Stun

There's only 4 bandits in Tazok's tent. That's hardly ALL the bandits in the bandit camp. Is it.

This is why I love this forum. We have something special here. There is no other place on the internet where a thread on Orcs and Goblins can branch off into a discussion about Amish living.

You're not employing any context. Plus you don't know what the definition of evil is. And as an added annoyance, The number of sheer, plain factual errors you've spouted about BG's story are too numerous to cite. This is not even a debate.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the "fine details" here. Archangel979 doesn't know what he's talking about. Even the Giant details are lost to him. (How can anyone so wildly misunderstand BG1's SIMPLISTIC plot and spoon-fed motivations?) First off, Tracking down Seravok and killing him before he kills you is not Evil. Why is it being presented as an evil path at all? Motivation-wise it's self defense at that point in the game. And even in Chapter 7, when you now know that you're both children of Bhaal, it's still not evil. It's merely Chaotic. (you know...CHAOS will be sown in their passage...etc.) But, that doesn't matter anyway because in chapter three, when you're in the bandit camp, the choice to go after him is NOT AVAILABLE to you. Second, those letters are not a clue to Seravok's whereabouts, or plans. Their function is to feed you information about the Iron throne, and to deliberately suggest that someone is trying to kill you because your party is meddling in the Iron Throne's affairs. There is no other way to interpret them. Those letters then point you straight to the Cloakwood mines operation. And.... those Letters are written by Davaeorn. So if your motivation is to just kill Seravok, going to the Cloakwood mines to hunt down Davaeorn constitutes being Chaotic Stupid. Or Lawful Clueless. Take your pick. Davaeorn is Reiltar's subordinate, not Seravok's. Third, BG1. Is. Not. A. Personal. Story. You can try to have personal motivations, but the game will pound you over the head with Epic-scale altruism at every turn until you either accept the role of being the champion of the greater good, or you quit playing the game out of sheer confusion.

I can't speak for you guys, but I am immortal until proven otherwise. Also, I have 50% gravity resistance.

I don't remember the dreams having anything to do with how the bandit camp went. The chapter 3 dream is not dependent on how you handled the Bandit camp. (it's dependent on your reputation score) But it is ABOUT the bandit camp itself. And as Yonjuro points out, in the good aligned dream the narrator says: "...a camp secluded and hidden from the rest of the sword coast. All manner of bandit and brigand move about here but you may as well be invisible amongst them...". By contrast, the Evil dream describes you as reveling in the bloodshed. This is also false. They do not automatically turn hostile after you kill everyone in the tent. The game, in fact, assigns a different faction flag for the bandits inside. Of course, only a fool would choose to not finish the job, especially since Togosz Khossan is worth 2000xp and drops full plate armor.

Big Head Mode Decapitation? Please no.

Wouldn't that be a Kobold? Look at the pointed head and the scales. I have never heard of any game system that has portrayed Orcs with reptilian features. If you're talking about the original BG, then no. Half Orcs were introduced as a playable race in BG2.

True Story: When Muhammad Ali was a little kid, some thugs beat him up and stole his bicycle. Feeling helpless, he found a boxing gym the next day and begged the coaches here to teach him how to fight so that he'd never be a helpless victim ever again. Eventually he won an Olympic gold medal, then turned pro and became the Greatest Fighter to ever step into the ring. Muhammad Ali did things right. You on the other hand....

Lets start from the beginning. False. Beginning with chapter 2 every single critical path objective until chapter 7 is about saving the sword coast - which cannot be construed as an evil goal in any way, shape or form. Even from an Amnish perspective. You can argue head-canon based personal objectives all you want, but the game is not structured to support them. And even investigating the Nashkell mines cannot be seen as a stepping stone to finding Seravok, since the game gives you absolutely no hints that it is.

But you don't start as an adventurer. You start as a fleeing victim of an ambush. If you'd like an example of starting as an adventurer, try the Icewind Dale games. It's not your choice. You're given names of allies, and a direction on the very morning after the attack. And then those allies give you your goal. In other words, the final goal is to beat the big bad boss and halt his epic-scale murder plans. So what? How does that help your case? BG1 is not a personal story. It's a standard save the world story that happens to have a clever Boss who tries to have you eliminated because you're in his way, NOT because of any personal vendetta.

You are mistaken. In chapter 2, you are told, point blank, by Barren Gatskill, about the regional significance of the Nashkell mines, and you are tasked to investigate why the miners are dying and the Ore is tainted. That is chapter's 2's main plot. You cannot refuse to do it if you wish to beat the game. And completing it has nothing to do with you. Chapter 3's main plot is stopping the bandits who are terrorizing the sword coast. And you can't refuse to do that if you wish to beat the game. Chapter 4's main plot is to liberate the Cloakwood mine from the Iron throne's Grasp. No choice there either. Chapter 5's main plot is to storm the Iron throne headquarters. (note: just like chapter 2, Chapter 5's main quest is given to you by city leaders, who neither know nor care who you are. And you have no choice but to do precisely what they say) Chapter 6's plot is to spy on the Iron throne leaders. Chapter 7's plot is to stop Serevok before he initiates his war. Again, you are given that quest by city leaders who neither know nor care that you are a child of bhaal. And you have no choice but to do precisely what they say. Unless you're metagaming, you do not even know who Seravok is, nor are you given a chance to go after him, until chapter 5. and wanting to Go after Serevok isn't "evil" anyway.

Not true, both BG games allowed you to be Evil and do what you do with Evil intention. Both games didn't deal with saving anyone but yourself or your friends. And you got to decide your motivations for it, not the game. Me and you must have played different versions of Baldurs Gate 1. Because the one I played was most definitely about saving the sword coast, not yourself. Unless you think the Iron shortage was about you - or that Seravok's attempts at starting a war with Amn was really about starting a war with you. As for BG2.... well, that one is a little more interesting because it juggled multiple motivations. It begins with a plot that's very much centered around you, then it shifts to being about saving Imoen, then it becomes about Saving an elven kingdom. then it goes back to being about you. PS: IMO, BG1 didn't allow for very interesting Evil gameplay. The game didn't really take evil seriously. Aside from being able to Flood the cloakwood mines with the slaves still in it (LOL that WAS delicious), the only other evil choices you got were simply being able to murder innocents... which just caused everyone to turn hostile on you, thus breaking your game.

Mages pew-pew- pewing. Triple digit damage numbers floating over the enemy's head And PS: We don't need to go off the trailers. They've released at least a half hour of game play footage. Much of it showcases the combat. It looks no different from DA2, except the animations are more subdued and the combat speed is slowed down a notch.

lol Much appreciated Bruce! And oh how useful your recommendations will be! ME: So.... what did you think of DA:I? Bruce: Omg, omg omg! It's the best RPG ever. Me: tell me about it. Bruce: Vivienne and Sera are absolutely awesome romances. :::::cue 5 or 6 paragraphs of detailed romance analysis::: Me: Er...ok, how's the combat? Bruce: You can KISS Leliana! Me: Exploration and area design....any good? Bruce: Trust me, Stun, you will NOT be disappointed in Cassandra. her romance is so emotionally satisfying. Me: <sigh> Bruce. I don't like Romances in video games Bruce: GET THIS GAME ANYWAY. I guarantee that you will love it. The romances are the best!

Wait what Isn't JRPG combat usually turnbased? <_< I thought Inquisition looks more like every action rpg in existence, except that you can control whole party Yeah, I edited my post. I meant MMOish. Waiting, of course. And depending on how good PoE turns out, I may just skip it outright. After all, There's Witcher 3 on the horizon after PoE.

Yes. It's going to be a far better game than DA2. The *base* mechanics and features that they've already shown alone are enough to raise DA:I above the DA2 benchmark, regardless of how well (or poorly) they're implemented. (talking about the open-ish world, race options, strongholds, crafting). Also, Bioware's best is pretty darn good. IF this is what they're gonna give us with DA:I then look for a game that turns heads and silences the critics once and for all. But that's a HUGE if. And we all know it. No rational gamer can ignore recent history. Bioware's last 3 titles were underwhelming, in both quality and sales. One game? It's a fluke. 2 games? That's cause for concern. But 3 games in a row that fail to live up to a company's standards? This means something is broken. And it's a significant leap of faith to assume that DA:I will just suddenly come out and turn everything around. Faith I don't have...especially after seeing the game play demos and the NPC quotes on the Bioware website...which illustrate the lousy artstyle they've decided to keep. The MMOish combat they've decided to retain, and the lackluster writing they've chosen to highlight. Conclusion: I predict a polished and improved DA2. Which may even be good enough to become Bioware's first 10 Million selling video game. But an Improved DA2 is not something that will get any of MY money and time.

If I can just step in here for a moment... The claim was made that Bethesda games do Roleplaying better than Dragon Age 2. Nothing you have said in your last 3 posts even attempts to dispute this claim. In this particular, comparison-based discussion, dismissing away the fact that Skyrim gives you 10 race choices, will get you nowhere, since Dragon Age 2 DOES NOT GIVE YOU RACE CHOICES AT ALL. And YES, race choices are *fundamental* to fantasy role playing. Some of us derive great purpose in being able to role play different races. DA2 simply does not give you that option. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If I didn't think that comparing Skyrim to the botched abortion called Dragon Age 2 was so insulting, I would spend a few more minutes and give you about 50 more examples of Role playing-things that Skyrim does which DA2 fails miserably at doing.

Everyone reacts to your race in Skyrim. It borders on excessive, actually.

Meaningless crap. :::looks at Volourn's sig:::: Yeah. OK.

Jury's still out on that, actually. He certainly can't figure out how to use quote tags

I've specifically described the types of things to which I was referring. I even suggested I didn't use the best word with "functionality." So, at this point, you're just being an arse. Congratulations. Lephys, "auto attack variations" (AKA. the Awesome button") is neither a functionality improvement nor a technical one. It's an animation change. And lets not sugar coat turds. varied or not, It SUCKED. it was painful to look at. And "aiming"? How can anyone say aiming has been improved for DA2 when the game flat out removed the tactical camera? Really, when playing DA2 could you better aim your AoE's? I couldn't.

Bioware themselves have acknowledged the successful RPG designs and elements in Bethesda games, and have promised to implement them in DA:I. Of course, they're probably just driven by Skyrim's unbelievable financial success, and seek to copy it, rather than any 'artistic vision'. But hey, even a financial motivation completely void of any artistic value is bound to produce something better than DA2.

Hey! Can we employ a little objective honesty here, please? Monsters in DA2 did NOT 'just appear out of thin air'. They painstakingly hopped down from rooftops and cave ceilings. lol Can you offer some kind of exposition of that Enjoy your excruciatingly long wait for a coherent response. As in... forever.

Well, I can't think of any other functionality changes, can you?