Kjaamor

Won't lie, I was hoping more people would've posted their direct opinions on the IE games by now. /Sad Panda

I'm getting into the matter of willfull thread derailment here, but I can't resist chiming in on those two movies a bit more. My two biggest issues with AUJ were its tone and its peril. The tone of AUJ was all over the place. On one hand it was based upon what is a book for young children, and dragged though scenes from the books that were evidently designed for children - The Trolls, Goblin King and, to an extent, Gollum. On the other hand, it was a film sequel to LotR - which contained a fair amount of violence even at the time - so you have all this fairly extensive violence. Especially after LotR, to have that troll scene - immediately identifiable as it may be - you need to either make that a bit more edgy somehow or accept that the decapitations in the surrounding scenes are going to appear a touch incongruous. It doesn't help that the cave Trolls in LotR are frightening, brutal things, so regardless of the canon the Mountain Trolls seasoning dwarves is going to look a bit ridiculous in comparison. My other issue with AUJ was the way the peril in action sequence existed like some bizarre basketball match. Now we're in peril from a thing. Now we're winning against the thing. Now we're in peril against the thing. Now we're winning. There didn't seem to be any change in circumstances within, just completely arbitrary action. There were so many occasions where the group were up against insurmountable odds and solved the problem by deciding that they would be insurmountable instead. By comparison, DoS/The Legolas Show, decides from the off that it is content to pay the merest lip service to the Hobbit and basically acts like it's the fourth LotR film. The light relief is there, but it doesn't water down the threats within. The peril, even if it is frequent, modern (in the negative sense) and at times a bit silly, at least follows a basic cause and effect. The dwarves are about to be hunted and eaten by Beorn until they manage to barricade themselves in his house. The dwarves are struggling against the spiders until elf-face turns up and turns the tide. The dwarves are caught by the elves until the Orcs show up and all hell breaks loose. The film was able to immerse me because the characters behaviour was, to a great extent, consistent with the rules of the world that the film had created.

I wouldn't mind them them dividing up the Simarillion and grinding some films out of it, but I'd be coming at it from camp "Make a good Movie". I watched both Hobbits at the cinema and AUJ was, whilst closer to the novel, a dreadful film, while DoS looks at the canon, takes a **** on it and then walks off and makes what is unquestionably the better movie. I appreciate that others may feel very differently about this. As for LotRO, I would encourage you to stay away from it because it is an MMO rather than because it particularly bastardises the canon. It's set in something of an alternative universe anyway, but it was very nice to explore some of the locations within the world. More often than not, it pulls them off better than the films. Anyway, something of an aside to the on-topic discussion, so I'll leave it there.

Fair shout, PJ. I agree on the Galadriel and Arwen beauty side of things, but then again when your character is written in as being exquisitely beautiful to the point of being almost beyond compare, then your casting is going to be a bit tricky. I would agree that both Haldir and Arwen were played by actors who were quite heavily set. To me it seemed strange that he chose someone as relatively heavily set as Liv Tyler for Arwen, when someone more Elfin, like Winoa Ryder or even Miranda Otto, might have been a better choice. The heavily set Elves in LotR meet their nemeses in The Hobbit, of course, with some of the skinniest and undwarf-like dwarves I have ever clapped eyes upon. My understanding of Tolkein canon is likely to be forever battered beyond repair through the films, to a lesser degree, and hammering the **** out of Lord of the Rings online. The game hammers home the tragedy of the Elves, although whether by design or accident it hammers home that the Elves are more obsessed with moping about their beautifully tragic fate than actually bothering to address it. "My heart cannot sing today..." "The sorrows of the Eldar are undying..." Oh, for the Gods' sake just stop whinging and do something about it! I'm doubtless missing a crucial point about the Elves here, but it seemed to me that most of their problems could've been solved with a little less whining and a bit more breeding. But that's the impression that was offered to me. As an individual, an Elf is magnificent and far more powerful than their Human, Dwarf or Hobbit counterparts. As a race, they've managed to become so much less than the sum of their parts that they're prepared to watch their own race fall whilst doing nothing about it. Again, disclaimer; may have misread inaccurate information and arrived at an inappropriate conclusion.

In terms of the npcs we presently see to be available, I shall not close or open any doors fully until I have met them and understand a bit about them. That said... Aloth's chances look good. I generally run a pro-elf line in my fantasy and I like to have at least one classic wizard at my disposal. Cadegund, as both a priest and a female, will be pretty nailed on and will have to do something fairly spectacular to fall foul of my party selection. Eder's chances look good, too. I need some front-line fighters, rogue or no, and he appears otherwise inoffensive for the time being. Forton is screwed. Even if I was willing to open my ranks to a Monk, something I haven't done since I kicked my Monk midway through my first playthrough of IWD, he is excluded on my crucial party mandate that all within have fabulous hair. Similarly, Pallegina has feathers coming out her skin which I would put in the cabinet drawer marked "Absolutely revolting". I'm also uncertain if I'm ready for a party member whose name looks like it rhymes with vagina. Sagani is a ranger, a female, and - even if Boreal Dwarves are wildly different from their Tolkein cousins - a familiar race, can be optimistic about her chances too. Unfortunately, the merest scan at my projected party would suggest that I have probably dispensed with the two party members least likely to kick up a fuss. Bickering is coming, etc. If the other npcs don't make it in, that leaves me with: Rogue, Priest, Wizard, Ranger and two slots. Probably fill them with an adventurer's hall Fighter (Tank), and myself playing my natural role as whatever class has the best dual-wield melee sustained dps.

Out of interest, can you pin down specific pieces of criticism of Peter Jackson's elves, PJ? Obviously HD was an odd interpretation and if memory serves Haldir lost a lot of credit for things to Arwen in the movies, but I can't recall feeling particularly grated by the vast majority of the elves. What would you have done differently?

Kjaamor says all other classes are utterly pointless by the end of the game. That means, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, etc are utterly pointless. I don't know how someone could come to that conclusion when those classes are quite powerful by the end of the game. eg. Sarevok, Minsc, Keldorn, etc That was an example illustrating what an Exponential wizard would be like to Lephys, as an exercise in mathematics and definitions of Quadratic and Exponential. I think something was lost in translation if you've been led to think otherwise.

Gromnir receives congratulations from Kjaamor. Kjaamor politely points out, however, that for all Gromnir's shoulder movements, Gromnir's assertion that a Quadratic equation results in a Parabolic graph was never in question. The "Quadratic party" reference does, however deserve clarification, because I don't think anyone should be expected to understand where that came from. I mentioned in another recent thread that my current BG playthrough features 5 mages/multiclass mages and one Cleric. Hence my party is Quadratic purely by virtue of the fact that it has five Quadratic members. If I could edit that out, I would, because that reads poorly and I can understand the confusion. Its inclusion without clarification represents an error on my part, unfortunately.

I know we've established that the term "Quadratic Wizard" reflects a popular culture term, but out of interest what is your point? 1) is tech not accurate. graph the following: q(x) = (x - 4)2 + 7 that being said, the somewhat inaccurate labeled trope were unknown to us. 2) you used for so many different things that nobody could know how you meant to use it. good v. evil? well, you asked. HA! Good Fun! I ask honestly out as someone without a background in mathematics. Is the wizard's graph not parabolic? As for the other thing, I think you're clutching at straws slightly to say I used it for "so many different things" but I will freely concede that its use in the Good versus Evil section was wholly inaccurate and in that instance it is fair to say that linear is more accurate. In my defence, I was using it to illustrate a comparitive piece between something I feel gets relatively little press yet has a greater impact (The Quadratic wizard problem compared to the "Quadratic" morality issue BG2 has), and that the benefits from being "Good" come twofold (Immediate quest rewards of exp and items and cheaper shopping as a result of reputation).

I know we've established that the term "Quadratic Wizard" reflects a popular culture term, but out of interest what is your point?

Indeed, and so it is. I was simply using what I believed was the identified term for the subject. In the interests of pedantry, it is fair to say that "exponential", in its literal sense, is less accurate than "Quadratic". The wizard's power can be said, broadly speaking, to be squared (Not only does he gain spells with each level, but many previous spells become more powerful BECAUSE of his level. E.g. Magic Missile). The wizard's growth of power is not proportional to his current amount of power. To return to the example in the original post (I know you love examples and similes, Lephys), The comparitive Exponential Wizard (to the Quadratic Wizard and Linear Fighter) spends almost the entire game being weaker than the fighter and the Quadratic Wizard, but at the end becomes so vastly powerful as to render the other classes utterly pointless. Generally speaking, when people use "Exponential" in everyday life, it is almost always used inaccurately and more often than not "Quadratic" would actually be more accurate. *blushes*

Well, lets remember that Chapter 5 is also a major Hub. You're in the Underdark. It's massive. There are dungeons within dungeons. There's an open area, And a town, and a little village, and a bajillion side quests that will take you in and out of all of these places for hours and hours and hours. And then there's chapter 6, where you return to the world map. (just like chapter 2, 3) So lets recap: The, open, non-linear chapters in BG2 are: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and chapter 6. That's practically the whole game. What's the gripe again? Side note: We see a lot of people complaining about how BG2 is starts off all open and free and then pushes you into a linear main quest for the second half of the game....almost as if they dropped the ball or something. And then, we see these same people complaining about how illogical the main quest is (you gotta rescue Imoen. It's Urgent! But....But.... Lets do Athkatla first, and get our stronghold, and save trademeet, and explore the Umar hills. And Kill Fiirkrag. Then lets go after Imoen (hopefully she's not dead yet!) Which I find bizarre. People, BG2 is an RPG, remember? It's supposed to be up to YOU to act on this Urgency or not (depending on your motivations). And, interestingly enough, the entire game's progression and pacing begins making SO much more sense if you DO role play the game. Here, next time you play Bg2 try this: 1) Raise 15,000gp as fast as you can. As if it's an emergency. You can do this in the Copper Coronet alone (ie. without even leaving the slums) 2) Do Lindvail's (or Bodhi's) quests 3) Go to spellhold and rescue imoen. 4) do chapter 5 5) Take your time and Explore the world in chapter 6. 6) Take care of Irenicus. ^If you do that, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with the narrative structure at all, or the quest volume pacing (or whatever Josh's strange gripes are) Um, during Chapter 6 there is more urgency than in Chapter 3 -- you and Imoen have both lost your souls and the game tells you that this will kill you "soon" and Iranacus and Bodhi are currently attempting to commit diecide and ascend to godhood themselves. But other than that, no reason not to take your time... To be fair, Stun missed chapter 6 because he had passive-aggression class that day.

I agree that PS:T would've been better with no character creation at all, although personally I would've gone further and lost the D&D combat statistics system entirely. As I say, though, I'm not sure PS:T really warrants its combat at all. There's a lot of dislike for Quadratic mages here, so I like the solution of similar power curves but powerful in different areas. Personal preference for that is to make it rewarding for maintaining a consistent party, so you are forced to have a balanced lot rather than just calling in the right folks for the job. Ymmv, of course. To be fair, the thread is more about current experiences from replaying the IE games at the moment, which I know a few of us are doing. Obviously the content contains general suggestions, but thats, well, most of the threads in these forums. I think that people like yourself who like to limit their save/reloads are as much a reason to use save/reload systems as people like me who use them almost limitlessly. On level scaling: I meant that in terms of simplifying it into a binary issue, which it was for me previously (and still is for many others here). If the question is "Can level-scaling be used appropriately and make an rpg better?" Then my previous answer was "No." Now it is "Yes." That's a complete turn around.

Another vote for not being able to change the difficulty once you've started. Personally, apart from blatantly masochistic things like Trial of Iron, I don't think RPGs should even have difficulty setting. I'd like Toggles on the coats of my characters, so they don't catch a cold.

So I've recently been playing Vanilla BG2, and not all that long ago played PS:T, and there are a couple of experiences within that I'd like to share, because I think they embody what for me are lessons on the things that the IE games did right and did wrong. If anyone has recently played (say, last twelve months) any of the IE games I'd appreciate your input too. I'm going to respect the fact that some people haven't played these games yet and keep this spoiler free as much as possible. I would appreciate it if people would also keep their posts spoiler free. Having gotten halfway through reading this I'm going to pop a disclaimer here to say that the fanboi-ism is rampant within. Baldur's Gate II 1. Save scumming The first and most obvious thing from my recent BG2 playthrough is that I am saving and reloading a lot. This, for me, is of crucial importance to PoE because that saving and reloading is absolutely fine. An encounter opens before me, I save the game, and then I approach it in a certain way and either fail and reload or move on. At no point has saving and reloading as a result of combat become irritating and it feels more like the core of the gameplay; the equivilant of levels in the Super Mario sense. There are often references on these forums to trying to eliminate save and reload, but I think it is actually one of the most defining elements of the IE games, and actually what makes them pleasurable for those playing in anything less than hardcore mode. I applaud those who will undertake the Trial of Iron, and I am glad for its inclusion, but for the standard playthrough save and reload is no bad thing, and embodies the challenge that the IE games had, and more modern games like DA sorely lack. 2. Save scumming because npc is too busy to talk right now ...apart from this, which is obviously infuriating. I don't know if there's a lesson in that, though. 3. Quadratic Mages A well-equipped level 6 Fighter is more powerful than a level 6 Mage. A level 16 Mage is more powerful than a well-equipped level 16 Fighter. Again, this is fine, because we're playing a party-based game. It does not mean that I need to stop using fighters, but it does mean that the fighters' role in the group changes. It also provides variation in excitement on levelling up: I'm more excited when Nalia levels up than when Viconia does, because there are likely to be more toys at her disposal. Somewhat strangely, this doesn't appear to be a zero score game, because I'm still excited when Viconia levels up. I know that by now the collection of us who shift uncomfortably when Josh mentions balance or 4E is fairly substantial, but again, for me the recent playthrough only supports this. 4. Level scaling BG2 level scales with the best of them and, as I mentioned in the thread dedicated to it, it has completely turned around my opinion of level scaling. Every dungeon I have run has had challenging fights, but of the optional dungeons the ones I have run last have taken less time than the ones I ran first (although to be fair this is further exacerbated by my Quadratic party). Great. 5. Quest Hubs So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game. On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps. 6. Evil is stupid The quadratic problem with BG2 is not Mages, but the forces of good. The good option will, time and time again, grant you the better item and more experience. It will, less frequently, grant slightly less gold, but good characters can shop for cheaper and by the time you leave Athkatla you are already so flush for gold that you could probably just pay the Gods themselves to deal with Irenicus. Evil loses you items, experience, and if you don't change your tune quickly will make shopping an impossibility. So even if you mean to play as evil, the chances are you'll be off to donate to Umberlee to make you less evil. I believe this fits under the tag of ludo-narrative dissonance. The dialogue and narrative can be harping on about your protaganist's sacrifices for good, but the reality is you have to "sacrifice" a whole lot of nothing just to get the best items. 7. Romance It isn't as good as I remembered. 8. The writing generally ...and this is probably why. I love BG2, but by the Gods the writing within is cheesy. It isn't spoiling my enjoyment of the game, but it is noticeable. It goes hand in hand with the "Evil is stupid" but my character feels more likely Prince ****ing Charming than a great warrior. But again, I stress that good writing does not necessitate inherent grittiness. The issue is not that there is an option to be good and leave the world a better place than you found it, it's that I am consistently able to sort out and fix almost every problem in any area without mishap and be the world's most sanctimonius **** about it. It's been a while since I played Fallout 2, but I recall being able to be a bit of a nob and still be good, and also face up to some tasks where I wasn't left as the hero of the land. I stress again, however, that it isn't spoiling my enjoyment nearly so much as other rpgs where everything is so edgy such grittiness. Planescape: Torment So, I played Planescape again at the tail-end of last year, which makes it rather less fresh in my mind than BG2. For that reason, I'm going to keep things short on Planescape. The other reason I'm keeping it short is because, as I have said before, I don't like Planescape nearly as much as I like either of the BG games, and this list instead focuses on the negatives. 1. Character Creation Would you like to be a Mage, or would you like to lose half the games' content? It may not be as absolute as that, but it sure feels that way. I think part of the problem here is because Planescape sits uncomfortably between Fallout and Baldur's Gate. You can almost feel it squirming under a D&D ruleset whilst dreaming of SPECIAL. For all I like sacrifice in character creation I wonder if tying dialogue options to class is a good idea - particularly if the dialogue class is perfectly competitive on a combat level as well. 2. The aesthetic of the interface My ****ing eyes. 3. The narrative It's no secret, it's good. As to the "why", for me I think it is because, whilst retaining pcrpg control over the Nameless One's personality, he is known to the world. The story evolves around his person rather than him moving through it. I think that's more important than the word count. I get the impression that PoE is going down a more IWD "stranger in a strange land" approach. 4. The combat The combat in Planescape feels contrary to its nature; like something that happens when either you've done something wrong or the publishers became concerned that no-one would buy it without an arbitrary amount of action. The combat itself feels limited. Even as a mage, my tactics in fights are minimal and repetitive. To say that he is a Gith I have used Dak'kon's spell-set so sparingly as to wish he was just a straight-up fighter. 5. NPCs are, predominantly, neutral I assume this remains the case until something changes it. Assumption, because, of course, I have again failed to finish PS:T, but more on that later. I like neutrality, combined with the story arc. I like the idea that the characters may or may not have my best interests at heart. I'm a sucker for characters who arc not by virtue of the changes that happen to them, but my understanding of their depths. PS:T does that well, for the most part. 6. The Modron Cube (contains mild spoilers) The Modron Cube is the big issue with PS:T, and I now realise that it is the part where I stop playing every time. The Modron Cube is, essentially, a randomly generated repetitive optional dungeon that you can explore at what I assume is somewhere around the midpoint of the game. At this point my finances were relatively low and my shopping list was relatively high, but the Modron cube allows and infinite chain of wealth and experience for those willing to grind its depths. And, given that the game encourages you do so, grind I did. And grind, and grind, and grind, and forget about the rest of the game, and stop playing. PS:T's multitude of fanbois will suggest that it is not PS:T's fault that I engage in degenerative gameplay. I'd argue that the combination of an expensive shopping list and one manner of affording it all means that it is. If I do not grind, I cannot afford the tools that will allow me to best experience PS:T. I am punished for not grinding. And even by grinding standards the Modron Cube is an exasperatingly bland and boring experience. I'm delighted to hear that PoE is going VtM:B and not granting combat experience. I also hope that if there are going to be expensive shopping lists within, then PoE will not make it practical and worthwhile to endlessly grind enemies for gold either. I know that many RPGs, including BG2, use the old "Party of Millionaires" trick, but I think that is endlessly preferable to The Elder Scrolls "Spoon Scavinger". ... ...bravo if you read all that.

Such inflexibility is rather amusing, given how much Josh has harped on about why 3.5 was better than 2 for the flexibility of classes. Personally, I could care less because I rather like inflexibility in class design - if you're not going to be inflexible why bother with classes at all? I'm also a massive fan of 2nd edition because of "Priests use blunt weapons because", particularly in the first BG where decent blunt weapons are in a minority.

Gratz.

I like this. I've had an eye on making my main a priest, and the notion that "Reinforcing their deity's or order's preferred behavior will gradually increase their power" in any way sounds wonderful.

Disgusting.

Baldur's Gate II used this sparingly in order to create a narrative. It also used the system primarily to define events where a lack of player agency in the dialogue made sense (i.e. Irenicus-led dreams, Irenicus and Imoen alone, etc). Control over the dialogue is a key feature to the IE games, and when you ask people here which IE game they think had the best dialogue/writing then they almost inevitably answer 'PS:T' (As an aside, I maintain that Fallout 2, although not an IE game, was far better in this regard, but w/e). People are looking for more control of the dialogue, and less automation. As I say, the format you describe is more suited to interactive fiction than western rpgs. Again, we can wait and see what people say, but I suspect that the majority of people - and unquestionably the vocal majority of people - would prefer something that was closer to the IE way of doing things.

The jrpg model mentioned above, for all I love it and it is dear to my heart, generally serves better for interactive novels than western rpgs. More to the point, I don't think that PoE could use such a system and maintain that it is keeping the infinity engine feel. It's all well and good taking mechanics that followed the infinity engine games (Or is it? The debate continues), but to take mechanics that precede it is likely to raise more than a few grumbles. Personally, I'd be happy with it, but I feel certain I'd be in the minority.

Never heard of that term before, Primejunta, but what an excellent one it is. For all I'm concerned about having "all builds viable" as a goal, I am at least encouraged by the character stats not instantly encouraging min-maxing; a flaw all the IE games had in common. Perhaps it's because I grew up on SPECIAL, but I always found it deeply grating that my intelligence 3, charisma 3 Barbarian was going around engaging in philosophical debates with wizards. The ever-popular "All or none" morality system is, even outside of KoTOR, absolutely horrible and serves to reduce player agency in the narrative. I'm not certain that KoTOR 2 doesn't encourage it to enhance the antagonising qualities of Kreia, however. It's difficult to say. For all the issues that arise from it being incomplete KoTOR 2 has another issue that arises from the inconsistency between what the designers were trying to do and the first game. I know that lots of people love it, and where more than on an Obsidian forum, but in my opinion the first game is superior on almost all levels. One of these is that you can be "grey" in the story whilst being "light" in the statistics screen (evidenced by my initial playthrough, where Kjaamor the peerless Jedi guardian saved the universe in order to nob Bastila).

suiafhpawugfe48a gwmvo8atwgbbmasa8gnwgj7atq22npbspaguiw3rv

The 3D Fallouts I played in first person. Dragon Age takes its camera mechanic absolutely everything from MMOs. It isn't tactically useful (although it doesn't need to be - this being Dragon Age), but it is at least consistent and intuitive. NWN2's camera is the most horrible and counter-intuitive camera I have ever worked with. I've started NWN2 OC on several occasions, and as soon as I leave the opening house I groan as I find out the camera is somehow even worse than I remember. Obviously I head to options to adjust it and discover that there are several useless options for the camera, none of which help to solve the root issues it has. I try and take comfort in the fact that I will eventually get used to it, but even after I've made it to Neverwinter it's still as irritating as ever. I say all of this with conviction, because it is less than a year since I last ditched the game to play something that didn't feel like managing a remote-controlled rollerskater in a hall of mirrors. For all I disagree with many of PoE's design choices, the fact that it will have a fixed camera is, to my mind, the most important thing it can possibly carry from the IE games.

NWN, and particularly NWN2, should be recognised for featuring the best reoccurring villain of all time - a constant thorn in your side, absolutely merciless, thrives on the misery of others and always there to sabotage even the smallest encounter. I speak, of course, of the ****ing camera.