Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So we can see that the gameplay systems are often very similar, and gameplay length is also often pretty similar - assuming the player is playing challenging content.  So the only thing that RTWP has an advantage in is the sort of trash mob fights where you can just let the AI play the game for you.  But such encounters are not generally very interesting (see: complaints about random encounter systems in JRPGs), so in many cases... the game may be better off with them removed entirely!

 

So I call RTWP a pretentious form of turn-based because the style has pretensions to being different from turn-based when, again assuming appropriately challenging content, it is effectively the same.

 

I never play turn-based games so perhaps they have more flexibility in this regard than I'm aware of, but I would think one quite defining difference between truly turn-based games and RTWP is that in turn-based games everything is sequential, whereas in RTWP it is parallel. Hence, in RTWP I can react to what the enemy is doing or to the outcome of something I did (especially now that we have easy retargetting). And similarly, I can coordinate the actions of multiple characters, or anticipate actions of enemies and time my own accordingly. That, I would argue, makes the two distinctly different. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reasonable objectivity" is an interesting concept :) While I have some ideas what is meant by it in the given context, let me just say the obvious that objectivity is a property independent of perception. 

 

fair point-- what i'm trying to say is that there are ways to look critically at the two games and decide which is better; you do this by breaking it down to component parts and deciding which works better at each level in achieving the whole.

 

The argument has no real value on the personal level--as in trying to convince someone their ideas are wrong. But comparisons based on function of a gameplay element, what works and what doesn't and why-- that can be useful.

 

but none of that happens when someone says, 'you're just letting nostalgia cloud your judgement.'

or the converse, 'baldurs game is the best rpg ever and was perfect out of the box.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello guys. I am frustrated that I am waiting 20 years for RPG game simmilar to Baldur's Gate 2 and no one can make it.

Pillars of eternity 1/2 are great games but there is easy to see different of quality comparing to Baldur's Gate 2

I dont know what od the reson.

Why Baldur's Gate after so many years os still the best RPG?

Its deepht od the forgotten realms world?

Its many and great characters?

Its great story, rewarding quests, dungeons and fights?

Maybe its becouse world is changing and so comptuter games are changing and even obsidian enterteiment need to make their games to sell it for more people so they making PoE easy and flat.

Can samoene explains me what's going on?

20 years after BG 2 and no one can make gamę simmilar or EVEN GREATER! than BG 2?

And dont tell me about nostalgia becouse its not the case.

It is mostly childhood memory and the charm of the new. So yeah, its mostly nostalgia, even if you deny it. Nothing can beat the memory, as for most people the first kiss is unforgettable.

 

 

The essence of your statement is: "I know the reasons for other people's preferences better than they do themselves, and even if they claim otherwise, I am right and they are wrong about the reasons for their preferences."

 

It's patently absurd.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hello guys. I am frustrated that I am waiting 20 years for RPG game simmilar to Baldur's Gate 2 and no one can make it.

Pillars of eternity 1/2 are great games but there is easy to see different of quality comparing to Baldur's Gate 2

I dont know what od the reson.

Why Baldur's Gate after so many years os still the best RPG?

Its deepht od the forgotten realms world?

Its many and great characters?

Its great story, rewarding quests, dungeons and fights?

Maybe its becouse world is changing and so comptuter games are changing and even obsidian enterteiment need to make their games to sell it for more people so they making PoE easy and flat.

Can samoene explains me what's going on?

20 years after BG 2 and no one can make gamę simmilar or EVEN GREATER! than BG 2?

And dont tell me about nostalgia becouse its not the case.

It is mostly childhood memory and the charm of the new. So yeah, its mostly nostalgia, even if you deny it. Nothing can beat the memory, as for most people the first kiss is unforgettable.

The essence of your statement is: "I know the reasons for other people's preferences better than they do themselves, and even if they claim otherwise, I am right and they are wrong about the reasons for their preferences."

 

It's patently absurd.

It's not like people are actually aware of all of the biases that they hold. They also like to admit them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite correct. However, from that it does not follow that some random dude on an internet forum is the arbiter of everybody's biases and the extent to which they affect their judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still, there are ways to, with reasonable objectivity, make the claim that BG 2 is the superior crpg. Not only in terms narrative and narrative structure, but also in terms of gameplay qnd characters. Really by any metric outside of the dialogue-- Pillars has better dialogue-- and the clunky UI that is improved in the EE editions but still doesn't compete, I would argue BG2 is stronger. 

 

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I think it is always of interest to read other people's reasoned opinions: why undermine that by claiming to some kind of objectivity? Because by and large, when it comes to this sort of thing there is none to be had (and I would argue, it isn't particularly needed). Which in a way is also illustrated by the reasons you proceed to give, which read very much like reasons why you specifically prefer BG2 (and the series in general); both in the kinds of reason given, and in the way you phrase them. As you say, those are what *to you* makes BG2 stronger.

 

Not meant as an attack on your preference of course, just curious where in your view that reasonable objectivity is in all that. Taking for example the last point, of the trilogy being an intensely personal quest, going from nothing to an almost godlike status: this is certainly something that plenty of people like, but how does that translate to an objective marker of quality?

 

 

 

--so what I was trying to say is that we can look at these games and, by breaking them down to component parts (narrative, combat, UI, etc. ), suggest which functions better in the capacity it is trying to achieve at each level of articulation. I think it is possible to make, with reasonable objectivity (admittedly a flawed term), a value judgement as to which is better that doesn't involve personal preference. 

 

for example:

you wrote: Taking for example the last point, of the trilogy being an intensely personal quest, going from nothing to an almost godlike status: this is certainly something that plenty of people like, but how does that translate to an objective marker of quality?--

 

i'm not suggesting someone should like BG better-- i'm saying that, on the whole, the progression from BGI to BGII to the throne of bhaal is a better narrative vehicle for a crpg for quantifiable reasons. It retains urgency better (longer and more focused critical path), uses companion characters more efficiently by interweaving them with the plot and the villains., creates significantly stronger villains (more involved in the story and with more personality) , and keeps the player always cognizant in the critical path, even when doing side quests.

 

key point-- none of that has anything to do with 'liking' the specifics of either game's plot. Just a statement that one of them better utilizes narrative tools to tell the story it is telling than the other. And there is always a best way to tell a story, the same way there is a best way to build a space ship or hit a baseball.

 

but its all a conversation in the end; just gamers talking about games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So we can see that the gameplay systems are often very similar, and gameplay length is also often pretty similar - assuming the player is playing challenging content.  So the only thing that RTWP has an advantage in is the sort of trash mob fights where you can just let the AI play the game for you.  But such encounters are not generally very interesting (see: complaints about random encounter systems in JRPGs), so in many cases... the game may be better off with them removed entirely!

 

So I call RTWP a pretentious form of turn-based because the style has pretensions to being different from turn-based when, again assuming appropriately challenging content, it is effectively the same.

 

I never play turn-based games so perhaps they have more flexibility in this regard than I'm aware of, but I would think one quite defining difference between truly turn-based games and RTWP is that in turn-based games everything is sequential, whereas in RTWP it is parallel. Hence, in RTWP I can react to what the enemy is doing or to the outcome of something I did (especially now that we have easy retargetting). And similarly, I can coordinate the actions of multiple characters, or anticipate actions of enemies and time my own accordingly. That, I would argue, makes the two distinctly different. 

 

 

Things like Deadfire's Recovery mechanic make it a moot point.  A fighter swings at a baddie and is locked into an attack animation or recovery animation and gets hit with the fireball the enemy mage was casting, because the fighter couldn't begin moving until the attack or backswing animation completed (maybe he was able to start moving, but he couldn't clear it in time.)  A fighter moves on his turn and swings at the baddie; the enemy mage's turn comes up before that fighter's next turn and the fighter gets hit with the fireball.

 

Outcomes CAN differ, but it's only in edge cases.  Practically speaking, the two are far more similar than they are dissimilar and the major differences make very little, uh, difference in gameplay outcomes - just in the way the gameplay is presented.

 

Or maybe it's more effective to point to a game that HAS done RTwP "right," that DOES make a noticeable difference compared to turn-based: Tower of Time.  Really, for all the game's shortcomings (many of which are understandable due to translation errors and it being a small team of randoms that, as far as I'm aware, are making their first game) it absolutely perfectly nails how to maximize per-encounter, RTwP combat from a mechanical standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So we can see that the gameplay systems are often very similar, and gameplay length is also often pretty similar - assuming the player is playing challenging content.  So the only thing that RTWP has an advantage in is the sort of trash mob fights where you can just let the AI play the game for you.  But such encounters are not generally very interesting (see: complaints about random encounter systems in JRPGs), so in many cases... the game may be better off with them removed entirely!

 

So I call RTWP a pretentious form of turn-based because the style has pretensions to being different from turn-based when, again assuming appropriately challenging content, it is effectively the same.

 

I never play turn-based games so perhaps they have more flexibility in this regard than I'm aware of, but I would think one quite defining difference between truly turn-based games and RTWP is that in turn-based games everything is sequential, whereas in RTWP it is parallel. Hence, in RTWP I can react to what the enemy is doing or to the outcome of something I did (especially now that we have easy retargetting). And similarly, I can coordinate the actions of multiple characters, or anticipate actions of enemies and time my own accordingly. That, I would argue, makes the two distinctly different. 

 

 

Things like Deadfire's Recovery mechanic make it a moot point.  A fighter swings at a baddie and is locked into an attack animation or recovery animation and gets hit with the fireball the enemy mage was casting, because the fighter couldn't begin moving until the attack or backswing animation completed (maybe he was able to start moving, but he couldn't clear it in time.)  A fighter moves on his turn and swings at the baddie; the enemy mage's turn comes up before that fighter's next turn and the fighter gets hit with the fireball.

 

Well, that's not quite how it works in practice however, since the recovery for each character is mutually independent. In the time it takes for one character to recover or cast an ability/spell, another may have performed two or three actions. Both may likewise perform their actions simultaneously, and do not wait for the previous party to finish their action before beginning or concluding their own. That's what I believe Loren refers to, and it's actually a rather distinct difference, both from a mechanical/gameplay standpoint as well as one of mimesis and pacing - RTwP in this regard assumes a greater degree of realism and diegetic consistency with the pause function acting as the main abstract mechanic, whereas turn-based, at least of a traditional kind, tends to be a lot more abstract in its approach to pace and action (after all, in a conflict people don't just sit about waiting for another side to conclude their turn before performing their next action). What Loren refers to above is with systems that tie individual recoveries together into a global sequence, moreso than the actions of individual characters being performed sequentially due to timers and animations and recovery and cooldowns and so on.


My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with AD&D in 1979 so to me 2nd edition IS D&D to me. Baldurs Gate recreated my childhood gaming experiences and dit it superbly.

 

That said the game mechanics of PoE are better. Its much better to have your fighter swing in real time and get incremental speed increases rather than a massive jump from 1 to 3/2 attack per round. Also deflection and a separate armor value is better than Armor Class. Character building is way better in PoE. Mage battles were better in Baldurs Gate, mages were to be feared.

 

The meat of any game are the quests and the story/characters. It is here that Baldur's Gate reigns supreme. Maybe it is standard fantasy fare but so what? It does it well and standard means it works. Becoming good in spite of your being a Bhaalspawn or embracing your evilness makes for a great story. Transforming into the reaper/stalker gave great in game power but had a cost of moving towards evil. Staying good in the trials of hell had actual sacrifice, you lost stats while going for more power shifted you rightfully to evil.

 

The story in PoE and Deadfire just never pulled me in like Baldur's Gate. Kids without souls is a  bad thing but why should my character care and how is it my problem to fix? DeadFire is even worse; I 'die' and come back as a first level guy whose companions also somehow become first level as well … and changed class …. and now I'm a pirate ….If I do every quest and explore every island except the main plot no one cares, there is no sense of urgency to chase after and engage a 300 foot tall god.

 

If DeadFire had me come back as Thanos and had me rebuild the Leaden Key as a force for evil or good depending on my choices that would have been a good story.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KDubya I agree fully with your first paragraph but lets be fair here. ".If I do every quest and explore every island except the main plot no one cares, there is no sense of urgency to chase after and engage a 300 foot tall god." BG2 had this exact same problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think people ought to start looking at level systems as something that is abstract and independent from the diegesis itself. Within the setting of Deadfire your character has risen to legendary status and even taken on the archmages and avatars of the gods themselves, and even as early as level 5 you are openly regarded via diegetic interactions as a figure of great power, for example as shown by your early interactions with Furrante or Clario. The purpose for the characters to be of a lower level from the start has more to do with accessibility and a mechanical/ruleset learning curve than your character being a rookie or even particularly 'weak' from the get-go. Imagine asking players to build a level 16 character from the get-go and be familiar with the skillset of every companion you meet early on at that level, that for the most part would be daunting. I know I, even as a veteran player of the first game and the IE/D&D predecessors, took it slowly when examining and learning each class ability table. To give another example, see how the Witcher saga handles levelling too - the saga is all about the main character and he is a particularly legendary/notorious witcher too... Yet as you start the third game in the series, you still do so as a fiest level character. Yet it's understandable as you never truly relate Geralt's level directly to his actual power in his context. From a game design standpoint it's a smart decision, I would say - especially for a game that, unlike Baldur's Gate, already has you reaching the epic levels by the end of the first game in its series.

Edited by algroth
  • Like 2

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KDubya I agree fully with your first paragraph but lets be fair here. ".If I do every quest and explore every island except the main plot no one cares, there is no sense of urgency to chase after and engage a 300 foot tall god." BG2 had this exact same problem.

 

I suppose so but I always felt more of a desire or need to go after Irenicus and not so much of a reason to go after an unkillable 300 foot tall statue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@KDubya I agree fully with your first paragraph but lets be fair here. ".If I do every quest and explore every island except the main plot no one cares, there is no sense of urgency to chase after and engage a 300 foot tall god." BG2 had this exact same problem.

 

I suppose so but I always felt more of a desire or need to go after Irenicus and not so much of a reason to go after an unkillable 300 foot tall statue.

 

 

Ha. I've still only played Deadfire for a couple of hours (waiting for the patches, waiting for the DLCs, waiting for probably Godot, and not in a hurry), and I've only got to the Engwithian digsite on the island.

 

But you hit the nail on the head: the premise of Deadfire, the reason for the adventure, filled me with the sense that, simply put, I Don't Care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just started BG2 again based on this thread. The voice acting is stellar. It's actually pretty good in Deadfire (minus the Gods) but BG2 takes it to another level. I'm actually glad not everything is voiced. I think Deadfire focused wayyy too much on it.

 

However the graphics and animations are rough coming from Deadfire which is admittedly a very pretty game.

Edited by Verde
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just started BG2 again based on this thread. The voice acting is stellar. It's actually pretty good in Deadfire (minus the Gods) but BG2 takes it to another level. I'm actually glad not everything is voiced. I think Deadfire focused wayyy too much on it.

 

However the graphics and animations are rough coming from Deadfire which is admittedly a very pretty game.

The old game or the Enhanced Edition? The EE retains too many problems from original game for my taste but the new companions and their quests are still nice. The combat in the new content takes after the AI mods for the vanilla game, so it's much more enjoyable than vanilla combat.

You should play with some of the more essential mods. They greatly improve the experience IMO.

Edited by try2handing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KDubya I agree fully with your first paragraph but lets be fair here. ".If I do every quest and explore every island except the main plot no one cares, there is no sense of urgency to chase after and engage a 300 foot tall god." BG2 had this exact same problem.

 

Let's not forget there's a part where your soul is literally sucked out and you're told death is imminent and yet you can quest for twenty more hours before confronting Irenicus.

  • Like 1

Yes! We have no bananas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just started BG2 again based on this thread. The voice acting is stellar. It's actually pretty good in Deadfire (minus the Gods) but BG2 takes it to another level. I'm actually glad not everything is voiced. I think Deadfire focused wayyy too much on it.

 

However the graphics and animations are rough coming from Deadfire which is admittedly a very pretty game.

The old game or the Enhanced Edition? The EE retains too many problems from original game for my taste but the new companions and their quests are still nice. The combat in the new content takes after the AI mods for the vanilla game, so it's much more enjoyable than vanilla combat.

You should play with some of the more essential mods. They greatly improve the experience IMO.

EE. Which mods are essential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just started BG2 again based on this thread. The voice acting is stellar. It's actually pretty good in Deadfire (minus the Gods) but BG2 takes it to another level. I'm actually glad not everything is voiced. I think Deadfire focused wayyy too much on it.

 

However the graphics and animations are rough coming from Deadfire which is admittedly a very pretty game.

 

One thing that's underrated about the whole IE series is the sound design. Not just the stellar voice acting, but every little detail from the various spell casting chants, the diverse and highly detailed background noises, the music. It especially achieves its pinnacle in BG2 because of the Irenicus actor, of course. Really a forward thinking aspect of the games, and perhaps one aspect of the games that has aged the best.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just started BG2 again based on this thread. The voice acting is stellar. It's actually pretty good in Deadfire (minus the Gods) but BG2 takes it to another level. I'm actually glad not everything is voiced. I think Deadfire focused wayyy too much on it.

 

However the graphics and animations are rough coming from Deadfire which is admittedly a very pretty game.

The old game or the Enhanced Edition? The EE retains too many problems from original game for my taste but the new companions and their quests are still nice. The combat in the new content takes after the AI mods for the vanilla game, so it's much more enjoyable than vanilla combat.

You should play with some of the more essential mods. They greatly improve the experience IMO.

EE. Which mods are essential?

 

- BG2 fixpack

- Tweak pack (now The Tweaks Anthology)

- Unfinished Business

- Spell Revisions

- Item Revisions

- Ascension

- Strategems

 

These are a few that I like to have personally.  The Fixpack fixes a wide range of bugs remaining in the official release of the game. I believe the EE already incorporated a number of its own bug fixes, but it probably didn't cover everything the Fixpack does.

 

The Tweaks Anthology adds some QoL features and numerous other things that seek to improve the overall experience.

 

Unfinished Business restores a number of contents that were cut from final release. Most of them are just some extra cool things here and there.

 

Ascension was made by David Gaider, a designer of the game. His mod expands the story a little bit, adding more options to dialog. It basically tries to rectify the fact that too many things were cut from the final release of the expansion. As he put it, the mod tries to make the expansion "a little more fulfilling". It totally changes the final fight though, making it a lot harder, and some people don't like that, from what I've heard.

 

Spell Revisions and Item Revisions seek to improve the overall balance of the game by tweaking spells and items. IMO they do an amazing job at that. They nerf or completely change things that were blatantly overpowered and easy to abuse, and buff things that were underpowered. The idea is that every item with a unique name should have something actually unique about it, not just having 1 or 2 point more in damage and to hit compared to a normal item. The net result is that combat has more depth and items/spells are more fun to use.

 

Strategems is an AI mod that seeks to improve pretty much every single enemy you encounter in the game. At the very least, everyone will be smarter and their combat tactics make a lot more sense. They can anticipate a number of moves players might pull and react accordingly in a reasonably smart manner. Combat in general will be harder and in some instances a whole lot harder. The main idea is to keep combat challenging but fair though, rather than use some ridiculous tactics just to kill you. Spell Revisions and Item Revisions already adjust the AI to account for the changes in spells and items though, so if you're not keen on simply having harder combat, you can skip this one.

Edited by try2handing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ascension is great except for the final fight, which is so ridiculous that I uninstalled the whole mod as soon as I saw what it contained. There are characters who, once defeated, should remain so, otherwise they lose all dignity and meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ascension is great except for the final fight, which is so ridiculous that I uninstalled the whole mod as soon as I saw what it contained. There are characters who, once defeated, should remain so, otherwise they lose all dignity and meaning.

Do tell...sounds juicy *rubs hands*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably could result in polemic, but... Seeing the series as a whole:

 

PoE1+White March > Baldur's Gate + Siege of Dragonspear

 

Deadfire+DLCs ?? Baldur's Gate 2 + Trhone of Bhaal

 

Until they release all the dlc of Deadfire, I'll let without answer the last comparison. But my intuition say the complete Deadfire with all dlc will be so much better lol. 


Currently Playing

 

 

  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Morrowind
  • Stardew Valley

 

 

 

Future Play

 

 

  • Deadfire
  • Oblivion
  • The Witcher

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ascension is great except for the final fight, which is so ridiculous that I uninstalled the whole mod as soon as I saw what it contained. There are characters who, once defeated, should remain so, otherwise they lose all dignity and meaning.

Do tell...sounds juicy *rubs hands*

 

Basically the final boss is like.. "Oh hey, I have such great control over Bhaal essence, so.. how I about I resurrect every single major enemy you fought during the expansion and have you fight them all at the same time?"

 

Oh and she also constantly summons a bunch of strong demons.

 

And before you ask, yes, there are people who soloed that lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ascension is great except for the final fight, which is so ridiculous that I uninstalled the whole mod as soon as I saw what it contained. There are characters who, once defeated, should remain so, otherwise they lose all dignity and meaning.

Do tell...sounds juicy *rubs hands*

 

As Manveru said. I'd rather not give away too much spoiler. To be fair, by the time you get to the end of the expansion, your party are all godlike (without any cheese). But I'd understand if you dislike the idea itself, regardless of the difficulty issue. Would've been nice if the mod had given you the option to not install the final fight, because aside from that, it does add some nice things here and there, and fixes a few other things too. Just make sure you read through the Readme if you consider installing it.

Edited by try2handing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...