235 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedrak]

Isichar wrote...

I somehow managed to not only figure out how to play this game, but to even enjoy it when I was only a child without the use of the internet.

Im not sure if I am just a genious, crazy, self masochistic or what? According to nameless reviewer X in the OP I must have the patience of a saint.

 True. Perhaps I shouldn't be irked, but flattered. I've always regarded myself as an average gamer  for whom things like speed runs and solo runs were impossible, and now it turns out I'm some kind of prodigy who, without help and without knowing anything about D&D, immediately learned to play games described by many  in terms of difficulty as akin to nuclear physics. 

And it's not as if I spent months playing and mastering BG and BG2 - the latter, one of the longest games I've ever played, took me maybe 1/3 more time than DAO.

My personal impression is that many of those baffled by their "difficulty" are the kind of players who crave a "perfect playthough" and are irked by the idea of making mistakes and of having to learn through trial and error - terrified that they might drop valuable loot, lose a companion who turns out to be useful, not create the BEST possible character or party. It's a kind of "overachieving gamer" syndrome, where things like "min-maxing" and completism become crucial for the enjoyment, and are indeed more difficult to achieve in a complex game like BG2.
 
A more relaxed approach, while it might lead to some sub-optimal choice of stats or stuff like that, still allows to play, enjoy and beat the games without too much difficulty.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 novembre 2013 - 08:22 .

[Addai]

I can't play the older games, and it's not the difficulty, it's the awkwardness of everything. It's not enjoyable. I feel like I'm missing out, but at the same time, I was doing other things when those games came out and now don't feel like it's worth it to invest time in something I don't really enjoy. So I think that's probably some of the "difficulty" people refer to. There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

[Seagloom]

bussinrounds wrote...

WotC totally screwed up D&D.  They even messed up the FR.   Long live TSR !

More like they healed some of the damage TSR did. Other than Thaymart, I think WotC improved on the FR in 3e. All that BS with the Time of Troubles, elevation of characters like Elminster, and creation of Ao occurred under TSR's watch. Not to mention the bajillion worthless supplementary settings such as Maztica that diluted the FR until it became a generic kitchen sink fantasy setting. WotC did the best it could under those circumstances.

Now 4e FR, they totally hosed. But I don't blame them for trying to bring the setting back down to earth. They went about it the wrong way IMO, but hey, crap happens. At least they tried.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[Pedrak]

Addai67 wrote...

So I think that's probably some of the "difficulty" people refer to. There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

If the game bores you, fair enough.   I personally found the repetitiveness of the Deep Roads in DAO (as much as I love the rest of the game) and the combat in DA2  far more annoying than anything in the BG series, which was complex but never repetitive, and more varied in terms of encounters, spells and tactics. 

If someone believes mowing down waves after waves of identical trash mobs in DA2 is fun while having to learn how to deal with very different enemies like Umber Hulks, Mind flayers, Beholders and Lychs in BG2 is tedious, I can only say we have to agree to disagree.

[Isichar]

Addai67 wrote...

There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

Yes, and discussion would be so much simpler if people understood that the difference is an imaginary line called opinion.

[Isichar]

@Pedrak

I cant even begin to explain the kind of preparation I did for the Draconis fight the first time through. Literally took me hours.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

I can't play the older games, and it's not the difficulty, it's the awkwardness of everything. It's not enjoyable. I feel like I'm missing out, but at the same time, I was doing other things when those games came out and now don't feel like it's worth it to invest time in something I don't really enjoy. So I think that's probably some of the "difficulty" people refer to. There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

This. It's not so much a knock on older games as it is my predisposition. I don't have the patience for them. Something as simple as the time it takes for your character to move from place to place drives me f*cking nuts in many old school games. When I first played games like Diablo and Divine Divinity, I was relieved at how fast the action was.

Modifié par slimgrin, 30 novembre 2013 - 09:24 .

[Seagloom]

I haven't gotten into the discussion on challenge other than to say I think BG games were easy once you figured out how their mechanics... because IMO they were. Almost every mage in BG1 is shut down by casting Resist Fear in advance. Daeveorn or however his name is spelled, was shut down by dispel magic then a Haste + rush. In fact, Haste + group beatdown (or arrow perforation in BG1) works in so many encounters it's a bit silly.

Once you start to really figure the games out, you can try more elegant approaches but they're not often necessary due to how bad enemy AI is. There isn't much of a difference between casting Death Spell on a bunch of umberbulks or bulking up your front line so they beat them to death.

Most of the encounters in these games are against hopeless trash monsters. When people reference the challenging, chess-like gameplay of BG, they're usually referring to a select few boss fights or party vs party situations and making it sound like those battles comprise the entire game. Baldur's Gate was swimming in as much trash as DAO; or really, every BioWare game.

Any challenge only really comes in the form of cheap shots you can't possibly predict and are unlikely to be prepared for because of the limitations of vancian casting. That alone makes a huge difference in challenge between current RPGs and BG. In RPGs without a vancian casting system, you have most of your toolkit available at all times, so the challenge comes from strategically reacting to the give and take of battle. The only class that escapes that limitation somewhat is sorcerer.

In Baldur's Gate, there is no flow in harder encounters. You either prepared the right protections or you didn't. If you didn't you're dead. Load your quicksave and repeat.

It's a challenge, but is it challenging? I would say no. To me a challenge should always be difficult and engaging. Those qualities shouldn't completely vanish once you overcome it. If they do, it's not really challenging IMO.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 09:52 .

[bEVEsthda]

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I can't play the older games, and it's not the difficulty, it's the awkwardness of everything. It's not enjoyable. I feel like I'm missing out, but at the same time, I was doing other things when those games came out and now don't feel like it's worth it to invest time in something I don't really enjoy. So I think that's probably some of the "difficulty" people refer to. There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

This. It's not so much a knock on older games as it is my predisposition. I don't have the patience for them. Something as simple as the time it takes for your character to move from place to place drives me f*cking nuts in many old school games. When I first played games like Diablo and Divine Divinity, I was relieved at how fast the action was.

But those are a different type of games, offering a different experience.

And that's my problem with this criticism against BG. I don't buy into all this about 'intuitive' gameplay. It's not that I like BG mechanics and rule-set. I don't. It's kinda weird to use a rule-set from P&P in a computer game where you could have done something much more sophisticated.
But D&D and BG delivers the experience. DA2 doesn't. Nor does Diablo.

Nor do I feel more modern mechanics are "more intuitive". It's much more that they're the same as almost every other console game. It's a similarity, not intuitive mechanics. And they're the *** same *** ever since Space Invaders.

I see the reviewer here, and the commenters defending his position, more like people who don't want to learn to play a new game, but rather play the same game they always plays, just other graphics and a new story.

It's not like you can't criticize using D&D in a computer role playing game. You can absolutely do that. The problem is that game history, since, hasn't really come up with anything more defenseable. The rule-set and mechanics are still crude, primitive, and utterly, totally counterintuitive.
What is hailed here, in this thread and discussion, is not some superior mechanics, but a different type of game. The same type of game, exactly those same persons always hail.

There's a difference. Criticizing BG because of it's mechanics, and criticizing BG because it's not Diablo.

[Pedrak]

Seagloom wrote...
Any challenge only really comes in the form of cheap shots you can't possibly predict and are unlikely to be prepared for because of the limitations of vancian casting. That alone makes a huge difference in challenge between current RPGs and BG. In RPGs without a vancian casting system, you have most of your toolkit available at all times, so the challenge comes from strategically reacting to the give and take of battle. The only class that escapes that limitation somewhat is sorcerer.

But at least this prevents the DAO "LOL cone of cold everything a million times during a single fight and watch your enemies die like flies!" possible abuses to an extent.  Also, for me the BG experience was more creative than many claim. While I have learnt many years later on the web that certain combinations of spells or equipment were particularly effective to the point of being almost game-breaking, I had no idea back then. Game was varied and flexible enough that I tended to throw anything I had at the enemy in terms of spells and resources, with some foreplanning but also a certain amount of improvisation, without feeling only certain combinations worked. It was more speed chess than "rock-paper-scissors", possibly because I was a young, somewhat naive player alien to any concept of min-maxing. I just ran with whatever I got, and I made tons of sub-optimal choices in terms of stats and spells selection and left many companions dead on the battlefields. And I still finished the games without too many troubles, and loved them. Good times.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 novembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[bEVEsthda]

Seagloom wrote...

It's a challenge, but is it challenging? I would say no. To me a challenge should always be difficult and engaging. Those qualities shouldn't completely vanish once you overcome it. If they do, it's not really challenging IMO.

But that's nonsense.
First because, games like BG do offer you a continuing challenge, if you change the circumstances. But I gather that you're just about finding the 'optimum' win-configuration?

Secondly because there's no game that offers what you paint as "really challenging IMO".
To prove to me that it exists, give me an example, and I'll point out to you that it's either case of twitch-gaming, or pure chance.

Thirdly, because BG is not about that. BG is not Diablo or DA2. The challenge exists there, as dangers and threats, as part of the backdrop against which the role player makes his decisions and evolves his character.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 30 novembre 2013 - 10:08 .

[Seagloom]

@Pedrak

Yes, in that sense it was fun. I like building sorcerers with different spell layouts or trying different party combinations then figuring out how to approach battles. Last time I went through with an all lady party while playing a sorcerer. Mazzy and Jaheira were my only fighters so it was very caster heavy. Coming up with different combinations of spells between my Charname, Aerie, and Imoen was great.

But eh, I don't think that's impossible in later games. Not even in DAO. Sure, you could stun lock enemies with Cone of Cold cheese, but did you have to? Nope. You could try different party combinations and spell loadouts there too. It was just a bit more front loaded since you can't change your spell load out between fights as in Baldur's Gate.

Haste + beatdown in Baldur's Gate still worked the majority of times anyway, and wasn't much more complicated. In all honesty, BioWare has never been the best when it comes to encounter design or mechanics. As I edited out of my previous post for length, I think the best tactical games are all turn based. Not something BioWare really does.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 10:08 .

[Seagloom]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But that's nonsense.
First because, games like BG do offer you a continuing challenge, if you change the circumstances. But I gather that you're just about finding the 'optimum' win-configuration?

Secondly because there's no game that offers what you paint as "really challenging IMO".
To prove to me that it exists, give me an example, and I'll point out to you that it's either case of twitch-gaming, or pure chance.

Thirdly, since BG is not about that. BG is not Diablo or DA2. The challenge exists there, as dangers and threats, as part of the backdrop against which the role player makes his decisions and evolves his character.

I may as well dismiss your post as nonsense. If that's how you're going to preface your reply there isn't any point in engaging you at all.

Besides, even if I did it seems you're already primed to refute my argument on gameplay semantics. So since you seem more concerned with being right than engaging in discussion, I'll leave you to it. I have no interest in trying to convince you or anyone of my opinion on that anyway.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 10:15 .

[Pedrak]

Seagloom wrote...

@Pedrak

Yes, in that sense it was fun. I like building sorcerers with different spell layouts or trying different party combinations then figuring out how to approach battles. Last time I went through with an all lady party while playing a sorcerer. Mazzy and Jaheira were my only fighters so it was very caster heavy. Coming up with different combinations of spells between my Charname, Aerie, and Imoen was great.

See, that's one of the main things I liked about BG2. It was ripe with possibilities. You can also try this kind of approach in, say, DAO (which is an excellent game in its own right), but in terms of classes, spells, party and enemy variety it cannot be compared to BG2, which is a huge, generous game. A bit like those classics of Russian literature with dozens of characters and plotlines - frustrating and disorienting at first if one is used to a modern, "sleek" structure, but rich and rewarding if you give them time.

I remember, for example, meeting a rather nasty party of adventurers in an inn at the beginning of BG2, and figuring out different approaches to deal with them. The variety allowed for more flexibility. That was the one feature in which old-school RPGs were superior to modern ones - they allowed for more lateral thinking. And that's why among my fondest video game memories there isn't the flashy duel with Kai Leng in ME3, but rather dragging a cannon through a swamp in Ultima VI with the purpose of blowing open a door I couldn't open and beyond which I suspected were hidden valuable weapons.

In all honesty, BioWare has never been the best when it comes to encounter design or mechanics. As I edited out of my previous post for length, I think the best tactical games are all turn based. Not something BioWare really does.

Well, combat has certainly never been their strongest point. Still, for me BG2 was their greatest achievement from this point of view.

Curious to see what Obsidian will do with Project Eternity.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 novembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Cyonan]

bEVEsthda wrote...
I see the reviewer here, and the commenters defending his position, more like people who don't want to learn to play a new game, but rather play the same game they always plays, just other graphics and a new story.

It's not like you can't criticize using D&D in a computer role playing game. You can absolutely do that. The problem is that game history, since, hasn't really come up with anything more defenseable. The rule-set and mechanics are still crude, primitive, and utterly, totally counterintuitive.
What is hailed here, in this thread and discussion, is not some superior mechanics, but a different type of game. The same type of game, exactly those same persons always hail.

There's a difference. Criticizing BG because of it's mechanics, and criticizing BG because it's not Diablo.

In the case of BG:EE(apparently they did fix it in 2) the problem is that the game does not tell you anything.

As I said before I am perfectly capable of looking it up on Google, however the game forcing me to look outside of the game for basic information about how it works is not something that I will ever think is good game design.

I would say it is a very valid criticism of the game rather than a case of not wanting to learn to play.

[Seagloom]

@Pedrak

I hear ya. And I agree that the potential for variation was there if one put in the time. I'll never say the Baldur's Gate games were bad because I loved them. They're some of my favorite games of all time. I just don't think they were perfect, is all.

I'm a fan of Russian literature myself. I reread The Death of Ivan Ilyich earlier this month, in fact. This is actually an apt comparison. The thing with classics is they can be lovely and enriching experiences, but they're not always easy to dive into. You have to get a good translation, have an understanding of theme and subject matter, and possibly of several writing techniques to get the most out of them. Sometimes you can just dig in, but as you suggested, it can feel disorienting or even jarring depending on your tastes.

In the case of some literary classics (not necessarily Russian), the language itself can be such a barrier as to hurt a person's enjoyment of the story. That's really rehashing my previous feelings on accessibility, tho'... so kind of a tangent.

I didn't agree with everything that reviewer claimed. Wrote as much in one of my earlier posts. I can just see where some of his feelings come from. And sort of like the difference between a literary classic and a modern novel, the latter might not be as rich and fulfilling in some regards but it can still be damn entertaining. And it can still do some things better despite other aspects being handled worse.

I can understand preferring one way to another, however. In a previous post I mentioned that ideally, old approaches to genres should stick around. I definitely believe that; so I hope Project Eternity succeeds and we see a resurgence of old school CRPGs. That's a personal desire, though. In trying to be objective I can't blame someone for not being interested, and it's not hard to see the reasons why that might be.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 11:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Seagloom wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

But that's nonsense.
First because, games like BG do offer you a continuing challenge, if you change the circumstances. But I gather that you're just about finding the 'optimum' win-configuration?

Secondly because there's no game that offers what you paint as "really challenging IMO".
To prove to me that it exists, give me an example, and I'll point out to you that it's either case of twitch-gaming, or pure chance.

Thirdly, since BG is not about that. BG is not Diablo or DA2. The challenge exists there, as dangers and threats, as part of the backdrop against which the role player makes his decisions and evolves his character.

I may as well dismiss your post as nonsense. If that's how you're going to preface your reply there isn't any point in engaging you at all.

Besides, even if I did it seems you're already primed to refute my argument on gameplay semantics. So since you seem more concerned with being right than engaging in discussion, I'll leave you to it. I have no interest in trying to convince you or anyone of my opinion on that anyway.

You're probably right. I should take a couple of deep breaths, and clear my head. And I probably shouldn't have started that post with the "that's nonsense".
Thing is, I haven't posted here much lately, on serious subjects, and it seems I have allowed myself to slip back into my natural 'bEVEstha'-personality, which is very volatile and impatient. I do admire S. t. Mad and his crystal clear posts and infinite patience, so that's what I sometime try keep in mind and try to emulate.

You say that I'm more concerned about being right than engaging in discussion. - That's a fair assessment, I think. I'm on a Crusade, I suppose. I'm crusading for the type of game BG was. Not for it's mechanics, but for the experience it offered. Let's look at something you wrote early in this thread:

"There is no free healing after battles in BG. Party members can permanently die. It's an instant game over if you die; unlike most party based games these days. Animation is lacking in flash and bang. Like that reviewer wrote, characters just stand there whacking each other with sticks. The classes are terribly balanced, and it's impossible to know which are beginner friendly going in.

The map is very open, and enemies don't scale to your level. So if you like to explore, you'll probably get owned. For example, if you decided to wander off that road where Imoen meets you, you'll encounter wolves and bears that can instagib your duo. An experienced player can kite them or know to cast something like Sleep. A newbie will probably be screwed.

Then there were moments like that BS battle with Tarnesh where he Magic Missiles you to death. Think about how annoying that would be to someone accustomed to today's RPGs where early encounters are easy going, to give players a chance to learn the basics?"

- All GOOD!
That's exactly as I want a good cRPG to be like!
Why should you wear off the road, for instance? Weak, green and poorly equiped? Why should the game hold your hand and protect your character if you do unwise things?
Like Vancian casting and no auto-healing, this is something in BG that contributes towards integrating your PC's story and development with the gameplay. Makes the PC more responsible for its decisions. The world is dangerous for the unwary - for real.
That's what I want. It makes for a good role-playing game. Resetting everything for each round of combat, like DA2 and unfortunately DA:O also does, and then balance everything after that, makes for a poorer role-playing experience. It becomes more the same old kill-kill-game as always, ever since 'Space Invaders'.

When you know everything, and abuse that knowledge, yes, then a game like BG could be easy.
But according to yourself, you had a difficult time when you started to play BG? Then resorted to cheating, then much later came back and found it easy?
I had a much different experience. I also didn't know a thing about D&D rules, except where they came from. I learned 'the ropes' as I played along. I created a weak character, dual-classed, eventually three-classed, that took forever to come to fruitition. All the way to the end of BG2, Shadows of Amn, and became a power-char only in Throne of Bhaal.

And I didn't have any serious problems with doing it like that. My character leaned on the party, just providing support and reconnaisance. And it worked out fine enough. I inched Epic'ally my way through the game. And learned something new everytime I needed to. And it was a great experience. That's part of what I mean by 'type of game', 'different game' and 'different experience'. And it's worth having an always non-optimal combat balancing, for instance, to have the great diversity in how you come to each round of combat. In a role-playing game, it's worth it.
BG does it that way, with great and enjoyable results, and it doesn't, IMO ,deserve criticism for not having optimal combat balancing. It's a criticism that is directed against the wrong kind of game, since non-optimal combat balancing is actually an important, integral part of the experience the game delivers instead.

Does this attempt at explaining my perspective, make sense to you?

[bEVEsthda]

Cyonan wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
I see the reviewer here, and the commenters defending his position, more like people who don't want to learn to play a new game, but rather play the same game they always plays, just other graphics and a new story.

It's not like you can't criticize using D&D in a computer role playing game. You can absolutely do that. The problem is that game history, since, hasn't really come up with anything more defenseable. The rule-set and mechanics are still crude, primitive, and utterly, totally counterintuitive.
What is hailed here, in this thread and discussion, is not some superior mechanics, but a different type of game. The same type of game, exactly those same persons always hail.

There's a difference. Criticizing BG because of it's mechanics, and criticizing BG because it's not Diablo.

In the case of BG:EE(apparently they did fix it in 2) the problem is that the game does not tell you anything.

As I said before I am perfectly capable of looking it up on Google, however the game forcing me to look outside of the game for basic information about how it works is not something that I will ever think is good game design.

I would say it is a very valid criticism of the game rather than a case of not wanting to learn to play.

Well, yes. I haven't played EE yet. But I gather it's missing the original manual? Yes, then it would be a rather bad situation.

[mickey111]

Jestina wrote...

Modern gamers are dumber than ever. Well, actually I think the game developers are part of the problem since they rarely produce complex games now.

No, I'm sure it's 90% the gamers fault for been ****. The developers are just looking to make a quick buck, which is only natural. We're talking about journalists who are too dumb to beat a game which most combinations of party characters can simply waltz through if only the player pause during combat to order all 6 characters to focus down one enemy at a time. There aren't a lot of encounters in BG1 that are much more complex than that, honestly.

Modifié par mickey111, 30 novembre 2013 - 12:23 .

[Obadiah]

It's definitely a generation thing with games.

Back in the early 2000s, having a computer was a bit more tied to your occupation and studies. The bar for even getting games to work on a computer put them out of reach of many gamers. Now the computer is much more of a user-friendly information and entertainment system, and people used to AAA high budget games have more expectations.

I actually see a similar trend in reviews of games in general, and the expectations of technical perfection.

Modifié par Obadiah, 30 novembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[In Exile]

Pedrak wrote...
My personal impression is that many of those baffled by their "difficulty" are the kind of players who crave a "perfect playthough" and are irked by the idea of making mistakes and of having to learn through trial and error - terrified that they might drop valuable loot, lose a companion who turns out to be useful, not create the BEST possible character or party. It's a kind of "overachieving gamer" syndrome, where things like "min-maxing" and completism become crucial for the enjoyment, and are indeed more difficult to achieve in a complex game like BG2.

You're wrong. (1) I'm not "baffled" by the difficulty. I think it's arbitrary and fake. (2) I don't have a problem power-gaming through D&D - it's just filled with arcane and arbitrary rules, making it a pain to learn with the payoff being... nothing different than the exact same system I'm used too from today but with more hoops to jump through first. 

It would be one thing if at the end of the tunnel there was really rewarding tactical gameplay (like Hearts of Iron III). But there isn't. Once you get D&D, it's like any other RPG out there that you can breeze through with the right build, except that you had to stand on your head underwater to get there. 

That's why I think it's poor design. D&D, I mean, not necessarily BG (though I do think BG fails completely at explaining its own ruleset). 

which was complex but never repetitive, and more varied in terms of encounters, spells and tactics.

That's just wrong. All of BG is based on memorizing every encounter ahead of time to counter it. Spell preparation is literally about using the fact that you know what's coming to your advantage. The same with item hoarding. You can hoard items effectively because you know ahead of time when you'll need them. That's all fake difficutly. 

bEVEsthda wrote...
It's not like you can't criticize using D&D in a computer role playing game. You can absolutely do that. The problem is that game history, since, hasn't really come up with anything more defenseable. The rule-set and mechanics are still crude, primitive, and utterly, totally counterintuitive.

What is hailed here, in this thread and discussion, is not some superior mechanics, but a different type of game. The same type of game, exactly those same persons always hail.

There's a difference. Criticizing BG because of it's mechanics, and criticizing BG because it's not Diablo.

You're competely wrong. There are a lot of P&P systems out there that aren't the steaming pile of garbage that is D&D. Despite my utter loathing for D&D, and despite my dislike for how BG teaches it, I happen to really like learning rulesets on my own and tend to research P&P rulesets without caring to play P&P. 

So, no, you're just wrong. There are much better ways to handle a rule-oriented combat experience without the garbgage that's 2e or 3e D&D. 

What's discussed in this thread is game-design whereby the ruleset is presented to the player in such a way that no extra or separate research is required, unless the game wants to pretend it's purposely designed to be punishing. 

[MerinTB]

Joy Divison wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
There was a period of computer gaming, circa the C-64's prime, where swap meets and Fast Hack 'Em lead to people owning shoeboxes full of disks that were full of games, and no one owning ANY manuals.

No in-game tutorials, no in-game help on how to play, and no manuals.  It was a thing in the early to mid 80's.

And no world wide web to look up game instructions on.

It's not a matter of ignoring the manual - it's not having them.

Not that I did any of this, but I heard from peers and associates that is was often encessary to copy the manual to bypass the "what's the first word in the fourth line on page 23" security question 

That was the game industry's response to rampant copying.  You started getting journal entries (like the SSI Gold Box games or Wasteland) that had their own books - these were kind of fun, actually.  I bought and owned Wasteland and all the SSI ones back in the day, and loved having two books!

After it became apparent that Toshiba stores (or local grocery stores / gas stations with copiers) were getting oversized business from computer gamers, they tried code wheels (Star Control 2, Neuromancer, etc.) and then 'Password' like color screening with red cellophane (Sim City comes to mind.)

Taking apart, copying, and creating your own code wheels kind of became an acquired skill for C-64 gamers.

[MerinTB]

bussinrounds wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...
D&D 2 sucks and D&D 3 is the best settings on earth for fantasy games. Agreed?

No.

Agreed.

3E is a mess of a mess.

[MerinTB]

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I can't play the older games, and it's not the difficulty, it's the awkwardness of everything. It's not enjoyable. I feel like I'm missing out, but at the same time, I was doing other things when those games came out and now don't feel like it's worth it to invest time in something I don't really enjoy. So I think that's probably some of the "difficulty" people refer to. There's a difference between challenge that's engaging and challenge that's annoying.

This. It's not so much a knock on older games as it is my predisposition. I don't have the patience for them. Something as simple as the time it takes for your character to move from place to place drives me f*cking nuts in many old school games. When I first played games like Diablo and Divine Divinity, I was relieved at how fast the action was.

I will agree on this, to a point.  A big reason I disliked Baldur's Gate was the endless, endless, endless, endless, you get the point, travel time.

Travel time is not a favorite thing of mine.  Long live fast travel!

[Pedrak]

In Exile wrote...

That's just wrong. All of BG is based on memorizing every encounter ahead of time to counter it. Spell preparation is literally about using the fact that you know what's coming to your advantage. The same with item hoarding. You can hoard items effectively because you know ahead of time when you'll need them. That's all fake difficutly. 

*shrug* I keep reading that and I just have to guess my BG experience has been widely different from yours.  

While I do recall a few instances of learning which spells/items/builds were best after losing a certain encounter several times (mostly with Mind flayers), my dominant experience was that I tried in advance to build a balanced party with the right characters and to choose a wide array of spells which could cover most of the possible problems, and then just ran with it. Certainly the way you describe your experience (lose an encounter until you memorize the right combination of spells, then it becomes a stroll in the park) doesn't sound much fun. What can I say? Mine was different, less mechanical and more focused on "vague" foreplanning based on previous encounters and, once I was in the midst of it, on improvisation. Personally I'm as far from powergaming as it gets, and BG never punished me for it - it's harsh (if you venture off the road at the beginning with just Imoen you'll get squashed like a bug), but fair.

See, what I'd call "fake boring difficulty" is throwing endless mobs of identical enemies with lots of HP at the player, so you just have to hack through them all. The sheer number of possible enemies seen in the BG series, with different tactics required to beat them and lots of available spells, allowed for more variety.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 novembre 2013 - 04:08 .