The only advantage of using Spell Thurst or Secret Word against Spell Shield is that they are lower level than the standard fair and hence cheaper.

This is just a guess, but your memory may be of a mage running Spell Trap while you lacked Ruby Ray. In the alternative, you may have encountered the unremovable Spell Shield bug and concluded that the Level 5-6 Abjuration stuff doesn't work against it.

Actually, I was just thinking of +2 to general saves for the whole party. I haven't found Death Ward to be worth the trouble since it protects against so few things; did I mention I don't like buffing? Unless the FoD targets my PC I'm not particularly concerned about it. Even if he blows the save, just raise him and move on.

Understood. Relying on Protection from  Evil 10" Radius in those situation isn't adequate from my vantage point but that's just a function of my playing style. If you are playing with minimal mods and reloads, the distinction wouldn't matter that much. And if you don't like buffing, I can definitely see why you'd skip Death Ward.


Best,

A.


Btw. If we want to keep talking BG Abjuration magicks AlanC9, we should probably do it in PM. We're getting off topic for present purposes.

Modifié par Alesia_BH, 28 juin 2010 - 06:56 .

[Rzepik2]

Suron wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

Swoo wrote...
Remember, Imoen was a Rogue who didn't have a line of dialogue after Candlekeep that wasn't a normal party bark and just popped traps for you if you didn't want to take a psycho-thief like Montarion or Triax, or the so-so 'I will never stop whining' Skie. By the end of the second game she was a blood relative that had been tortured and mentally broken down until she was questioning her very sanity and humanity, while still retaining some of her previous charm and exhuberance for life.

Yeah, poor Imoean. Added at the last moment in BG1, intended to be killed in BG2 so there's almost no conversation with her
And she's not blood relative i guess. I mean, she can't be a gnome/dwarf/elf so Bhaalspawns don't share DNA, only their taint.

But she's cute damsel in distress to rescue. Yeah, Dragon Age lacks of proper damsels in distress!!! There's only princess stabbity. 

Srsly now. After beating DA I thought BioWare just lost their mojo for good... Luckily ME2 restored my faith in them. Funny, because I was always more into fantasy than sci-fi.

yah because having the same father means you're not a blood-relative right? amirite?

wth you smokin.

we may not have dwarves, asslings, or gnomes in the real world..but are you telling me that if my caucasian mother remarried a chinese or african american or whatever man and had another child that looked like the ethnicity of my mothers new husband that that child wouldn't be my blood brother or sister?

go back to school

For example, bhaalspawn is a Dwarf. Dwarves and humans can't even produce offspring, but according to you they can be blood related?
Gregor Mendel hates you.

Besides this:

Seagloom wrote...

It doesn't work that way with Forgotten Realms gods, Suron. Bhaal used a proxy to impregnate his victims. In other words, an avatar. The nature of an avatar can and does change at a god's whim. The game implies that he morphed into the appropriate race each time he slept with a woman. Otherwise Sendai would be a half-elf(drow), Abazigal a half-dragon (I mean a true half-dragon, i.e.; how he appears before he morphs into his full size--except he would only have a humanoid form), Yaga Shura a half-giant, that wacky kobold and chicken Bhaalspawn could not exist, and so on...

The rules of BG's universe aren't like ours. Plus: a wizard did it.

-Bhaal probably wasn't even using his "official" avatars. Rather some kind of lesser manifestations/possession.



AND Imoen appeared in Candlekeep 10 years after CHARNAME so it's impossible for them to share the same father-bhaal manifestation.
Of course dear Suron, it's all magic:wizard: so there's no 100% argumentation. If you really insist, your bhaalspawn can be a sibling of  chicken and kobold.
Mine isn't.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 28 juin 2010 - 07:20 .

[Seagloom]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Bhaal probably wasn't even using his "official" avatars. Rather some kind of lesser manifestations/possession.

AND Imoen appeared in Candlekeep 10 years after so it's impossible for them to share the same father-bhaal manifestation.
Of course dear Suron, it's all magic../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png so there's no 100% argumentation. If you really insist, you're bhaalspawn can be a sibling of  chicken and kobold.
Mine isn't.

You raise an interesting point. Bhaal probably was relying heavily on manifestations or possession. It's likely he reserved use of an avatar in a select number of cases. If nothing else it explains why the Solar says your character and the Five hold a larger concentration of Bhaal's divinity than other Bhaalspawn, as well as how Charname can turn into the Slayer.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 juin 2010 - 06:20 .

[HoonDing]

The fact that Bhaal spread his essence so much before the Time of Troubles to ensure a possibility to return later on, ironically may have weakened him so much that it caused his death during the Time of Troubles.



He was also a fool to believe that his followers wouldn't just keep the power for themselves. Bane was much smarter, but then Lawful Evil > Chaotic Evil.

[Rzepik2]

virumor wrote...

The fact that Bhaal spread his essence so much before the Time of Troubles to ensure a possibility to return later on, ironically may have weakened him so much that it caused his death during the Time of Troubles.

He was also a fool to believe that his followers wouldn't just keep the power for themselves. Bane was much smarter, but then Lawful Evil > Chaotic Evil.

Poor Bhaal, another being doomed because of his libido. On the other hand... hot dragon babes... maybe it was worth it...

http://rzepik.devian...reams-115421573

Modifié par Rzepik2, 28 juin 2010 - 06:24 .

[Seagloom]

virumor wrote...

The fact that Bhaal spread his essence so much before the Time of Troubles to ensure a possibility to return later on, ironically may have weakened him so much that it caused his death during the Time of Troubles.

He was also a fool to believe that his followers wouldn't just keep the power for themselves. Bane was much smarter, but then Lawful Evil > Chaotic Evil.

While I do not disagree with your other assessments, the final comparison is incorrect. Bhaal was also Lawful Evil. That's probably one of the reasons he had a good working relationship with Bane.

On that note, I feel CE > LE, but that is strictly a matter of personal taste.

Edit: That artwork was a hilarious game reference.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 juin 2010 - 06:31 .

[AlanC9]

Alesia_BH wrote...
Pretty much- aside from the occasional solo game. If I'm doing a Nightmare solo in Dragon Age or a Tactical Mod solo in BG, then I'll permit reloads. In RPed party games, death means gameover for me though.

That seems unnecessarily punishing. There's no real justification for the PC being unraisable while Imoen is, just a sort of handwave late in ToB. Or rather I should say that Bio lampshaded it, since they don't even pretend to give a reason.

Pierce Magic, Breach, et al work just as well on Spell Shield. In fact, even lowly Spell Thrust will do. Aside from the Beholder Anti-Magic Ray, Spell Shield is consumed by any targetted protection removal spell.

Whoops! I meant Spell Turning, which is a 7th level spell and thus un-Pierce Magic-able. I only really cared when they started turning up with both Globes and ST on -- since I'm playing a Good party I can just Holy Smite them out of existence unless the Globe is up. Edit: I never forget Ruby Ray after my first Draconis fight. The one thing I really wanted and I didn't have it, even on a scroll.

And yeah, we're a little OT, but it does get the point across of what the differences are for the people who don't know this stuff.  Suffice it to say that I don't think there's any strong superiority either way in the unmodded games.

One thing I have noticed is that DA encourages a more, I guess, systematic approach when discussing tactics. In DA tactics threads you'll see aggro management, crowd control, etc. tossed around all the time. Even when players are using the same concepts in an IE game, they do it on a specific power or tactic level rather than moving from a general principle to a particular ability. I don't know if that reflects the design principles of the games, or just the evolution in the communities. I have found those general principles useful in replaying BG2, but maybe that's just me.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2010 - 08:54 .

[AlanC9]

Moving on to a completely different RPG topic, I thought DA was clearly superior in terms of choices and consequences. You've got all sorts of different endstates available in DA, in a way that you mostly don't in BG2. In TOB you've got one big binary choice, but that's about it.

[Seagloom]

I would not call it binary as there was a third option. Otherwise I'm in agreement. Instead of offering us a final end all choice, we are given a few smaller choices that all come together to determine a larger outcome. I still think BioWare's endgames could use more work, but it is a big improvement on every game that came before Origins.

Throne of Bhaal does top Origins in terms of sheer scope where the protagonist is concerned. Not surprising, considering it is the culmination of two games and two expansions. Still, Origins offered more choices. Most of the Baldur's Gate series was little more than binary decision making.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 juin 2010 - 09:17 .

[Rzepik2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Moving on to a completely different RPG topic, I thought DA was clearly superior in terms of choices and consequences. You've got all sorts of different endstates available in DA, in a way that you mostly don't in BG2. In TOB you've got one big binary choice, but that's about it.

Well... it is true.
Difference in amount isn't  big, but BG choices are worse because evil decisions are often unprofitable.
It's a shame that they didn't use D&D alignment system properly (Planescape: Torment FTW)

But we have still choices with a big influence on the game (Bodhi or thieves, portal or ship), some moral grayness (lich stealing soul in ToB). Besides we can kill anyone in the game, so that pretty much makes up everything

BTW I recently discovered that we can poison druid's grove 0_o Baldur's gate can still surprise me after all these years.

I had a great fun making all decisions in DA. On the other hand I didn't really care (same for BG, except ToB ending).
IMO paradoxically Mass Effect 2 has more moral grayness and tough choices O_o


BTW again: the hardest decision in the cRPGs for me... Planescape:Torment. What should I say to Deionarra at the end? No influence on gameplay and I was meditating whole 10 damn minutes.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 29 juin 2010 - 08:26 .

[Giantevilhead]

The D&D magic system is overpowered if you know exactly what to expect. There are spells for every occasion, but you can't memorize every spell so you have to predict the kind of foes you're going to face and pick the appropriate spells. This doesn't work in BG because if you don't have the right spells, you can just reload and memorize the correct ones. Things get much easier when you replay the game since you'll always have the right spells.

[Alesia_BH]

Suffice it to say that I don't think there's any strong superiority either way in the unmodded games.

Understood. As mentioned earlier, we're close to being in agreement there. I regard the balancing as comprable between the two in the unmodded adventures. You have far more flexibility and richness in the spell system in Baldur's Gate but spatial positioning and enemy management become more interesting in Dragon Age. It's a matter of taste really. I preferred the former, I can understand why some would prefer the latter.

The Baldur's Gate world becomes more tactically intricate with mods, but again, Dragon Age may close the gap someday. We'll see.

One thing I have noticed is that DA encourages a more, I guess, systematic approach when discussing tactics. In DA tactics threads you'll see aggro management, crowd control, etc. tossed around all the time. Even when players are using the same concepts in an IE game, they do it on a specific power or tactic level rather than moving from a general principle to a particular ability.

Understood.

It depends on who you are talking to. The preferered mode of discourse differs from community to community and
player to player. The Baldur's Gate community is somewhat disparate now and there is considerable variation between the sub-communities. Plus, even within communities there are big differences between players running different mod sets. There is also more variation in terms of tactical competence.

I think I see what you are getting at though. In the Baldur's Gate world, tactical discussions tend to be bottom up and battle specific. I'm not inclined to speculate as to why that is. But I can understand why you might appreciate the prevailing norms in the Dragon Age community.


Best,

A.


Btrw.

Alesia_BH wrote...
 In RPed party games, death means gameover for me though.

AlanC9 wrote...

That  seems unnecessarily punishing. 

Whether something is fun or punishing is a matter of perspective. I find that it helps rebalance the adventures and enhances the role playing experience. I really enjoy it. And I'm not alone there: counting from the start, the Baldur's Gate No Reload Challenge threads have over 500,000 hits now.

And it isn't terribly difficult. It does require a lot more attention to detail though. Again, I find it fun: it helps me get more mileage out of both games

]Alesia_BH wrote...
Pierce Magic, Breach, et al work just as well on Spell Shield. In fact, even lowly Spell Thrust will do. Aside from the Beholder Anti-Magic Ray, Spell Shield is consumed by any targetted protection removal spell.

AlanC9 wrote...
Whoops! I meant Spell Turning, which is a 7th level spell and thus un-Pierce Magic-able.

That still doesn't make sense because Pierce Magic does work against Spell Turning- it's effective up untill 9.

Pierce Magic won't take down a Spell Trap or a bugged Spell Shield- it works on the others. In the former case, Ruby Ray, Pierce Shield, and Spellstrike would have worked. In the latter, you would have had to cope. Secret Word wouldn't have helped in either case.

If you are referring to the version of Pierce Magic in the Spell Striking Wands, then that's a different story. That works against Level 7 Protections in theory, but like a number of item based spell effects, it can erroneously bounce off of Spell Turning. That is a situation where you might of "had" Pierce Magic and wished you had memorized Secret Word.

Modifié par Alesia_BH, 29 juin 2010 - 12:54 .

[Alesia_BH]

AlanC9 wrote...

Moving on to a completely different RPG topic, I thought DA was clearly superior in terms of choices and consequences.

Agreed.

Best,

A.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

From a story point of view, it's hard for me to say which I like better, but I lean towards DA:O.



From a tactical combat point of view, I think BG and sequels were superior because I find them to have more tactical depth.

[MindYerBeak]

I really enjoyed Planescape: Torment. A keep you guessing storyline, the best music of any game, and memorable characters: The Nameless One, Annah, Fall-from-grace, that mechanical character who looked like a TV set (Nordrom?), Morte, the talking skull. There's even a Mod available now where you can change Annah into a leprechaun, which sounds fun. When I eventually tire of DAO I'll go back to Planescape. All these RPG games added together make for months of playability if played over again, especially with Mods. No other games other than the RPG genre have such replayability after so many years in the wilderness.

Modifié par MindYerBeak, 29 juin 2010 - 09:15 .

[Legion-001]

The best BG2 rules exploit spell combo I ever found was Spell Immunity: Divination + Improved Invisibility/Shadow Door, They can't see you to target you with spells and any attempt at using true sight or other anti-invisibility effects just bounces of the Spell Immunity.

AlanC9 wrote...

Moving on to a completely different RPG topic, I thought DA was clearly superior in terms of choices and consequences. You've got all sorts of different endstates available in DA, in a way that you mostly don't in BG2. In TOB you've got one big binary choice, but that's about it.

But BG2 choices usually have direct consequences as well as sometimes having consequence later WITHIN the game as opposed to, the Cheesy DA:O (Oh we'll just make it so the majority of choices have absolutely no bearing on the game in the slightest and add a lousy end screen).

That's akin to getting a 'Congratulations you have defeated the final boss' screen at the end of DOOM3

Modifié par Legion-001, 29 juin 2010 - 11:19 .

[soteria]

I only found BG2 to be *clearly* superior in one way: a more interesting antagonist. DA has a decent story, but the final boss was eminently replaceable. I don't say that BG2 has a better story just because it's quality is derived primarily from the antagonist, imo, whereas DA is more focused on the protagonist and companions.

As for choices with meaningful consequences, I think DA has an edge on BG but both are inferior to ME. Even though you don't feel huge "consequences" per se in ME2, you do get to see the results of your decisions. The number of ME1 sidequests that are referenced in ME2 blew me away, honestly, and that feeling added a lot of weight to the decisions I made in ME2, since I expect ME3 to be similar in that respect. Too bad Awakening skirts around referring to what you did in DA:O beyond like two or three choices.

[AlanC9]

Legion-001 wrote...

But BG2 choices usually have direct consequences as well as sometimes having consequence later WITHIN the game as opposed to, the Cheesy DA:O (Oh we'll just make it so the majority of choices have absolutely no bearing on the game in the slightest and add a lousy end screen).

Which ones have consequences within the game ? Siding with Bodhi, for instance, gets you three different missions and after that the game goes on pretty much as before.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

I only found BG2 to be *clearly* superior in one way: a more interesting antagonist. DA has a decent story, but the final boss was eminently replaceable. I don't say that BG2 has a better story just because it's quality is derived primarily from the antagonist, imo, whereas DA is more focused on the protagonist and companions.

Unless it turns out that Morrigan was always the real enemy....

As for choices with meaningful consequences, I think DA has an edge on BG but both are inferior to ME. Even though you don't feel huge "consequences" per se in ME2, you do get to see the results of your decisions. The number of ME1 sidequests that are referenced in ME2 blew me away, honestly, and that feeling added a lot of weight to the decisions I made in ME2, since I expect ME3 to be similar in that respect. Too bad Awakening skirts around referring to what you did in DA:O beyond like two or three choices.

Yeah, I don't want to come across as saying that DA was all that great in this aspect. But I will say that the interaction of the Landsmeet/DR/final battle decisions is superior to anything in ME, and I'm hard-pressed to find any game that matches it.

[Rzepik2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Legion-001 wrote...

But BG2 choices usually have direct consequences as well as sometimes having consequence later WITHIN the game as opposed to, the Cheesy DA:O (Oh we'll just make it so the majority of choices have absolutely no bearing on the game in the slightest and add a lousy end screen).

Which ones have consequences within the game ? Siding with Bodhi, for instance, gets you three different missions and after that the game goes on pretty much as before.

+ better loot.
+ more vampires after Underdark.
+ no help from thieves in defeating Bodhi.

[AlanC9]

I said "pretty much," not "exactly." Though it's nice to see an evil choice actually play out better than the good one for a change.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 juin 2010 - 07:47 .