Lancer

Did I miss something? Not calm? Where have I expressed anger? Annoyed, slightly.. Amused.. But not angered. Or am I not calm just because I prefer Sarevok over Irenicus and you don't? And apparently you just jumped into this. I already discussed my reasons in earlier posts which you may read but I am not repeating again.

Unfortunately some people seem to struggle with the concept. They take it personal when someone disagrees with their opinion and try to provoke others.. It'll be interesting to see future responses.. EDIT:I do apologize for this hijacking of the thread though..Stating that you dislike Irenicus in SoA is tantamount to blasphemy for some!

How about ESB? It was the middle movie of the trilogy yet it expounded on the Force, Jedis, Luke, his relationship to Vader and so on a lot more than ANH did. Just because SoA was the middle game of the serious does not exonerate it from doing the same. Yes. And unfortunately, most of you feel the need to to defend Irenicus as a villain since for many SoA was your favorite game of the series. There is a key difference between liking a game and liking the game's villain (as Gromnir as mentioned) and I fear that most don't make the distinction. Though I did like SoA, I just didn't care much for Irenicus being in it. He just ended up sidetracking the storyline for the reasons I have already stated.

Wow.. You *are* delusional...I was right after all. Quite amusing. Flame bait? You are calling my opinion flame bait just because I don't happen to like your favorite villain? It is a simple opinion. Nothing more. SoA made me learn something I hadn't learned up until that point about villain design.. That not only does the villain need to be a good stand-alone villain but it needs to fit in context with the overarching story. If he doesn't then it is a bad villain for that story. Period. It really is that simple. And this might not have affected the quality of the villain for you, but it did for me. People are different and like different things. It is called "preferences."

I have PMed you.

Nah. People are going to want increasingly more accurate translations of the tabletop RPG on our friend: the computer. The virtual tabletop RPG is becoming increasingly popular year by year. MMORPGs have been around, this is the new wave.

I agree with Josh to a tee.

What? "Traditional" PC RPG are dead? What do you consider is a traditional PC RPG? There are no traditional PC RPGs today? this is news to me. I hope you are not implying a comparison between FPP RPGs vs. Isometric RPGs.

The problem as I see it, Ender, by your definition is that you are going strictly by what the industry thinks an RPG is. As you can see, outside the industry the meaning that you posit is extremely controversial. It is hard to claim a standard definition when anything less than a majority agrees with it (in this case it is nowhere near a majority). When the "Academia Real" convenes every year to decide what regionalisms can be accepted as "standard spanish," whatever they decide becomes law. Everyone who is a spanish speaker accepts the changes (whether or not they use the changes themselves) but you certainly don't see half the populace disagreeing with the changes. People just accept the changes as they are. That is what is meant be a "standard." Another example is the consensus to use the metric system in almost all countries aside the US (though we will change too hopefully!). That is a standard. This is not the case with the industry definition of RPG. The industry, for one, claims that Diablo is an RPG, but this is only standard within that population subset. Outside the industry, a significant number of gamers would disgree with that classification and would swear by the fact that Diablo can never be an RPG despite having stat-based gameplay. In fact, console RPGs are even worse. They have stat-based gameplay but the non-linear elements have many dubbing them more as "adventure" games rather than RPGs. In fact, some that play both tabletop and CRPGs would argue that CRPGS aren't RPGs at all. How can there be a standard if the word RPG means so many different things to different people? How can "stat-based- gamplay" be the standard definition if so many claim that it takes more than that? The definition of "RPG" is far from set in stone and I see it as somewhat variable depending on the application. You imply that there is a strict definition to RPGs (stat-based gameplay) but it seems that you think that only the industry definition matters. The industry definition is just a label.. Some convenient broad categorization and nothing more. I doubt that this definition is shared by the vast majority of gamers. Seriously.. Defining "RPG" is almost as difficult as defining "life" itself. Another term which has no general consensus on definition either.

I agree. If you need your online RPG fix, why not play IRC or some virtual tabletop RPG instead?

Ahhh.. Clashes that lead into Conflict and Mayhem.. This is what the web is all about

I hope you have lots of money.

To say the truth, there really hasn't been a crpg villain that has *truly* impressed me. There have been movie villains that have left me awe-struck at how purely evil they are but in the realm of crpgs, almost all villains have been mediocre to decent at best.

He may not have been a *great* villain but nor was Irenicus. Irenicus was cliche at best and worst off didn't do much in advancing the Bhaal storyline. Those claiming that Irenicus was a *great* villain and isn't cookie cutter in any way are delusional and probably a little nostalgic at best.

SoA was about 80% Irenicus and 20% PC. How is this balanced?

Not quite. If you suggest that you can't have a deep protagonist with lots of options then either you are pessimistic or you haven't played (or don't remember) Deus Ex or even Ultima. Heck, even Torment fits here. I felt quite free in that game. *Lots* of roleplaying possibilities! And it will be more commonplace with more luck in the future.

Don't mind villain development as long as the PC gets his due as well. SoA didn't do that. It is notable to add that SoA was the only game in the BG saga that wasn't PC-centered. Some people might like that, but I didn't.

I didn't feel any freer in SoA than BG1 although the antagonist was detailed more in SoA. In fact, there was less freedom in SoA in some respects when they took a lot of the wilderness exploration common throughout BG1. No reason why you can't develop the protagonist and have a game with considerable freedom. And even if it is not common today, I hope you are not implying that it "can't" or "won't" ever be done. You attack a truism? Nothing wrong with cliche characters, but suggesting originality (with all the literature that exists) today is very strange indeed.

So are you implying that all it takes for a character to not be cookie-cutter or cliche is to add in a few extra nightmare sequences? All characters are cliche. Everything has been beaten to death. Irenicus is cliche. Sarevok is cliche..Irenicus might obviously be a more fleshed out NPC, but not the better villain. There is a clear cut difference between the two. More is not always better. In this case, it wasn't. Not all fleshed out NPCs automatically made good villains nor do all "cookie-cutter" NPCs make bad villains either. It all depends on how well the villain design fits within the storyline you are making him for. I would argue that since The BG series was about YOU and YOUR role in the Bhaalspawn saga, SoA necessarily needed to be more PC-centered than it was... Like BG1 was.. Like ToB was. As a result, having a villain-centered game like Irenicus for the BG saga just wasn't a good idea IMHO. It is possible that a villain like Irenicus would have made a great villain in another game that wasn't as PC-centered... But it was a poor choice for SoA.

Let's see from what I recall off-hand.. It's been a while since I played BG1 but this should be pretty accurate.. There might be one more thing I am forgetting. -First off you learn that there is something really special about you and for some reason (you don't know what) Iron Throne assassins are sent to you right and left -You finally learn you are something called a Bhaalspawn.. One of the sons of the Lord of Murder Bhaal and that you -You learn about the Time of Troubles and the role of the Bhaalspawn in it -You learn that your brother (Sarevok) is trying to become the Lord of Murder by killing other Bhaalspawn -You learn that your brother is trying to become the Lord of Murder by also causing bloodshed through the whole iron shortage/war deal. As you can see, there was a good amount more to the Bhaalspawn storyline in BG1 than in BG2:SoA. SoA, OTOH, only had that you could turn into the slayer. There really wasn't anything else to it. However, it did have tons and tons about Irenicus with his motives having very little linkage to you aside from the fact that he stole your soul and you needed to get it back. And this was the problem with Irenicus.. The whole Tree of Life plotline and revenge plotline, really had nothing to do with you personally or the Bhaalspawn storyline. He stole your soul, and that was it. The revelation about the Slayer was just something that came up along the way. That is my beef with it.

Right.. Because I have seen a lot of villains that ascend through wars caused by iron shortages...

All my comments about BG1 and BG2 have been pretty accurate. This following statement makes me doubt your credibility OTOH: If you think that Sarevok had "no idea" how to become a god you obviously need to play BG1 again.. The Slayer stuff was the only thing we get to learn about your character in a game that was about 1.5 times as long as BG1. The rest was all about Irenicus.That is shameful. We don't even begin to learn what it means to be a Bhaalspawn until ToB. You accuse me of being blinded by my own preferences.. Yet you do just that here. " Sarevok is not an empowered schoolyard bully just because you say so.

You are discussing how the storytelling style differed between BG1 and BG2 (which is opening up another can of worms I wish not to get into right now) not how villainous Irenicus is with respect to Sarevok and vice-versa. Sarevok had an army of dopplegangers and single-handedly manipulated the Iron Throne. And how disappointing that Irenicus ALSO wanted to become a god like Sarevok did. You would think that they'd come up with a more original motive for a villain in the sequel. Yes. And aside from abducting you in the very beginning. It was an-all Irenicus show in SoA.. The PC and his motives felt like an afterthought. The whole Bhaalspawn storyline was pretty much ignored in SOA and didn't really pick up again until ToB. But like I said earlier, that is opening up another can of worms. And ,oh yeah, Sarevok was more evil. Sorry, but the fact that you fight the same villain three times in one game makes more for an annoying/pestering villain than one that you love to hate. And you consider Sarevok framing you late in the game predictable? Sarevok killing his father was predictable? So you were able to tell from the get go what Sarevok's motives were with the iron shortage-- to start a war between nations just so that he can cause enough bloodshed to ascend? Nonsense...And Irenicus wasn't cookie cutter? Not only did they re-hash the whole "I-want-to-be-a-god" motive from Sarevok himself, but oh no, he wants revenge from those who wronged him. No.. I have never seen *that* one before. " I am not saying Sarevok was original, but neither was Irenicus and saying so would be wee bit exaggerating.

Yes, but TTO was a very notable exception in that basically TTO *was* TNO. And Torment did the best job out of any game I have known to develop the protagonist (TNO). In a very real sense, developing TTO's personality was already done via TNO. Learning more about TNO through the game and his many incarnations translated effectively into learning more about TTO as well.. Any extra "development" of TTO would have been redundant.

I have heard so much praise about this game that I *must* play it. I really liked Deus Ex and this is supposed to be at least as good? I can scarcely wait! I have it downloaded but I won't be able to play System Shock 2 until the Xmas break. I have cheated though and looked at the intro and played the first few minutes of it.. Damn, this game has atmosphere.