Captain Shrek

Don't invest in traps. Pretty effing useless. use priest seals instead.

Play NWN2 mods or MoTB or SoZ. Also, they fixed camera issues in updates. There is a strategic camera mode.

Can you highlight what was 'good design' in BG exactly?

Well, the entire point of attributes is that they should make : a) RP sense and b) have a significant impact on gameplay. PoE attributes do not. It is much harder to tell difference between Mig 10 and 16, while that difference is HUGE in say, D&D. Not saying D&D is perfect. But rather what is right about it when compared to here.

The issue with Obsidian producing buggy games is overhyped anyway. Their games are as buggy as anyone else's. In fact obsidian produced some of my favorite games ever, such as AP, F:NV, MoTB and NWN2 in general for its mods. It really baffles the mind that these other games did not receive acclaim.

It can put a constraint on the scope of the game though. Which is what I said. BG2, for example, has the benefit of an engine, systems and assets made for it (through the production of BG1) that BG1 didn't. Therefore time that was eaten by working on the engine or working on assets isn't a factor for BG2 like it was for BG1, that development time can be spent elsewhere. PoE did have Obs working on a new engine and having to create all their assets and develop their systems. Now I'm not saying PoE and BG2 aren't a fair comparison (IMO its all fair game), all I'm saying is that I can buy an argument that if you want to look at what's potential with development time, a first game might make more sense compared to another first game. BG2, for example, has the benefit of an engine, systems and assets made for it (through the production of BG1) that BG1 didn't. Therefore time that was eaten by working on the engine or working on assets isn't a factor for BG2 like it was for BG1, that development time can be spent elsewhere. PoE did have Obs working on a new engine and having to create all their assets and develop their systems. Now I'm not saying PoE and BG2 aren't a fair comparison (IMO its all fair game), all I'm saying is that I can buy an argument that if you want to look at what's potential with development time, a first game might make more sense compared to another first game. The engine is not made by obsidian. In fact, this particular engine (unity) is well known for assets that come with it. I played BG/2 quite late (when I was 20's. So I had none of this nostalgia clouding my judgment .

Ohtheirony.jpeg

Not just that. Some of them have explicitly claimed to harken back to IE games.

Act 1 is easy to get past. Its act 2 you gotta contend against. Ohmanohmanohman. Those copy pasted encounters suck the life outta me, Act1 has the advantage of being something new and exciting, despite also having copy pasted stuff all over the place.

No. Especially if comparison with recent games such as DAO, NWN2, Blackguards, DOS etc makes much more sense.

I think you have not thought enough about this. If you are asking "What are the game made EXACTLY In 1998 which we take for context?" then it is an arbitrary judgment. AN year is not a metric of a formal comparison for contexts. The point in that PST, a game considered by many to be one of the best story tellings in RPGs was made in close vicinity of BG. That fact alone is sufficient to say that people in the relatively similar contexts of storytelling of BG could think about superior stories. Which is all that needs to be said. Same for DX. DX was being made before BG was released. So people in that time could and did come up with better stories. Is that not what context means? All this shows is that BG, which in my opinion had a bad plot and story telling can not be considered as a standard of comparison for storytelling in general. Okay, I understand what you're saying. However, you could argue that the first game in a new series (BG) is a more apt comparison to a first game in a new series (PoE) than the second game (BG2) to the first (PoE). Just because there are other comparisons that can be made doesn't make any one more/less valid than the other. I like this spirit of discussion. But I must disagree. It has nothing to do with being the first game of a series. Being so does not put constraints on quality. In that regard (being first of a series) claims about scope and breadth are admissible but not the quality of content.

No offence taken. As I pointed out earlier, what I/you/anyone feels of BG is secondary to the central point: The comparison between BG and POE is unfair.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Who are "they"? What kind of context are you building your comparison with? Game maker (Black Isle and Ion Storm are not Obsidian Entertainement)? Age (2007 is 8 years from PoE and MotB and Deus Ex is 2 years later than BG)? Gamestyle (Deus Ex and MotB are both 3D action RPG games, First Person and Third Person respectively)? I think you have not thought enough about this. If you are asking "What are the game made EXACTLY In 1998 which we take for context?" then it is an arbitrary judgment. AN year is not a metric of a formal comparison for contexts. The point in that PST, a game considered by many to be one of the best story tellings in RPGs was made in close vicinity of BG. That fact alone is sufficient to say that people in the relatively similar contexts of storytelling of BG could think about superior stories. Which is all that needs to be said. Same for DX. DX was being made before BG was released. So people in that time could and did come up with better stories. Is that not what context means? All this shows is that BG, which in my opinion had a bad plot and story telling can not be considered as a standard of comparison for storytelling in general. Which is part of the point. Why aim for something that is clearly inferior and then celebrate when you beat that mark?

Then you have misunderstood what I wrote. It is not fair in the sense that any claimed 'improvement' over Bg must be seen in the light of 15 years of time spent between them and not as a direct comparison. Whether or not you like BG is again secondary. Also, what exactly did you like in BG other than art/music/spells? What such a comparison implies in the general sense is as follows: Compare the mobile handset in 1998 to a smartphone today. Think about it.

Uh oh. They had PST, Deus EX and MoTB somewhere in the middle. PST fairly closer to BG. What does that say for the context?

What you are saying amounts to "Comparison is subjective". This makes the point of comparison moot. Which I disagree with. 15 years of difference + intermediate game-development/playing experience should mean a lot.

Run naked. Cast Slicken. /thread.

What exactly is the 'relative context of time' here in which PoE is different substantially from BG? I think that the art is comparable, if not slightly better in POE but not better than in IWD1/2. Combat is apparently pretty subjective if you read stuff around here. What else is left? Story? PoE story makes little overall sense to me personally.

as BG was a horrible game in general. What was great about BG was its amazing art + spell FX. The rest was cringeworthy: Story, Chars and combat were awful. BG2 at least improved upon quest density. Also, BG was ~15 years ago. If a game made today is NOT better than BG then what's the point of making it? What made this thread possible? The continuous claims that POE > BG and somehow that being a metric of good games. Discuss your opinions! EDIT: Corrected some typos

Hmm. Maybe time for another review? I have always had a negative opinion of the mechanics. Those for which I had a positive opinion (camping supplies) was made moot by the devs by free inns. How the heck did this happen?

heh

Hi guys. Been away for a while from the forums and the game. But I recently heard that the accuracy was now 'gone'. How can that be? Does this mean that there is no 'miss' now? Wasn't this already the case except on a critical miss? Can someone explain why such a fundamental change has occurred at such a late stage? Will there be enough time now to balance this?

This is a single player game. Leveling the playing field is not required. In fact, it should depend on the kind of encounter you face. Wizard with level 9 spells as you enemy? You best go with a lot of scrolls ready. or get your butt handed to you.

Now you are just talking in circles: Once again, Kiting is NOT a good tactic because of the AI. It is a good tactic because it serves you while harming the opponent. It is a valid play style. As I and many others pointed out earlier, the AI is BAD at responding it, further breaking this style of playing. This does not mean that kiting must be eliminated but rather that AI needs to be fixed. What is with these Bathesda lovers! Soemthing is broken? Remove it!!! It can be fixed damnit!

Well, silly of not, this is a real life tactical move. Most cavalry archers used it to terrifying effect. Also, in the opinion of most tacticians it is hardly silly. In fact, it makes total sense that you stay out of the enemy range and deal damage from afar. The question is really, WHO can pull it off? And finally if you really want to see it as a dedicated play style then the default state of its use must be penalized. Think of it as follows: A Mongol warrior in Genghis Khan's army spent an entire lifetime in the steppes and most of that in horseback. So he puts a HUGE amount of dedication in his skills. That can be translated as buying a talent or two by the PC to achieve the same benefit. Compare this to a European knight; if he tries the same tactic he would fail miserably because of the lack of relevant training. This is what should be the PC like without these talents.