archangel979

What does friendly fire have to do with this convo now? :confused:

Because Sensuki had taught me IE combat with IWD, and I realized I had been doing it wrong. So I figured maybe I was mistaken about BG2 too, and wanted to give it a fresh try. Edit: The writing I was pretty sure about and didn't expect my opinion to change on that. However I thought that my views on the hard counters and save-or-die was due just to me playing it badly. Now I know that that's not the case. Obviously I'm not as good as you guys who have played it through a dozen times or more, but I'm no long floundering, and I am finding solutions to the fights rather than cheesing them. And it still requires metagame knowledge and trial-and-error. Unlike almost all of IWD, I may add. It is, of course, gratifying -- at a certain level -- to find that I was right all along. However, I would have preferred to be wrong, and not have spent a quite a lot of time on something I ultimately did not enjoy. Only thing wrong here is people like you steering development of PoE which is not supposed to be a successor to games you like but IE games which it seems are not your favorite. If I had control over the forums, I would present a questioner to anyone posting here with 40 questions about things from IE games and you needed to be correct in at least 90% of them. If you would ever be in the opportunity to become the leader of a totalitarian regime, you'd be great at it. Tnx. That is a great compliment coming from you

You were saying that I didn't like IE games. That's not true, I liked IWD and PS:T a lot. I also liked some things about BG1 and BG2, even if in BG1 it was about fifty-fifty between the positives and the negatives, and BG2 about 30-70 positives-negatives. Namely, I liked the exploration of BG1, and I like the sheer breadth of stuff in BG2. (I also found it a good deal more engaging than BG1, generally speaking.) I think I would like BG2 a great deal if only the Athkatla pacing was changed to be more like BG1, the quests were spread out so that the lower-level ones were easier to discover than the higher-level ones, and you could not unknowingly take on timed content while another timer was running. I do like it that it's possible to go straight to a higher-level quest, but that's a decision I want to make knowingly. I'm sure it would be entirely feasible to mod that BTW. With those adjustments, I could put up with the other irritations, I'm pretty sure. IWD has more simple combat overall. It does not let players approach combat in different ways, often creates difficulty through sheer numbers and not smarter enemies. Its spellcasters are a non-challenge most of the time. In PnP when players fight enemy spellcasters they will be more like in Bg2 95% of the time with those 5% them being surprise for whatever reason and not having Teleport ready. IWD in comparison is basically D&D Diablo. PoE was never meant to replicate even a part of PST. All they can get from PST is more mature writing and more complex companions. The rest is BG. BG is center and core of PoE.

It was more about arguing about 5% of BG2. Comparing what he is playing with PoE beta is unfair to both Bg2 and release version of PoE.

What, IWD and PS:T aren't IE games now? Where in my mentioning IE games did I say IWD and PST are not IE games? But PoE is not IWD or PST, it will be all 3 but mostly BG games. For pure PST experience will we get a better game.

From SRD for 3.5: "Code of Conduct A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

I don't think Engagement alone will force me to mod the game before playing it but there are a lot of little things. If game is not improved a lot by release I doubt I will even play it for months until either OE or modders fix it. Which is not a big problem as I will probably be playing rebalanced Wasteland 2. Also rebalanced Divinity: Original Sin is on the way. PoE can wait for summer or so. I just don't plan to credit OE for making a game others need to fix afterwards. To be fair, lots of things in PoE are improvements on IE formula (like resting limits, and more interesting abilities for melee) but overall package seems to be not there yet. And it makes me sad when modders need to create things like movable UI when players have been screaming for a way to move combat log from right side of the screen since summer. I don't know if OE don't have enough manpower, or bad team managers, or just don't understand anything but it does not look good for now. I hope they prove me wrong. I have been waiting too long for a game of BG1/BG2 quality and PoE is not there yet.

Because Sensuki had taught me IE combat with IWD, and I realized I had been doing it wrong. So I figured maybe I was mistaken about BG2 too, and wanted to give it a fresh try. Edit: The writing I was pretty sure about and didn't expect my opinion to change on that. However I thought that my views on the hard counters and save-or-die was due just to me playing it badly. Now I know that that's not the case. Obviously I'm not as good as you guys who have played it through a dozen times or more, but I'm no long floundering, and I am finding solutions to the fights rather than cheesing them. And it still requires metagame knowledge and trial-and-error. Unlike almost all of IWD, I may add. It is, of course, gratifying -- at a certain level -- to find that I was right all along. However, I would have preferred to be wrong, and not have spent a quite a lot of time on something I ultimately did not enjoy. Only thing wrong here is people like you steering development of PoE which is not supposed to be a successor to games you like but IE games which it seems are not your favorite. If I had control over the forums, I would present a questioner to anyone posting here with 40 questions about things from IE games and you needed to be correct in at least 90% of them.

Quote one. I only have access to my 3.5 rulebooks, and the description there certainly said nothing of the kind. I didn't want to go into specifics because I didn't know which version you used but in 3.5e it is directly said paladin code forbids lying and falsehood. That includes infiltrating Thief Guilds unless you can go through it by saying I refuse to answer or get into a fringe case on occasion. But going fully undercover is does not work in combination with Paladin Code. I earlier editions everything was even more strict. You allowing paladins in your group leeway does not mean much, a D&D computer game is not your sessions and will not create quests for paladins pretending they are Thiefs.

Why? Says who? Paladin descriptions from multiple rulebooks.

Poor sod, still don't see what's going on here... there there, I wont make fun of your lack of making sense. Or understanding me apparently. Probably related. Glad to hear that... even if those devs may still be responsable for Dragon Age 2. Also explains why TOR threats it's core material like crap. KOTOR is 10 years! Yeah, give us money, we don't care about it... psssh. Most I hear from Fallout 4 is that it will be Bethesda again; so expect to downgrade your expectations... ok I guess you are on a different planet because I don't have a clue how does this relate to OE games not being worth making spiritual successors.

I certainly permitted paladins in my campaigns to lie, if pursuing Lawful Good goals. There is big difference between telling the evil necromancer a wrong location of the innocents he wants to kill and going all in and pretending you are a rogue. Paladins don't do that. They go in and arrest anyone that does not fight back. They kill the rest.

I agree with this. I am just in BG as part of my Bg1ee play and I find it having more quests than Athkatla but spread out better.

I'm an Inquisitor. Ever heard of undercover cops? What if my intention was to investigate both groups in order to find out enough about them to bring them both down?What are you talking about? You hunt down evil spellcasters in addition to standard palading things.Infiltrating Thief guilds is not a job for a guy that cannot lie. Didn't you say you played PnP? Maybe you should read what Inquisitors do. They are not police or detectives and certainly not undercover agents. That is what Harpers do.

*cough* The Old Republic *cough*Of course BioWare screwed it up bigtime, which is funny since they made KOTOR1. But hey, continue on not having a point... Still pretending you don't understand or have you graduated to not understanding?

Yes, it is a sidequest. A badly-designed, linear sidequest, omitting many easy possibilities for alternative solutions, and offering no options for playing different alignments. What should have been possible? Talk with the wizard. Charm the wizard. Stage the wizard's death. Tell the wizard Mae'varis is after his blood and have him take him out. And so on and so forth. Both original Fallouts and FO:NV had similar setups, and they always took care to cover at least most of the things a player was likely to think of. Bad quest. Again: if the best option is not to take or complete a quest, that is indicative of shoddy design. No it is not. You took a quest for Thief guild as a paladin. A quest that was not even about greater good. That should have been instant loss of paladinhood there in PnP. The game is nice and didn't do that. After that, it does not need to pander to Paladins with identity crisis. If you don't want to do it, walk away. I done that plenty of times even in PnP while not playing as restricted classes as paladins, **** money and XP.

Continuing on on this way of thinking Baldur's Gate II must have STUNK BAD. Otherwise there would be a BG3 right? As for the other mentioned stuff long looooooong ago; * Divinity:Original Sin gave me a good taste, and it was free. Here it's doubling the original game. Then I rather have goodies than the beta to work for them. Call me odd... * Yes, I buy games in bargain, Steam sales etc. The amount paid for this game is excessive for my count. Sorry, not all of us can just pluck up every game they want at release. Fortunately sales and bundles leave me with plenty of games to play, and I get all games 'complete' with all DLC rather than piece-meal like people from the start. Not that bad a deal if you ask me. * Not that anyone cares but... disliked Dungeon Siege III (while liking the first 2), rather meh about Fallout: New Vegas, South Park was fun for what it was and I really loved Alpha Protocol. I probably don't need to mentioned KOTOR2. NWN2 I have on Steam and GOG (heh) but still haven't played on either... I know; shame on me... I know pretending like you don't understand my sentence is easier than admitting the truth - nobody cares to make spiritual successors for Obsidian cRPGs but only the games before they were Obsidian (IE games). The success of EE editions is another proof of this.

You still haven't explained what is supposed to be so groundbreaking about Wasteland 2. If 'FNV is nowhere near WL2', it shouldn't be difficult to. And the engine Wasteland 2 runs on is much worse than the Gamebryo engine. Wasteland 2's gameplay also has lots of issues - no formations, no options in combat besides attacking, skill use is clunky and slow. Didn't we off topic enough? I am sure there are better topic to continue these pointless discussions about personal taste.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Opinions differ. And opinions of many shot down both those games. As for WL2 vs FNV, that is also your opinion vs mine. FNV is nowhere near WL2. At least WL2 engine and gameplay is such I could play it for more than 12h to see the content. FNV tries it best to force you to not play it.

BG2EE didn't touch on encounter spawning system. They added BG2 system into BG1EE.

I wouldn't judge "best group of developers" based on their latest two games. I haven't played Larian Studios Divinity: Original Sin yet, but most everything before have been meh at best, and while InXile's Wasteland 2 is really great, their earlier titles were.. well, I understand that they had to take jobs to survive, but let's just say that there's not much to go on. Meanwhile, Obsidian's chief issue throughout the years seem to always have been an inability to completely finish what they set out to finish, and working on other people's IP:s. But the actual stuff that they actually did they did really well. That is the only way to judge developers, on their latest work. Bioware is prime example how past greatness means ****. InXile made both awesome WL2 and so far TToN seems to be progressing well. Larian made D:OS that is a surprise of the year and plans to continue expanding it and making new games in that awesome engine. Obsidian made Dungeon Siege 3 and Alpha Protocol. They also made South Park which I didn't play as I am not a huge fan of that combat or the show. And they made FNV recently which I am sure fine to fans of Betsheda engines, it is much worse than F1 and F2.

There is no shame in returning later. Maybe this quest is just not for the power level of your party. Also there is no shame in returning to Inn to change spells and tactics. Players in PnP would do the same after scouting Beholders.

That is not Kangaxx, that is just a Lich. There are a couple of them in BG2 and they are all nasty. Kangaxx is 2x harder unless you cheese. BTW, get Neera (new NPC in BG2EE) and do her quest so you can get to do one of the most challenging and interesting battles yet. Anyone that ****s on new content added in BG2EE has not played this part.

In my book InXile is currently best group of developers out there trailed very closely by Larian Studios. Obsidian still has a lot to prove.

I have been playing a lot of cRPG and aRPGs. In any of them, if the game allowed players to stack critical chance and/or critical damage, those builds were always dominant and optimal and it always killed the fun of the building different characters. IE games were cool because you could only minimally control critical chance and you could not control critical damage. One of the games where you could make different characters without one option being obviously dominant (well except for Kensai/Mages :D but even they were not about critical hits ). In Both NWN games the most effective characters were critical hits based.