mr insomniac

Isn't/wasn't there a mod to turn off the "You must gather your party before venturing forth" thing? ... of course it's easy enough to do, just match up the filename and put a blank xxxxxxx.wav file in the override folder.

The easiest solutions are often the most overlooked. Thanks

*Tries to hang on to a shred of optimism* I dunno, could work. Icewind Dale worked.

So I'm on Telos. I've just gotten the Exchange off the Ithorians' case and am working on doing the same with Czerka. I've got this brilliant idea to use their protocol droid (B-4D4) to dig up some dirt from the Czerka mainframe. After the Ithorian head guy (Chodo?) reprograms the droid, I find myself in control of him. Well, long story short, the mission is a success, the droid is back in the Ithorians' building and I'm given control of my party again... except not all of it. My character is back, but Atton and Kreia are nowhere to be found. I think, okay no big deal, maybe they're down at the shuttle that will take me to the surface of Telos in search of the Ebon Hawk, or maybe back at the apartment, and I head off that way. Just a few steps out the door, I get a transmission from the Ithorians, saying they are under attack and desperately need my help. So I run back there to help out. Now, I managed to take care of all the mercenaries except the final boss mercenary guy. I couldn't even hit him. Grrrr. The whole time I'm thinking, I could sure use Atton and Kreia's help here! So my question is, should they be there? Or are they waiting somewhere else for me, and I need to go find them before going back to help the Ithorians?

Same here. I work 2 pm to 10 pm and had no trouble adjusting to a different schedule. If I had to switch to morning shift, say from 6 am to 2 pm, I could get used to it... after a year or two.

Me three, but Torment and IWD were better than both of them.

DING DING DING!!!! :D (w00t) I love you Darque! Finally, someone understands! I have been harping on this point for years! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At the same time, many people like their characters to be unique. I can see the merit in Gromnir's stance that focusing on the antagonist could create for better stories. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it is a story about the antagonist I have no problem with this. However, the BG series was not about the antagonist but about YOU and YOUR story as a Bhaalspawn, Child of the Lord of Murder. Maybe people saw it differently, but to me, after BG1, I felt that it was pretty firmly established that the series was going to be about your character and his/her role in the prophecy to either fulfill his/her destiny as the next Lord of Murder or destroy him. It wasn't about Sarevok's rise to power(which is why I felt it was the right thing to not have overly developed Sarevok's character in BG1), or Irenicus' rise to power, or Melissan's rise to power.. It was about you. SoA broke that mold... broke that pattern. And to me it was the anomaly of the series. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I always kinda wondered if at least some of the reason for that was because, when they made SoA, they planned on ToB to be a full game, in concluding a trilogy, rather than just an expansion. :shrug:

Yeah, but they made the Sarevok story cool in ToB. Kinda redeemed it as an expansion in my eyes.

Just curious but you never really got into that whole Pillar of Skulls/Guilt thing that Morte carried around?

About the only thing I remember expecting from BG2 when I first installed it was, "it better be good or I'm going back to Torment." It was good, and I went back to Torment anyway. Win-win.

The way they did it in Kotor was not too bad. They would say "x appears to have something on their mind. You should talk to them." Although that's kinda lame as well.

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mention the interaction in Torment. Well, I played BG2 knowing fully well how the interaction in Torment was. Going from the interaction in Torment to the time-triggered blahblah in BG2 was a big step down for me. Apparently, the time-triggered system in BG2:SoA bothered me a lot more than it did others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure It was s tep down from Torment. In Torment you controlled how much you learned about the other characters, because you always initiated the learning, not them. But it was a step up from BG, is my point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In this case, I prefer it done right or not at all. Sure SoA had deeper character interaction but the time-triggered system really affected my enjoyment of the dialogue. So much so that I didn't feel like I was roleplaying since I had no control of when I would be able to speak to my characters. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would have been great/super/wonderful to initiate dialogues with the BG2 characters, yes. But as I think back to it, and it's been a couple of years since I last played BG2 so bear with me, the only times it was really glaringly obvious was in the middle of a fight. And it wasn't all that annoying. What they should have done was give you the option to say something like, "errrrm... fighting a dragon here!" Nah I liked the interactions alot, even if it was flawed it made the characters seem alot less like packmules.

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mention the interaction in Torment. Well, I played BG2 knowing fully well how the interaction in Torment was. Going from the interaction in Torment to the time-triggered blahblah in BG2 was a big step down for me. Apparently, the time-triggered system in BG2:SoA bothered me a lot more than it did others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure It was s tep down from Torment. In Torment you controlled how much you learned about the other characters, because you always initiated the learning, not them. But it was a step up from BG, is my point.

On the contrary, I remember BG2 being the king of fed-ex quests. With the exception of a few notable ones like the murder mystery and Nalia's stronghold quest there really wasn't much in the way of original and fun side quests. On top of that, every Joe Smith in town had some item (no matter how small) that they asked you to retrieve for them.. That didn't make it any more fun. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Eyeless Cult quest was pretty cool, I thought. Whole lot better than bringing a pair of boots, a bottle of wine, and 5 or 6 dead spiders to some gnome(?) 3 towns away.

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

Yep that's what I'm saying. Just because it's possible to do so, you don't have to make the most bizaarely unique class/race combination to be unique.

Yeah, like running after turrets!

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice. On another, party interaction was much deeper, and after seeing what was done with that in Torment, it was a definite plus. The quests were more interesting in BG2 than BG for the most part, and the story moved along at a decent pace. Plus, whether it was done well or not -- those more knowledgeable than I in the FR setting could answer this -- I enjoyed the Underdark. Ever since the 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide hinted at the possibilities of adventuring in the Underdark I wanted to try it. Damn Illithids.

That's a factor in Kotor's success, part of its charm for me. I liked the game myself, and part of my enjoyment was because I got the chance to have a lightsaber and cut down enemies with it. Quality of the combat notwithstanding, it was just cool to be a Jedi. I tried to think of examples where Kotor and PS:T differed, to counter another post of yours, but you said "essentially remade" and I realized anything I came up with would be nitpicking. But I think what PS:T did was take alot more risks. Planescape setting itself wasn't successful, not well known or liked by the majority of AD&D'ers, let alone gamers. But BIS took the setting and ran with it. Whatever its flaws, and yeah I'm not too blind by my love for the game to see them either, it still ended up being more than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately the risks didn't pay off. Kotor didn't take those same kinds of risks. Put a CRPG in a Star Wars setting and a lot of people are gonna buy it. The fact that it ended up being a pretty good game is a bonus.

wait what <{POST_SNAPBACK}> josh ain't a slow guy, so we thinks he is playing dumb for effect. ps:t had some really terrible writing in places, and a setting that did not appeal to mot gamers, and individual dialogues that were too long and there were not enough combat. however, those things that ps:t fans claimed that were so great, including the highly developed character interaction, were things that kotor managed to do as well... and kotor were succesful. like it or not, bioware essentially remade ps:t in a more popular setting and simply added more appealing combats and shorter individual dialogues... and they made lots of money doing it. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Remade PS:T in a more popular setting? Hmmm, just finished playing KOTOR, and I wouldn't say that.

Well you can take what are, on the surface, cardboard cutout characters and make them unique with role-playing, but you don't need to have a character no one else has, just because it's possible, to be unique.

^ Amen, brother. Can't say I'm gonna like Fallout 3 or Oblivion when they come out, as I haven't played any Bethesda games yet. I'm not gonna make assumptions on future games. I'll keep an open mind and see what's what before I start hating/liking.

Dak'kon Nordom Fall-From-Grace Morte Annah HK-47 Sulik Jaheira Ignus/Vhailor Minsc & Boo

Sounds a bit like Torment.

Timing. The villain's designs begin to come to fruition right around the time the hero begins to throw a wrench in them.