Amentep

I may not have medieval combat experience, but I have had experience casting magic missles, fireballs and horrid wilting. Totally legit.

STUN: I thought Maze and Imprisonment both was end-of-game if the PC got hit. But its been awhile since I played so I'll chalk it up to poor memory. VIEW: there may have been...I just know that it ends up being entirely ineffective to try from my experience (others may have had better luck).

Don't know how I missed this post. Yes. That's it exactly. It's low on those "danger", and "surprise" moments. And the problem is not just story based (companions deserting you, cursed items etc.) The safeness extends to the entire game - it's in the rules, and the mechanics, and the encounters. Where are those "holy sh*t" moments for the first time player? Where is "Oh-God-I'm in trouble" feeling you got when you wandered off too far and suddenly found yourself face to face with a Basilisk that insta-killed you on sight because you weren't expecting it? Where is that "OMG what's happening here!?" feeling when you stumbled on a tomb and suddenly a nasty creature rose from the ground and cast time stop? Where is that moment when you had to go back to the drawing board and try something else because your tried and true set of attacks, that worked on everything else, were suddenly having no effect at all against that enemy. Where is that element of surprise when you're in a battle with a powerful wizard, and you realize you have the upper hand, but then suddenly he casts finger of death, takes out your Cleric, and now the Sh*t is real....suddenly. People here wave this stuff away and argue from the viewpoint of a 10th playthrough when they've sufficiently Memorized every second of the game, and what to do in each instance, thus none of the above occurs. Which is neither fair or valid in this debate. PoE will suffer from the exact same scenario 15 years from now. No I take that back. PoE suffers from this situation already, on a second playthough, due to the fact that everything works on everything and those "holy sh*t" moments were never placed in the game in the first place, because ONE game developer thought that such moments are design mistakes that would only cause people to reload their games. Which for some reason is the Worst Thing Ever! Its an interesting theory you're positing. I'm not sure I agree, entirely, that all instances of insta-kill are fun (I hate, hate, hate, Maze in BG2). However on the other-hand, there's a certain deception in the combat of PoE; other than high-damage creatures its very hard to tell when you're completely outclassed (at least as far as I've gotten). In fact there's only twice I think I got ass-whopped in quick measure that I can think of. Most other times I've lost to superior opponents, there was a point in the fight I thought I had a chance - and I suspect that this has to do with normal distributions of chance. Certainly, if nothing else, hitting the basilisks in BG1 let you know immediately you'd wandered too far if you weren't ready for them. And there's another weird effect, with no resurrection spells combined with a heavy, heavy penalty if you try to leave combat, odds are by the time you realize you're outclassed your only choice is to reload as you have no way to actually escape. As I recall (and its been a decade or so since I played) you could run away from combat in BG1 and go to the temple and resurrect if the character didn't get chunked. Sure you'd be out whatever the dead character was carrying, but you could try and stealth the items back by returning and just trying to grab the items and run away.

So much psychoanalysis of other posters and their motivations...you'd think this was the Sigmund Freud Fan Forum. At least someone could throw the casual reader a bone - maybe something like how Darth Roxor's review is negative because he hasn't achieved self-actualization on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or how Gromnir's posting style reflects a specific archetype from the Jungian Collective Unconscious or that Sensuki's crossposting the review was a Pavlovian response created inadvertently due to repeated exposure to the word 'balance' while communicating with Obsidian during the beta. ...sheesh...

Oh the problem is much sillier than that. The problem is you have two groups who believe that they are so counter to each other that they WON'T have meaningful dialogue about issues that are not mutually exclusive. You could want ethics in journalism AND be for getting the most talented people in game development regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/musical taste/genetic predisposition for family obesity/whatever AND be against harassment/doxxing/death threats of anyone online. There's no way those concepts are mutually exclusive or even vaguely opposed to each other - beyond the obvious which is that the "other side took that one and now we must fight to the death against it".

I'm certainly sure maze got hard countered by something like spell immunity:abjuration. Maze was a Conjuration/Summoning school spell - you could pick it as the school to protect against when you cast Spell Immunity and be immune to its effect. If you knew an opponent had Maze in their repertoire. The "if" there being the bone of contention with save-or-else spells, how do you legitimately know the first time through you'll face that particular spell (IIRC not many in BG2 had access to Maze). Rage was also a counter...for some reason I can't fathom (don't remember it being the case in non-IE D&D but I could be misremembering). Rage granting immunity really only helped if the PC had it, because otherwise Maze had no saving throw and the way BG worked, mazing the PC was a "party wipe" even if you had party members still fighting and even if they had the spell available to free one from the Maze (a peculiarity unique to IE, not part of D&D) In 2nd edition - if memory serves me - Maze only put you out for a certain number of rounds/turns based on your intelligence (as you literally were finding your way out of an extra-dimensional maze). EDIT: Just to make it clear, I hated Maze in the IE games first time through. Sure I reloaded and used the protections once I knew it was there, but having the PC mazed shouldn't cause end-of-game and Spell Immunity Conjuration was fairly useless otherwise (not completely useless, it protected against Melf's Acid Arrows, IIRC).

You mean Save or else. Because Hard counters aren't based on luck. They're the opposite of luck. They're spells that guarantee immunity to the effect that the enemy is trying to afflict you with.I dislike save or else (mazed in Bg2 one too many times, I guess.) That said, hard counters are kind of cheesy. Could probably live with 'more likely that not' counters. Anyhow, agree totally with your early assertion that the intended changes didn't pan out well...

Wasn't really directed at you, more directed at a general perception I get everytime news about some new entertainment (movie, tv show, book, whatever) and there's a rush to declare it sucks...

Hope it turns out okay.

To be fair, bugs are a part of the territory. I haven't played a computer game since the C64 days that didn't have some kind of bugs.

As a side note, deers do have teeth. Bottom front, and molars on the side. Upper is a bony plate, though.

For Reals

Agreed, but I think it's recoverable. It needs to be more of an attack-of-opportunity and not a death-grip. Sadly the review in the OP chooses not to look past faults and posit solutions. I actually like the concept of engagement. The problem - to my mind1 - is that engagement is such a static event (the tank becomes a doorway, blocking off opponents from entering) and carries so many terrible penalties to it. Imagine a swashbuckling film with people dueling back and forth and moving everywhere. They're engaged but they're not immobile. What should happen is that once engaged the engaged parties can Party A and Party B stop and fight; minimal back and forth movement between pair (typically this would be the result of Party A and Party B having targeted each other) Party A continues for destination; Party B maintains engagement and therefore they fight while moving towards Party A's destination. Movement is slowed. (typically this would be the result of Party A having targeted an opponent other than Party B while Party B targeted Party A). Party A could will turn their attention to the third party (assuming they were moving to attack a third party) but get a penalty to defense from Party B's attacks (essentially, they've flanked themselves in the hope to take out a deadly or easily killable opponent). Party A and Party B take attacks of opportunities against themselves as they pass each other to their (both parties targeted other opponents and strike at each other in passing towards their respective destinations) only slowing during their AoOs. Breaking engagement would be possible but would make the disengager go defensive as they extract themselves from combat (and hits against the disengager might be more damaging - if the non-disengager can get past the disengagement defense). Talents/skills could eliminate any penalty. This would allow for an engagement system that restricts dog piling the mage or other range attackers provided someone tried to engage those parties directly before they completed the dog pile. I'd add penalties for casting/ranged attacks while moving (as this engagement system would have to allow attacks and movement at the same time), thus kiting could be possible, but with severe penalties if the distance attacker has to become mobile. 1Not the mind of a programmer, designer or otherwise talented gaming individual

As long as it was fun to play...sure.

Or you could learn to accept railroading and not care that your initial mental character might not have chosen to follow that particular path and enjoy the game for what it is! Nah, its a chance to to spread the word - "Here, accept this flower and have you heard the good works of the Grand Druid?" Besides, you could be playing a 2e Arctic Druid and not give a **** abou the trees...

Could have been interesting too if it was something that would always drop the character, but it wasn't an all or nothing affair (say a fast drain on endurance over a time period - would lead to you making a choice of raising a tank who might be up longer or someone else who may have a spell or talent but might not last long enough to do it or something).

People don't make really good bacon like pigs. ...or so I hear...

Seems like the idea was to give you a chance to revive a character and have them do a final shot at the enemy. Which gives me the mental image of your paladin in the corner, encouraging the battered boxer to "get back in there and give it all you got!" for some reason.

Okay. Not sure what it means, but its sunk as far as it'll go. You could, legitimately, compare PoE with any game (BG:EE too). Regardless of age. Its all fair as long as you can reason well and get across your meaning and intent. I'll conceed both were published recently. I'd argue that a remake of a decades old game being published now and a newly created game aren't entirely the same thing despite publishing dates, but it doesn't change the basic truth to what you say. They were both "made" recently. Well yeah no one forced Obs to create their own IP. Its just they didn't have anyone else's IP loitering in their offices when the whole "a project was cancelled, we need money, how do we get it, how about kickstarter" thing happened.

I want to replace Eder's portrait with Josh's now for some reason...

Imoen's voice is done by a voice actress → Voice actresses are hired due to availability, cost and talent → → A Voice actress of no talent is not worth the cost, even if available Therefore Imoen's Voice Actress must be talented People with talent are good at what they do → People who are good at what they do cannot, by definition, be bad at what they do → → Imoen's voice actress is therefore good at doing voice actressing → → → A good voice actress will have a good voice, or not be a good voice actress Therefore, Imoen's voice is good People like things that are good → People don't like things that are bad Therefore people must like Imoen's voice because it is good. QED1 1For sufficiently forgiving versions of logic

Well it depends on how sacred you hold your entertainment. When I was a kid and I had nothing but time to kill I would tolerate any dreck. Well that and I had no money so I kind of had to accept whatever I had. Now that I am coughing up the money and my time is much more limited I get pretty cranky when something fails to meet expectations. I don't hold my entertainment sacred at all. That's why its my entertainment and not my religion. Seriously, as I've gotten older I too have a lot of time crunches; but like Hurl, I tend to like more stuff than dislike. But I also tend to approach my entertainment hoping to like it rather than expecting to hate it, so maybe that's different? Hahahahahahahha. Indeed. For example, pigs are very happy when they roll in shiet. And hey, it works for them. Bacon is great.

Doesn't bother me, really, either. My initial point was that, realistically, you could have a player character who wouldn't care about the Iron Shortage but the game will force you to care.

Age verification, methinks.

That may be the best explanation ever. Again I'm not AGAINST the railroading in BG1 - I'm just saying I admit its a railroad. A good flexible one as it may be, you can't just walk away from the story (as you could in P&P)