480 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...
How so? It would be nice if you would give us an example because as far as I can remember you have it the wrong way round.

Weak BG2 enemies generally have no abilities. All they do is a moderate amount of melee damage. They can't disrupt your plan, or even interfere with it. All they do is take their lumps and die, after giving you no damage that your clerics can't handle. Assuming you don't just blow everything to bits with your wizards, or course. The rest mechanism doesn't offer any deterrent to this, since RE's aren't ever tough enough to cause a problem. Even if you've just expended all spells, that's why there are potions and scrolls. The real deterrent is the tedium of rebuffing after a rest. So what I mean by BG2 trash fights being trashier is that there's nothing going on of interest in them.

And there was in Origins? Niether of the trash fights in BG2 or Origins were very tough or even the slightest bit challenging, at least in BG2 you could cut through trash fights like a knife through butter where in DA:O the trash fights slow your progress dispite lacking a challenge, simply put they were just needlessly tedious, from what I can see you seem to think this is a good thing in DA:O however I really dont.

AlanC9 wrote...

most of the dungeons in DA:O were way too long with nowhere near enough interesting content to justify their length and instead were padded out with trash fight after trash fight after trash fight, to put it simply the dungeons in DA:O were just one huge grind. The dungeons and quests found in BG2 are far superior to what was found in DA:O as there was much more interesting content, unique enemies and items and puzzles to mix things up a bit, sure there may have been a few trash fights however all in all the dungeons in BG2 were very well designed as they did manage to hold your interest far better than DA:O ever could.

Sure, the DAO areas were padded with trash fights. So were BG2's. The primary difference is that DAO's main quest areas were relatively long, both in proportion to the main game and, I believe, in actual time taken. (Well, besides there being far fewer main quests in DAO, of course.) This means that you're dealing with more trash fights before the next decision point in DAO than in BG2. I find that the poor quality of BG2 trash fights makes them a worse problem, but YMMV.

Yes BG2 did have its trash fights (though it would seem that Origins had more) but I never really felt that they were a problem, perhaps because they diddnt slow you down as much or perhaps because BG2 had more points of interest between trash fights, either way the Dungeons in BG2 held my interest much better than the ones in Origins ever could.

AlanC9 wrote...

Points of interest seem to be about even between the two, though BG2 is wildly variable here. Some of the suckier BG2 main quests offer pretty much nothing of interest before the main fight. I'm looking at you, Faldorn and Firkraag.

False, BG2 had way more points of interest. It is funny you pick BG2's worst dungeon crawls but even they are on par with Origins best.

AlanC9 wrote...

I actually do think that DAO's main quests should have been shorter. You could cut 1/4 or so out of the playing time without losing anything.

Finally something we can agree on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Though DAO's even worse in that regard, what with spell combos and obvious exploits like Force Field on a friendly.

I dispute that using Force Field on a friendly is an exploit.  It can be very effective, but it also severely limits your tactical flexibility.

DAO doesn't generally require that sort of tactical flexibility, but the characters making the decisions don't know that.

[aaniadyen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Though DAO's even worse in that regard, what with spell combos and obvious exploits like Force Field on a friendly.

I dispute that using Force Field on a friendly is an exploit.  It can be very effective, but it also severely limits your tactical flexibility.

DAO doesn't generally require that sort of tactical flexibility, but the characters making the decisions don't know that.

Considering there's a spell combination that essentially kills everything surrounding the target of a force field spell except the creature targeted by the spell I don't think it's considered an explot to use force field on one of your own, and was actually planned on being used in that way.

[AlanC9]

Anything that causes the enemy AI to behave irrationally is an exploit of the AI. That's the problem with Force Field. If the AI knew to ignore hostiles that it couldn't harm it wouldn't be an exploit.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 septembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The party members attack enemies in force fields, too. It's an equal-opportunity failing.

[aaniadyen]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anything that causes the enemy AI to behave irrationally is an exploit of the AI. That's the problem with Force Field. If the AI knew to ignore hostiles that it couldn't harm it wouldn't be an exploit.

Well, ok...but if an intended function of a spell results in a bug that causes NPC's to become easier somehow, can we really call it an exploit?

By definition it is an exploit, yes...but if it's caused by an intended and expected function, I don't think it's fair to blame the player.

[AlanC9]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...
And there was in Origins? Niether of the trash fights in BG2 or Origins were very tough or even the slightest bit challenging, at least in BG2 you could cut through trash fights like a knife through butter where in DA:O the trash fights slow your progress dispite lacking a challenge, simply put they were just needlessly tedious, from what I can see you seem to think this is a good thing in DA:O however I really dont.

False. BG2 trash fights take longer since you can't rely on Tactics for the party members. If I'm going to have to control the fight the fight ought to be more interesting.

Yes BG2 did have its trash fights (though it would seem that Origins had more) but I never really felt that they were a problem, perhaps because they diddnt slow you down as much or perhaps because BG2 had more points of interest between trash fights, either way the Dungeons in BG2 held my interest much better than the ones in Origins ever could.

When you decide exactly what you think BG2 did better we can talk about it.

False, BG2 had way more points of interest. It is funny you pick BG2's worst dungeon crawls but even they are on par with Origins best.

Leaving aside the personal opinion part, I suppose we could talk about p how many points of interest there are. What's the standard? Per hour of gameplay? Per major quest? Per map? Per trash fight? 

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The party members attack enemies in force fields, too. It's an equal-opportunity failing.

It's not equal opportunity if I can change the party members' targets but the AI can't.

But yeah, calling this an exploit assumes that Bio didn't intend the spell to be used this way. My assumption was that the design intent was for the spell to be used to protect wounded party members, rather than to cause the AI to behave irrationally.Probably unwarranted, considering how many other asymmetrical abilities are in the game.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 septembre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

Weak BG2 enemies generally have no abilities. All they do is a moderate amount of melee damage. They can't disrupt your plan, or even interfere with it. All they do is take their lumps and die, after giving you no damage that your clerics can't handle. Assuming you don't just blow everything to bits with your wizards, or course. The rest mechanism doesn't offer any deterrent to this, since RE's aren't ever tough enough to cause a problem. Even if you've just expended all spells, that's why there are potions and scrolls. The real deterrent is the tedium of rebuffing after a rest. So what I mean by BG2 trash fights being trashier is that there's nothing going on of interest in them.

Can't agree.
BG2 had a LOT of different enemies, and some of them were pretty dangerous. Also depending on difficulty. The dungeons were differnt and interesting, and there was a lot to do and find.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riona45 wrote...
LOL!  If you think BG2 was too much of a Monty Haul campaign, I can imagine how you would react to ToB.  It gets to the point where the whole party is equipped with artifact level items.

I friggin hated that. +3 swrods were dropping everywhere.
I HATE huge amounts of epic lootz. IT stinks to the High Heavens.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...
And there was in Origins? Niether of the trash fights in BG2 or Origins were very tough or even the slightest bit challenging, at least in BG2 you could cut through trash fights like a knife through butter where in DA:O the trash fights slow your progress dispite lacking a challenge, simply put they were just needlessly tedious, from what I can see you seem to think this is a good thing in DA:O however I really dont.

False. BG2 trash fights take longer since you can't rely on Tactics for the party members. If I'm going to have to control the fight the fight ought to be more interesting.

What the hell? That was bad, even for you Alan. How the hell does BG2 not having the tactics system make the trash fights take longer? Are we even talking about the same thing?

AlanC9 wrote...

Yes BG2 did have its trash fights (though it would seem that Origins had more) but I never really felt that they were a problem, perhaps because they diddnt slow you down as much or perhaps because BG2 had more points of interest between trash fights, either way the Dungeons in BG2 held my interest much better than the ones in Origins ever could.

When you decide exactly what you think BG2 did better we can talk about it.

The quality of a game is not decided by one thing alone, there are many things that the BG series did better than Origins and there are many reasons why the dungeons are more interesting.

AlanC9 wrote...

False, BG2 had way more points of interest. It is funny you pick BG2's worst dungeon crawls but even they are on par with Origins best.

Leaving aside the personal opinion part, I suppose we could talk about p how many points of interest there are. What's the standard? Per hour of gameplay? Per major quest? Per map? Per trash fight? 

How about you tell me what your favorite or what you thought the best dungeon was in Origins and I find a suitable dungeon in BG2 to compare it to?

Modifié par Mr Mxyzptlk, 16 septembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The party members attack enemies in force fields, too. It's an equal-opportunity failing.

It's not equal opportunity if I can change the party members' targets but the AI can't.

I think that's balanced out by the player not being able to tell, necessarily, what his party members' targets are.  Because there isn't adequate combat feedback I can't always tell right away that my party members are attacking invulnerable enemies.

So while I can tell them to change targets, they'll only do that briefly, and only after I notice it needs doing.

A combat log would solve this problem, and if we had one I might agree the spell was unbalanced.

[Haexpane]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Those of you old enough to remember Baldur's Gate 2, 

The first time I played BG2 was in 2008-2009

But I am old enough to remember those "good ole days" of 1999? ROFL

Yikes, I feel old now. I miss installing games through a DOS prompt.

How about basic lite on the Aquarius "home computer"?  Cassette tape deck add on to store the "code" and a cart add on to play the Intellivions ports... all plugged in via RF to a 14" B&W TV set

[TMZuk]

The enemies, even the trash-enemies were far more varied in BG2 than in DA.

But that is not why I find BG2 far superiour to DA. BG2 was hampered by the silly AD&D ruleset, and all the innane restrictions on characters that meant. But even with that, you still had more freedom in character development. You had many more classes to choose from, and you had the possibility to dual-class or multiclass.

But more than that, you had a large amount of sidequests, that wasn't related to the mainquest at all. You had specific class quests, which made each playthrough a different experience. In fact, there was so much to do, that you could utterly ignore the mainquest for extended periods of time.

And finally, you had the mainquest, which would transport you from a metropolitan setting, to arabian nights, to the ocean, to the Underdark.... with rich and vivid characters in all of these places, chasing an enemy who promised both death and despair, but also enlightment and understanding. There was vampires, the mob, darkelves, sharkpeople, djinnies, wizards and all manners of other people who would aid you or hinder you...

In short, it was so enormous, of such an epic scope, in such a great setting, that all the shortcomings of the rulesystem became irrelevant.

"So", I can hear the question, "why do you complain about the rulesystem in the upcoming DA2?" First of all, because the large amount of classes available, and the ability to multiclass or dual-class, created far more opportunities to customize a character in BG2 than in DA. Secondly, because BG2 was based on the AD&D franchise, thus Bioware had their hands tied regarding the rules, while with DA/DA2, they are free to do what they want. What they want is apparantly to tie us to three extremely restricted character-classes, or in other words, bore us to death.

Modifié par TMZuk, 16 septembre 2010 - 07:05 .

[Dreadstruck]

Somebody give this guy above me a medal. I mean it.

[Haexpane]

TMZuk wrote...

The enemies, even the trash-enemies were far more varied in BG2 than in DA.

But that is not why I find BG2 far superiour to DA. BG2 was hampered by the silly AD&D ruleset, and all the innane restrictions on characters that meant. But even with that, you still had more freedom in character development. You had many more classes to choose from, and you had the possibility to dual-class or multiclass.

But more than that, you had a large amount of sidequests, that wasn't related to the mainquest at all. You had specific class quests, which made each playthrough a different experience. In fact, there was so much to do, that you could utterly ignore the mainquest for extended periods of time.

And finally, you had the mainquest, which would transport you from a metropolitan setting, to arabian nights, to the ocean, to the Underdark.... with rich and vivid characters in all of these places, chasing an enemy who promised both death and despair, but also enlightment and understanding. There was vampires, the mob, darkelves, sharkpeople, djinnies, wizards and all manners of other people who would aid you or hinder you...

In short, it was so enormous, of such an epic scope, in such a great setting, that all the shortcomings of the rulesystem became irrelevant.

"So", I can hear the question, "why do you complain about the rulesystem in the upcoming DA2?" First of all, because the large amount of classes available, and the ability to multiclass or dual-class, created far more opportunities to customize a character in BG2 than in DA. Secondly, because BG2 was based on the AD&D franchise, thus Bioware had their hands tied regarding the rules, while with DA/DA2, they are free to do what they want. What they want is apparantly to tie us to three extremely restricted character-classes, or in other words, bore us to death.

I agree w/ everything about this post except 2 things

I thought the BG2 AD&D merged rules were fine.  A little bit tough to understand for a non AD&D player, like "When can I multi and dual class again and what's the diff and how do I know this ahead of time?"

And that DAO is boring.  I agree that Rogue/Mage/Warrior - Human/Elf/Dorf is a bit limited and boring.  But tthere are a ton of sub classes that are really cool.  The problem is they are all too similar

[Bryy_Miller]

Haexpane wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

The enemies, even the trash-enemies were far more varied in BG2 than in DA.

But that is not why I find BG2 far superiour to DA. BG2 was hampered by the silly AD&D ruleset, and all the innane restrictions on characters that meant. But even with that, you still had more freedom in character development. You had many more classes to choose from, and you had the possibility to dual-class or multiclass.

But more than that, you had a large amount of sidequests, that wasn't related to the mainquest at all. You had specific class quests, which made each playthrough a different experience. In fact, there was so much to do, that you could utterly ignore the mainquest for extended periods of time.

And finally, you had the mainquest, which would transport you from a metropolitan setting, to arabian nights, to the ocean, to the Underdark.... with rich and vivid characters in all of these places, chasing an enemy who promised both death and despair, but also enlightment and understanding. There was vampires, the mob, darkelves, sharkpeople, djinnies, wizards and all manners of other people who would aid you or hinder you...

In short, it was so enormous, of such an epic scope, in such a great setting, that all the shortcomings of the rulesystem became irrelevant.

"So", I can hear the question, "why do you complain about the rulesystem in the upcoming DA2?" First of all, because the large amount of classes available, and the ability to multiclass or dual-class, created far more opportunities to customize a character in BG2 than in DA. Secondly, because BG2 was based on the AD&D franchise, thus Bioware had their hands tied regarding the rules, while with DA/DA2, they are free to do what they want. What they want is apparantly to tie us to three extremely restricted character-classes, or in other words, bore us to death.

I agree w/ everything about this post except 2 things

I thought the BG2 AD&D merged rules were fine.  A little bit tough to understand for a non AD&D player, like "When can I multi and dual class again and what's the diff and how do I know this ahead of time?"

And that DAO is boring.  I agree that Rogue/Mage/Warrior - Human/Elf/Dorf is a bit limited and boring.  But tthere are a ton of sub classes that are really cool.  The problem is they are all too similar

The problem with a plethora of classes and races is that they meld into one another just as if you have too little classes or races. Plus, the majority of players don't even look at half of the races/classes if there are a large number.

[Haexpane]

simfamSP wrote...
 

It's funny how your self opinion seems right to you. I HATE Final Fantasy, but I still think it is still a good game. 

Final Fantasy isn't a game, it's like 19 games.  Which FF?  FF Tactics plays a lot like BG2 in some high level aspects.

[Tsuga C]

David Gaider wrote...

Anyway. Enough of my cold-water doses of reality. I doubt these sorts of statements are particularly welcome in these parts anyhow.

So long as they're this informative, you just might be surprised...  

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

aaniadyen wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I admit I have never tried ToB.

LOL!  If you think BG2 was too much of a Monty Haul campaign, I can imagine how you would react to ToB.  It gets to the point where the whole party is equipped with artifact level items.

That being said, I did have fun with it.  I recommend that you try it out at least once, then decide for yourself.

I actually thought ToB was better than SoA in that regard.

The whole point of ToB is to conclude the story line of the series; a series in which you ascend to goddom (maybe). You're extremely overpowered over almost everything, that's true, but it fits the campaign. It builds the atmosphere of you reaching the height of power. Besides that, I remember plenty of hard encounters in ToB that gave me trouble, which is saying something when the expansion is fairly short.

Granted, I thought BG 1 was the best in almost every aspect out of all of them, but that's not really the point.

I don't think it's just the sheer number of epic monsters encountered that they are talking about. It's also the piles of gold and the fact that sometimes the inventories of your characters are stacked with +3 swords. At several points in ToB I remember having to just flat out ditch magic items to make inventory space. It was pretty funny, but also kind of rediculous too since whole armies seemed to be well equiped with the best enchanted items you could scrounge for in BG 1. Then again, maybe it's just me, I'm a fan of low magic atmosphere. ToB was a bit over the top, I loved BG and BG 2.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Meh..I don't mind AD&D rules. They are superior to DAO rules in some regards.



Hordes of classes? Irrelevant for me. I wouldn't mind having no classes and just selecting specific talents and stuff, thus creating and specializing. Or just have magic-user, and non magic user classes.

classes are nothing more than skill packages - you can have loads of customiation, regardless if you have 1 class, 3 classes or 20 classes.



when it comes to battle systems and mechanics, I'm more concerned about level/enemy/loot scaling, HP inflation, power progression, and illogical item restrictions

[Karlojey]

My first RPG was BG2. I wasn't able to finish it because I got bored because I felt the pace was slow; I didn't feel like there was any sort of urgency with the quest at hand. I also felt the same with Neverwinter Nights 1 (but not so much with NWN 2).

That's why I personally like the Origins was made. It was cinematic and immersive IMO. I'm guessing I'm part of the new school RPG players eh?