89 réponses à ce sujet

[DapperDan77]

I've seen a couple posts in this thread stating D&D 2.0 > 3.5, can I ask someone who's that way inclined, why? Is it mostly nostalgia, or is there some mechanics thing I'm missing? Because to me (someone who usually rolls a damage-dealing warrior) 2.0 seems dreadfully boring, compared to 3.5, where one gets feats such as knockdown or disarm to use during combat, unlike 2.0 where all I can do is auto-attack. Is 2.0 more fun to play if you're a caster maybe?
 
Other elements of 3.5 make more sense to me as well. I like having greater control over creating my character (point buy vs rolling stats). After all, it is supposed to be character CREATION, not character stat lotto. For instance, if I want to RP a big dumb berserker, I can do that easily with point buy, with stat lotto my dumb berserker might end up wiser and more intelligent than a mage, which kinda defeats the purpose of trying to make a dumb-but-tough RP character. 3.5 also seems to have more variety in the types of character you can create, more classes to choose from, and it seems easier to me to make multi-class characters (At least as far as BW games go anyway, maybe P&P 2.0 has more classes, I dunno).
 
Another thing is the difference between how AC works too. 2.0 is unintuitive compared to 3.5. When I equip a brand new piece of full plate, I want to see numbers go up, not down. It's just more intuitive imo, and makes more sense.
I'm certainly no expert, as I said I mostly roll warrior types, so maybe I'm missing something great about 2.0 as it relates to caster classes perhaps? If someone could enlighten me as to why they think 2.0 > 3.5, I would be grateful.

Modifié par DapperDan77, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:33 .

[Guilebrush]

I'm not sure why anyone would claim that DA:O has "dumbed-down" decision points, the dialogue and characterization was what I found to be the game's strongest point. BG2 though while it does indeed have its flaws isn't nearly as difficult as some people seem to make it out to be either.



I remember my first time finishing the game all those years ago using a pure class Kensai with hardly any understanding of the 2nd ed DnD rules. For the most part I never experienced an inordinate amount of reloads. Nearly all of the major encounters can be brute forced through, although this is rarely the ideal approach to most situations. It can get tricky but as many solo finishes have come to show, brute force is indeed doable.



Plus none of the fights come anywhere close to the complexity that a typical MMO boss encounter presents. No one seems to have issues with MMOs in terms of complexity and time investment learning the system or dealing with reloads (or wipes in an MMO's case.) But when faced with similar situation in a single player setting they seem to find it unfair.



Now it's true that there are encounters in BG that can get pretty binary in nature. Certain monster types can truly decimate a party in a matter of seconds, but there is usually a readily available silver bullet to handle them. One particular encounter in ToB is pretty much a guaranteed reload the first time you run into it but this is more of the exception than the norm really. The more challenging opponents for the most part are optional and give you fair warning ahead of time in most cases.



Besides reasonable challenge helps keep things interesting. Getting back to DA:O one of the bigger issues I had with the game was upon reaching a certain level your character would become functionally immortal. It was great having all these neat abilities to call upon to slaughter throngs of Darkspawn but my character would never feel threatened even by Boss monsters. It was fun for a while but after a little time I was craving for more of a challenge, even on nightmare.



I rarely felt this wanting for challenge in BG. Yes, the odd death spell could get annoying I'd rather deal with that than the droll of running into a room and completely decimating mob after mob with barely any thought.

[Guilebrush]

DapperDan77 wrote...
I'm certainly no expert, as I said I mostly roll warrior types, so maybe I'm missing something great about 2.0 as it relates to caster classes perhaps? If someone could enlighten me as to why they think 2.0 > 3.5, I would be grateful.

I agree with nearly everything you said. As much as people like to cling to the past, sometimes change and evolution can be a good thing. Rangers for instance are absolute rubbish in 2.0. Amazingly they were even worse in 3.0! They finally got them right in 3.5. Things changed and mostly for the better.

I don't think anyone can dispute that 3.5 brought a lot of good things to the genre. As you pointed out martial feats transformed the melee classes from basic right clickers to actual tactical warriors. Rogues are no longer one hit wonders and can contribute a lot of damage to a fight through clever use of positioning.

As for the spell system I guess it's a matter of taste but BG2 at least gives you more spells to pick from, some truly powerful spells. In NWN2 persistent haste was considered a great use of a level 9 slot. If BG2 had persistent haste available it would be a mediocre choice for a level 9 arcane caster. You also have triggers, contingencies and sequencers to play with. Magic does indeed have more potential in BG2 and it shows the first time you run into a high level enemy wizard.

Remember though that the 3.0/3.5 games run on much newer game engines which are capable of much more complex scripting and combat mechanics. Character building also got far more robust and customizable as you pointed out. One thing though is the NWN games had much more cliche, predictable, shorter OCs than the one found in the BG Trilogy. Heck NWN didn't offer full time companions, just henchmen. NWN2 didn't provide any romance options and gave you 1 stronghold to manage compared to the myriad you can potentially acquire in BG2 each with a unique (albiet shorter) set of quests.

Anytime you're comparing 2 great things you'll notice certain things are done better in one game while other things are superior in the other. That's the case here. BG2 isn't perfect, NWN, KoToR, DA:O and other CRPGs do certain things better, At the same time it's undeniable that BG2 does other things better too. Hopefully it does enough of those other things well enough for you to appreciate it all these years after release, a sign of a timeless and great game.

Modifié par Guilebrush, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:09 .

[Lyssistr]

Guilebrush wrote...

Anytime you're comparing 2 great things you'll notice certain things are done better in one game while other things are superior in the other. That's the case here. BG2 isn't perfect, NWN, KoToR, DA:O and other CRPGs do certain things better, At the same time it's undeniable that BG2 does other things better too. Hopefully it does enough of those other things well enough for you to appreciate it all these years after release, a sign of a timeless and great game.

Yes KotoR, DA:O (haven't played NWN1) all improve upon BG II, but it's quite natural to expect that, since they came after BG II.

Making new games as "old school" as BG II would be quite pointless, things have advanced since then. However, my belief still stands that BG II is better off the way it is than a streamlined remake of BG II. I like it for what it is and if I am to replay BG II, it will be exactly because of its rich tactics. Also, there is little point in reworking the mechanics of an old game. In any case it's not as hard as presented, it's just needs a little trial & error.

[Irrbloss]

Lyssistr wrote...

Yes KotoR, DA:O (haven't played NWN1) all improve upon BG II, but it's quite natural to expect that, since they came after BG II.

That's an opinion rather than a fact. NWN was different but not better. But I can see how you can think NWN is better if you like multi-player etc better than single-player. I thought KotOR was inferior in every sense, from the story that ceased to be interesting once you had experienced it once to the poor interface and impoverished gameplay. Even though it was very noticeably rushed and essentially lacking an ending, I think KotORII is better. JE was no significant improvement over KotOR. Then my interest in Bioware games had starved to death so I can't say anything about ME or DA.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

THAC0 certainly isn't fun to understand

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 27 juillet 2010 - 05:45 .

[The Fred]

Let's face it, the 2nd Ed AD&D rules were a bit crazy. They probably seemed intuitive to the creators (I mean THAC0 stands for "To Hit Armour class 0", which is what it is, it's what you need to roll to hit AC 0) but the fact that some things are better higher and some better lower and that some bonuses actually lower your scores - in a good way - is kinda confusing. For example, I find an item which gives me +1 to AC. Is that a +1 BONUS or a +1 PENALTY.



However, I think rebuilding the whole game with a different ruleset is going to be a massive amount of work for much less gain. Building a mod which added a significant quantity of high-quality interesting quests and/or improved upon aspects of the game which could have been improved in small ways is a lot easier than changing the ruleset (which would probably require an engine rebuild or something given the scale of what you're suggesting) and give much more benefit.



Also, one of the reasons why the people who do love these games love them so much is that they AREN'T "dumbed-down". They require you to think and use some intelligence. You're right about the lack of documentation and things (you can't even examine foes like you can in NWN(2) and other games, and there're no in-game resources for identifying enemies) and right about some of the shortcomings of the engine (things like thaco etc confuse a lot of people), but the complex tactical elements are a lot of what make the game what it is.

[nikki191]

virumor wrote...

I'd like to know what was so 'insanely complex' about Baldur's Gate. Of course it is not possible to rush in and just hack/cast everything to death like in DA:O, but it is not an action RPG.

IIRC it was the first D&D RPG that came out after the Goldbox series, and compared to those it's a walk in the park. Several D&D features weren't implemented anymore, i.e. Haste spell ageing a character with one year, female characters having a penalty in strength and no other stat boni, etc.

sniff i miss the gold box games.. still nothing quite like them. the story telling the dragonlance gold box games is second to none. i still remember the romance in the first game to this day. what made is special was that it wasnt focused on the pc the romance was purely between two NPC'S

[Chebby]

This game doesn't need the AD&D rules removed. It sure as hell doesn't need to be any more simplistic. Baldur's Gate is entirely learnable, fun and rewarding. The rules SHOULD, however, have been explained more in-depth, like a tutorial that taught you more than simply how to move characters and such.
The problem is that gamers hold it in such high regards, while newcomers with lower standards will burn it because they have no clue what's going on; this could've been fixed (and should be fixed in any future DnD games, to be honest) with a separate tutorial explaining it in layman's terms. You could argue that it'd be a long tutorial, but I wholeheartedly disagree; you wouldn't need to provide examples for every situation in the game.
What also could've been explained more to the player is how certain items worked. For instance, the game itself doesn't divulge to the player exactly how each individual piece of armour negates certain forms of weapons, or what bonuses/penalties stack, in some cases.
But I'll reiterate: The rules were a fantastic boost to the game's playability factor and sense of individuality. If it were dumbed down, think of how dull boss battles and such would be!
"HARR! I POSE NO THREAT TO YOU AT ALL!"

Edit: On top of that, some form of bestiary would've been nice. The one person I had sit through the game would ask me about each individual creature, asking me "What's a Githyanki?" (long explanation was required) and wondering why certain enemy types weren't taking damage (Adamantite Golems vs. Slashing weapons). Obviously there should be a lore skill involved in it, encouraging bards or characters with high base lore with high int+wis.

Modifié par Chebby, 10 août 2010 - 06:22 .

[The Fred]

Yeah, the fact that you can't examine enemies as you can in games like NWN, for example, means there's no way for them to describe them to you in-game or even give you hints, other than leavign some tome lying around for you to read (fine for the odd dungeon, but not when just bumping into enemies randomly). A lot of the time when I first played it, I was like "Hey, what the hell's an Ashirukuru?"

When they randomly don't take damage when they seem like they should, and there's no feedback, it gets really confusing.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Is there a way to mod the strength bonus damage in a way that it's different for different weapons?

So far, a str 25 person does 16,5 points of damage with a dagger, and 19,5 with a two-handed sword, which is about 18% better...

[SometimesSpring]

I think we should be allowed to select deities when we create a character.

[pezit]

Baldurs gate stays on the throne as my favorite RPG ahead of for example mass effect simply because of the difficulty you're complaining about. I loved mass effects story and is eagerly awaiting the 3rd game but i cannot replay the game and enjoy it at all simply because there's no challenge in the game, i barely ever died on my first playthrough and i doubt i'd have any troubles the second time.

Some play games to be challenged and to have fun, others just to relax and have fun, and pretty much all new games already cater to the latter.

Edit: Couldn't new players just pull the slider all the way to the bottom? doesn't that pretty much turn the game into: equip characters - leftclick enemies and use occasional spell? Maybe it doesn't and if that's the case maybe an even easier setting could be modded in for the new players who don't want to learn the mechanics of the game.

Edit 2: Oh God i didn't realize i just answered a super old thread for no good reason at all, guess that'll teach me not to actually reply to threads when i'm browsing forums past bedtime. As far as i can tell i can't delete my post either, sorry!.

Modifié par pezit, 10 février 2011 - 03:11 .

[The-Scot]

I'm certainly no expert, as I said I mostly roll warrior types, so maybe I'm missing something great about 2.0 as it relates to caster classes perhaps? If someone could enlighten me as to why they think 2.0 > 3.5, I would be grateful.

2nd. Ed worked great for PnP, and is to this day the preferred system for a lot of players. Most of the rules were intended to give flavor to the game, and to make stat keeping a litttle bit easier (especially for the DM). THACO isn't that hard of a concept to work around (though it seems silly in retrospect) and that is certainly better in my book than trying to keep track of, and implement, skill rolls and modifiers for everything under the sun. Plus the tighter class requirements and racial bonuses gave you a bit more to work with (rather than just playing a build). They day they let dwarves become wizards the fantasy nerd in me died just a little. And now we have half-dragon paladins, with boobs. Also, fighters had tons of options in AD&D, just not a whole lot in the core rules, which made the game as simple or complex as you wanted it to be. Trust me though, non-caster classes could do a lot, only limted by their imaginations and the DM's credulity. Don't let the fact that they didn't have built in abilities fool you.

If we are talking about CRPG adaptations, or purely in terms of combat mechanics and PvP balance then sure 3.5 is a lot better. Though actually I miss rolling for stats. I would always go with one of the first five rolls I made, meaning I might end up with a sub-par character or a real prodigy. Point buy forces you to either play an average character or one that is strong in certain areas but deficient in others. What I really would have liked is if they had you pick your class and race after rolling stats, so that the modifiers and stat requirements actually meant something. I.E if you rolled a character with all around stats you might want to take a multi-class, or a demihuman to bolster a certain trait. Racial penalties for XP progression past the level cap would've been nice too. As is there is little reason to play human single class, compared to a demihuman.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I was thirteen or maybe fourteen when I beat BG2. My dad bought it for me on my birthsday. It was half-pirated (a strange concept, but everything back then was in my country, there were kind of "legal" pirates who stamped their own covers and just blend gray discs marked with pen) and translated poorly. Even on "easy", sometimes I was afraid of things that happened, like I tried just to avoid fighting liches and dragons, though when I slayed Firkraag using some cloudkill wands I felt myself like a strategy god. I did't have much experience in playing long games, but here it is.

Really guys, if some thirteen years old fatso kid from broken after revolutions country could beat that game *without* manual and with poor translation from english, you can too.
There is no point at remaking something good by replacing it with some other good that feels appropriate in your own time. See Lucas and raped Indiana Jones for morale of the story.

If you've never AD&D'd before, how would you know that the Golems are weak only to blunt weapons?

"Oh, those guys look like big stone statues and my sword's can't get them. But what if I smash 'em with a big hammer?.." "Oh hey the only one who damages them is Jaheira.. she has a magic staff, maybe I need give them all staffs?.."
That was my thinking back then. It worked. As in many other situations that, in time, became self-explaining. And what I could't kill, I avoided.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 11 février 2011 - 01:55 .