Jump to content

Baudolino05

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Baudolino05

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. Yeah, not really. That's a ridiculous statement. The games get easy when you have metagame knowledge, but doing a blind solo play through of either game is going to be a challenge (unless you consider reloading to be a valid battle tactic). If you started BG1 as a solo mage you would have gotten eaten by wolves or killed by a mob of gibberlings before you got to the FA INN and, if you managed to run fast enough and (by luck) in the right direction and get to the FA INN, good luck against the first assassin. Your extensive knowledge of D&D would have let you realize just how screwed yo
  2. Not shocking, just incoherent. Are you saying that the vast majority of players are not supposed to kill all hostile enemies when they see them? Or are you saying that in the vast majority of RPGs, hostile enemies you encounter are optional? Yes, That's precisely what I'm saying. And you should probably get with the program, because PoE is being developed in "my strange universe". Josh Sawyer has stated that the toughest encounters WILL be optional. Alright. The Level cap for BG2 is 2,950,000. With the Throne of Bhaal Expansion, it is 8,000,000. This translates, for clerics, to 20th Le
  3. It's *lich*, and I would think the answer to that is obvious: FOR THE CHALLENGE (not to mention the fact that the City Gates lich drops Daystar and a wand of cloudkill, and a ring of invisibility) What do you mean by "not supposed to beat"? BG2 is a minimally chapter-gated open world game. Where are you getting these make-believe developer intentions from? Your head? Your ass? No one can cast Sunray until they reach 14th level, or until they get a hold of Daystar (which you have to kill a lich for) So basically what you're saying here is that many of BG2's encounters are flat
  4. LOL <sigh> You are a disgustingly dishonest debater. And you have *twice* admitted, without even realizing it, that *even you* see BG2 as an unusually (even unfairly) difficult game for first playthrough gamers. And I'm going to prove it. Ok, The standard character level upon completion of Irenicus' dungeon is 8th level (9th if you imported from BG1, 10th if you imported and you soloed the dungeon). Lets use the last one. Suppose you're a 10th level Wizard (or sorcerer). You gather equal level companions. Lets say, 2 more mages ( say.. Edwin and Nalia or Jan) The rest of your party
  5. Like what? Assuming that you did the 3 things I listed in my previous post, what battle challenged you? Here are some: The battle with the demi liche. The battle with the liche whose tomb is behind a secret door in an inn. Some of the battles in the underdark against the mind flayers. Those are probably not the only ones, but the ones that stick out in my mind. I did win all of those battles, but first I had to find a place to rest, memorize spells which could help my party specifically with those situations, drink helpful potions et. Liches are a challenge only if you
  6. Aside from Kangaxx, The Twisted Rune, and the various dragons? (kinda hard to spam spells early when you've been wing buffeted) Ok, how about....The Kayardi, Mogadish and co. Battle in the Planar Sphere. That battle challenged me immensely on my first BG2 playthough. So I have a question. How exactly did you "cakewalk" yourself to a victory in that one on your first playthough? (well, besides having one hand on your mouse and the other hand feverishly flipping through the strategy guide?) Did your Vast D&D knowledge tip you off that one of those halflings would have an unlimited range ps
  7. Like what? Assuming that you did the 3 things I listed in my previous post, what battle challenged you?
  8. Look. I don't wanna act like THE MEN. The first time I played BG I and II I already have years of experience with AD&D, and this gave me a BIG edge with these games. Having said that, can you honestly tell me that - rare circumstances aside - BG2 is not a cakewalk if you: 1) have at least 3 casters in your party; 2) Cast as many buff as you can before entering in a big battle 3) Cast your best spells as fast as you can? Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion. Lets go back to discussing Balance. Why is that, exactly? It's a single player party based game, remember? If
  9. Balance is important for ALL kinds of games. Only through balance players can get a fair challenge during all their playthroughs. [/size] Let's say that a particular game allows players to build blatantly overpowered parties, like D&D games do, and you build your party that way, because of your deep understanding of the system or simply because you are lucky. What do you earn? A couple of hours of fun during your planning phase and dozens of hours of unchallenging (= boring) combats during the rest of your game. Great trade-off, umh? And with an underpowered party? Probably a frustrati
  10. Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion. Lets go back to discussing Balance. Why is that, exactly? It's a single player party based game, remember? If your Thief isn't as powerful as your mage then what does it matter? You can have both in your party. Or double of both. Or none of either one. You can also form unlimited tactics and game plans around such un-even party makeup. You can have one be the support for the other. You can Challenge yourself to beat the game using nothing but under-powered characters. Or you can powergame by making a full party of nothing but the over-power
  11. False. This balance discussion hasn't changed or deviated one iota since that post of yours. You can't even claim that you were simply going on an off-topic tangent since, after your balance rant, you were asked for superior examples. Perhaps you could honestly answer the question posed to you now. You claimed the IE games were imbalanced messes. Can you name me a game you liked that had balanced combat? A true or false question about an opinion lol. D&D is imbalanced by design because the classes are not supposed to be equal. Lore dictates that some professions be more powerful tha
  12. How's the contrary preferable? Does anyone really miss the "your wizard sucks at the beginning of the campaign and after few levels automatically kicks asses better than any other class" thing of the oldest D&D editions? [/size] As long as classes have specific strengths and weaknesses the overall balance HAS to be maintained, level after level, from the beginning to the end of the campaign. At least in a game that is about party-based "tactical-challenging combats". If PoE were a White Wolf like RPGs, I wouldn't mind about overall balance, but it's not the case...[/size] ^True or
  13. ToEE IS turn based though. Maybe that's the real reason why you think its combat is better? if so, then fair enough. But we were discussing balance - which doesn't have anything to do with whether a game is TB or RTwP. I was discussing about adaptations of turn based rulesets to videogames, and TOEE is hands down a better adaptation than BG and IWD. I've also quoted Pool of Radiance (AD&D) and Knights of the Challice (D&D OGL) as CRPGs with better combat systems than I.E. games. These 3 games, of course, retain all the inherent flaws of D&D, which in my book are MANY (and mul
  14. How's the contrary preferable? I can give you about 10 reasons why the contrary is preferable. But this morning I only have time for one. Here goes. I don't like my single player combat rulesets to be mechanically, soullessly, and rigidly Balanced. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not som
  15. How's the contrary preferable? I can give you about 10 reasons why the contrary is preferable. But this morning I only have time for one. Here goes. I don't like my single player combat rulesets to be mechanically, soullessly, and rigidly Balanced. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not som
×
×
  • Create New...