Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Without ascension and scs bg2/bgt isn't worth playing.


"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Denouncing my opinion on how tedious BG2 is to me as “simply untrue” is nonsense, my guy. I believe it is a slog, and you don’t, and that’s just fine.

 

You said game is boring ****, I said you're wrong. You gotta back it up with some facts, you can't just pretend that your belief is true because it's "yours". Otherwise what's the point of what you wrote, what value it holds, and why should we care for you not having time to study the game a bit before making an opinion on it, cause your social life sucks or not?

 

Vitalis was talking about the wrong D&D edition, yeah. Kinda makes the point a bit moot. :)

 

Well IWD2 had skeletal D&D3. I don't remember stuff like burning hands being useless or sword&shield being that bad.

But I said that I don’t like the game because I think it is tedious among other things. I said that my opinion is my own and I understand if people like the game(Which is why I’m not attacking people who say they like it)

 

YOU said my opinion is my own earlier as well.

 

What have I done wrong? I never claimed my opinion was stronger than anyone elses. I just don’t want you to think of any opinion as true or false because it changes on an individual basis. I can’t make it any clearer than that, friend.

 

Why must I have to convince you that I don’t like the game like I’m in denial of how I feel about the game? I just do not like it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- PoE allows you to reach level cap far too early, and this is a huge minus for the game. I want to have at least the option of being able to develop. (Mind you, not all of the demigodly powers you eventually get in BG2 are that great, but it's a lot better than simply stopping to develop two thirds into the story.)
 
-- Thanks to the enchantment system, nearly all items in PoE are disposable, and there's basically nothing in the shops that you'd want to buy. Persistence and Tidefall are among the very few items you really care for, whereas BG2 has a lot of stuff you treasure. It also has a lot of stuff that you want to save your cash for. Money is almost completely meaningless in PoE.
 

 

This^ 

Fix it in next dlc / big path ;] i hope 

Edited by White.Kelevra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion is always your own. Unless it's a direct quote. Then it's someone elses. Why do you repeat that over and over again?

 

 

I never claimed my opinion was stronger than anyone elses. I just don’t want you to think of any opinion as true or false because it changes on an individual basis.

This I have no idea what it means at all.

 

 

Why must I have to convince you that I don’t like the game like I’m in denial of how I feel about the game? I just do not like it.

You don't have to convince me of anything, you don't even have to answer me. You're free to ignore me or throw darts at my avatar.

 

You don't have to like BG2 either, but when you say why you don't like it, it's an argument, and it can be argued. If you say: BG2 sucks and PoE doesn't cause I don't have time for BG2 - it's not much of an argument against the game, because complete run of PoE2 for example takes about 70 hours I think. They're both RPGs, and these games take a lot of our time. But, tbh, many casuals spend 1000 hours on dotas and world of tenks or whatever and it doesn't bother them at all.

If you say: BG2 is more tedious, it's also not correct, since probably even veteran IE players spend more time in PoE battles simply because they require more micromanagement.

 

 

 

 

 

Without ascension and scs bg2/bgt isn't worth playing.

And that is also wrong.

 

Also, newbies would probably get destroyed by SCS.

Edited by Shadenuat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't get why people have to rank everything. Especially in a work of art one thing is rarely "clearly better" than another, a good song is a good song as any other good song, you might like one more than another but that's it, it's simply touches your "chords" better.

 

This is an age-old discussion, and if you get more deeply into it, you'll realize that it's not like you said.

 

Besides, we're not talking about ranking everything here. We're talking about two important titles in a niche genre, and I think it's a perfectly valid discussion. Or, if it doesn't seem valid for you, it's very simple to stay out of it.

 

There's an argument to be made for the idea that "everything is just opinion and that's it", but then, if somebody really tried to claim that The Shaggs is better than The Beatles, or that James Patterson is better than Hemingway, or that Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than The Shining, I'm pretty sure that essentially everybody sane would question their capacity for reasonable judgement. So when you get down to it, it's not just opinions -- there are reasonable arguments to be made for why something is or isn't good.

 

In my book, both PoE and BG2 are definitely good, even very good. It's just that BG2 is a couple of notches better, for reasons I've described above.

 

 

Even with the examples you mention, I rather doubt it's quite so clear cut. I'd expect if you were to ask James Patterson fans (going by sales figures, there's a fair few of them) whether they prefer Hemingway or think Hemingway is better, the answer by and large will be 'no'. How you would then conclude from that that their ability to reason was impaired, I'm not sure. 

 

The problem that quickly arises in any of these discussions is that "what is better" supposes a set of criteria by which that is defined. But those criteria are rarely very explicitly articulated and people tend not to fully agree on what criteria ought to be used, yielding the frequently acrimonously and largely unproductive kinds of 'discussions' so common on the internet.

 

I would say, reasonable arguments certainly can be made to an extent: given a largely agreed set of criteria, discussion of which work is superior can be quite fruitful. Or similarly, discussion on which work is superior in some particular aspect. And perhaps also discussion to an extent on the relevance and weight of specific qualities, given that more general criteria are more or less agreed. But where people fundamentally disagree on what qualities make a work good, such as we might expect to see with for example Hemingway afficionados versus Patterson fans, there isn't really any further norm to appeal to. They may well consider the other's treasured books to be trashy pulp and pretentious snobbery respectively, but it's essentially a stalemate; and anything beyond 'agree to disagree' and just enjoying whatever books you want to enjoy isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

Which isn't going to stop these kinds of exchanges from happening, clearly. But I always wonder what people hope to accomplish with it. Sure, they can dig in and passionately defend why X is objectively (or at least very close to objectively) better than Y. Rally like-minded people around the argument, have a good verbal slugfest, maybe even 'win' the discussion. To what end, I do not know. A false sense of superiority perhaps. 

 

Personally, I would say: maybe people should try an actual discussion instead. One that is about actually exchanging ideas and opinions and arguments. Where the aim isn't to 'win' (whatever that means), but to actually listen to what other people are saying. That is rather more fruitful in my experience, anyway. But fundamentally, that really is just about individual views and opinions; informed by and based on all sorts of objective facts and agreed-upon norms no doubt, but at bottom for the most part still just that: opinions. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What they hope to accomplish consciously? We would have to ask them and we would get anecdotes, post hoc anecdotes. Regardless of what we want to accomplish, interaction essential for us as social beings. What do we want to accomplish when we talk about the weather? Interact. Then someone says, warm weather is better than cold weather and .. here we are. 

 

 

This thread is about exchanging ideas, opinions, and arguments from where I sit. That it got a bit personal, well, apparently it's not a meaningless discussion to some ;)

 

I would post more on topic but I cant answer the question asked in OP. 

Edited by knownastherat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I said the game was bad TO ME

Yes to u. Everything you say about yourself is applied to you, not to anyone else. And if you're wrong, it is still you.

 

It's ok to say if game is too difficult. But saying PoE is less tedious is simply untrue.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with you.

The D&D combat system has NEVER been "easy" without knowing how to exploit the combat. I can find you class guides for the tabletop that detail exactly how to do that so you don't end up with a waste of space.

 

Even without those, a druid is almost always going to be built around Wild Shape and taking the feat that allows the druid to cast spells while in Wild Shape.

You make no sense. BG2 didn't have casting in wild shape and sword&shield was perfectly viable. You didn't have to pick a manual to learn the game. There were even no builds to speak of. You played fighter you took most str/dex/con and that was the build for a fighter. You didn't build casters around ANYTHING. You had wizard you could learn, and use, any spell, at any time. There were no "trap spells", since if you didn't like one, you could just memorise Sleep if you liked Sleep more.

 

The encounters in IE simply often are quicker. Hardest difficulty doesn't do anything to enemy hp. There are no vampires with 700 hp like in PoE2. It's just a fact that's how it works. IE is less complex than PoE when it comes to character development, and the combat plays quicker.

 

Once again I find it hilarious how many people turn to bitching on D&D. It's like a popular thing to kick some old thing. Thing which did lots of things right and led to great games.

 

Same with IE games though, these forums seem to be choke full of people who hate games which PoE is based on and are eager to mix them with dirt cause they're old or difficult or lol aerie romance. It's just outstanding. Maybe Sawyer's existence emits some sort of waves that brainwash people? I can't but wonder.

Yes the glorious IE games where the difficulty doesn't add enemy health, but instead changes how much damage you take. That's just really like game changing...

 

You did miss a very important sentence though, I was referring to the tabletop rules; the rules that your beloved nostalgic game was based on. The rules where the designers weren't really as focused on "balance" as they were providing actual role playing. That of course changes in IE games, but not as much as you think it does.

 

Maybe in your mind, shields were "viable", except they're not. Shields provide extra AC, which at higher levels is absolutely meaningless since that dragon is probably going to be rolling 35+ on all of its attack rolls. With that in mind, the one handed weapon is quite limiting since it lacks the damage dice of a two handed one; when this is combined with how pointless AC becomes contributes to shields being worthless.

 

As we should remember, difficulty increases the damage the players take. So at the higher difficulties the player is taking 100% damage from every attack. So if we take that dragon from above and have it attack the party it will do say 12d10 +6, and be able to cast 9th level spells the next round provided the party isn't already dead. Let's face it, they probably are.

 

Yes, the druid rules I mentioned may not be in IE; yes, fighters may appear to be viable; yes wizards are gods walking amongst mere mortals; but you didn't address clerics. In fact, you also supported my argument that wizards are all about exploiting the combat system! Which is something you previously claimed was not part of any IE game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't get why people have to rank everything. Especially in a work of art one thing is rarely "clearly better" than another, a good song is a good song as any other good song, you might like one more than another but that's it, it's simply touches your "chords" better.

 

 

This is an age-old discussion, and if you get more deeply into it, you'll realize that it's not like you said.

 

Besides, we're not talking about ranking everything here. We're talking about two important titles in a niche genre, and I think it's a perfectly valid discussion. Or, if it doesn't seem valid for you, it's very simple to stay out of it.

 

There's an argument to be made for the idea that "everything is just opinion and that's it", but then, if somebody really tried to claim that The Shaggs is better than The Beatles, or that James Patterson is better than Hemingway, or that Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than The Shining, I'm pretty sure that essentially everybody sane would question their capacity for reasonable judgement. So when you get down to it, it's not just opinions -- there are reasonable arguments to be made for why something is or isn't good.

 

In my book, both PoE and BG2 are definitely good, even very good. It's just that BG2 is a couple of notches better, for reasons I've described above.

 

Even with the examples you mention, I rather doubt it's quite so clear cut. I'd expect if you were to ask James Patterson fans (going by sales figures, there's a fair few of them) whether they prefer Hemingway or think Hemingway is better, the answer by and large will be 'no'. How you would then conclude from that that their ability to reason was impaired, I'm not sure. 

 

The problem that quickly arises in any of these discussions is that "what is better" supposes a set of criteria by which that is defined. But those criteria are rarely very explicitly articulated and people tend not to fully agree on what criteria ought to be used, yielding the frequently acrimonously and largely unproductive kinds of 'discussions' so common on the internet.

 

I would say, reasonable arguments certainly can be made to an extent: given a largely agreed set of criteria, discussion of which work is superior can be quite fruitful. Or similarly, discussion on which work is superior in some particular aspect. And perhaps also discussion to an extent on the relevance and weight of specific qualities, given that more general criteria are more or less agreed. But where people fundamentally disagree on what qualities make a work good, such as we might expect to see with for example Hemingway afficionados versus Patterson fans, there isn't really any further norm to appeal to. They may well consider the other's treasured books to be trashy pulp and pretentious snobbery respectively, but it's essentially a stalemate; and anything beyond 'agree to disagree' and just enjoying whatever books you want to enjoy isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

Which isn't going to stop these kinds of exchanges from happening, clearly. But I always wonder what people hope to accomplish with it. Sure, they can dig in and passionately defend why X is objectively (or at least very close to objectively) better than Y. Rally like-minded people around the argument, have a good verbal slugfest, maybe even 'win' the discussion. To what end, I do not know. A false sense of superiority perhaps. 

 

Personally, I would say: maybe people should try an actual discussion instead. One that is about actually exchanging ideas and opinions and arguments. Where the aim isn't to 'win' (whatever that means), but to actually listen to what other people are saying. That is rather more fruitful in my experience, anyway. But fundamentally, that really is just about individual views and opinions; informed by and based on all sorts of objective facts and agreed-upon norms no doubt, but at bottom for the most part still just that: opinions.

I’ve already lost my last dregs of hope for humanity so I can’t forsee a discussion thread between dozens of anonymous people going very well. You’re welcome to try, though. Good luck and godspeed, my dude.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Except perhaps the bug report section of the forum, everything is pretty much meaningless. What I think of this or that .. who cares and how is it important, right? Oh wait!

That wasn't really the point.

How did you determine that?

 

Disregarding that it's in let's say the nature of humans to make comparisons - we constantly evaluate and compare which very useful to our knowledge and ability to make decisions -, thus displaying let's say amazement over humans making comparisons seems naive, which is just obvious, pointing out that "meaningless" is term without meaning is right on the point. I mean, what is not meaningless? Oh meaningless is what I do not think is meaningless, right? Right.

The point wasn't that all comparison or opinion and thinking was bad or meaningless. It was questioning why we *rank * things like this. And I think that's a valid criticism.

 

You could compare and contrast these two games without arguing about how one is "objectively" or subjectively better than the other. And usually, the only reason people make threads like this is to complain about how a game doesn't reach their expectations or put a game down. Again, I can relate to that feeling (though I don't feel that way here), but I think it's kind of disingenuous to act otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without ascension and scs bg2/bgt isn't worth playing.

And that is also wrong.

 

Also, newbies would probably get destroyed by SCS.

 

After you learn the game without those mods you easily overpower most of the content post-spellhold. As a newbie I had to reinstall BGT because my kensage kept wrecking everything in the vanilla+fixpack game.

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shields provide extra AC, which at higher levels is absolutely meaningless since that dragon is probably going to be rolling 35+ on all of its attack rolls. With that in mind, the one handed weapon is quite limiting since it lacks the damage dice of a two handed one; when this is combined with how pointless AC becomes contributes to shields being worthless.

You mean the difference of 1 point of damage between d8 & d10? You know enchantment is more important and banal shortsword with higher enchantment gives you more backstab damage on averages for example than weapon with higher dice? wtf r u even about I dont even

 

In bg1, iwd1 and iwd2 you begin at level 1 and having higher ac means a lot.

on higher levels shields provide lots of cool resistances and there are a lot of unique shields with cool properties.

 

As we should remember, difficulty increases the damage the players take. So at the higher difficulties the player is taking 100% damage from every attack. So if we take that dragon from above and have it attack the party it will do say 12d10 +6, and be able to cast 9th level spells the next round provided the party isn't already dead. Let's face it, they probably are.

what are these numbers you pull of your ass and what do they mean in the context of BG2?

 

Yes the glorious IE games where the difficulty doesn't add enemy health, but instead changes how much damage you take. That's just really like game changing...

Yep.

 

Because instead of going through 1500 hp boss with stages, with correct tactic you can just melt 'em. This is less tedious.

 

but you didn't address clerics

What about them? It takes time for them to git good, their buffs can be dispelled, and pure cleric won't get HLA like whirlwind.

 

Multi-clerics are op ofc. In 3d edition they are also op. But then if you go into pnp with some sort of competetive ideas and join tournaments with broken builds and whine that game with 9000 prestiges is unbalanced you're also wrong.

 

 

You did miss a very important sentence though

And u missed the whole title of this topic.

 

After you learn the game without those mods you easily overpower most of the content post-spellhold. As a newbie I had to reinstall BGT because my kensage kept wrecking everything in the vanilla+fixpack game.

Post-Spellhold is basically endgame content. It's ok since you mastered game at that point. Before that you already can fight most of the stuff you meet there - 2 dragons, illithid, beholder layer, even twisted rune.

Then again, it's true for you, and of course SCS makes vanilla look primitive. But look at other people, for them even vanilla is tedious cheating bosses etc.

Edited by Shadenuat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Except perhaps the bug report section of the forum, everything is pretty much meaningless. What I think of this or that .. who cares and how is it important, right? Oh wait!

That wasn't really the point.

How did you determine that?

 

Disregarding that it's in let's say the nature of humans to make comparisons - we constantly evaluate and compare which very useful to our knowledge and ability to make decisions -, thus displaying let's say amazement over humans making comparisons seems naive, which is just obvious, pointing out that "meaningless" is term without meaning is right on the point. I mean, what is not meaningless? Oh meaningless is what I do not think is meaningless, right? Right.

The point wasn't that all comparison or opinion and thinking was bad or meaningless. It was questioning why we *rank * things like this. And I think that's a valid criticism.

 

You could compare and contrast these two games without arguing about how one is "objectively" or subjectively better than the other. And usually, the only reason people make threads like this is to complain about how a game doesn't reach their expectations or put a game down. Again, I can relate to that feeling (though I don't feel that way here), but I think it's kind of disingenuous to act otherwise.

 

 

It is obvious that the only objective measure when it comes to art are sales. Only sales can be measured. Well, maybe voting on Metacritic or IMDb. I explained "why we rank". Because that is what we do. For more: Social Comparison Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What they hope to accomplish consciously? We would have to ask them and we would get anecdotes, post hoc anecdotes. Regardless of what we want to accomplish, interaction essential for us as social beings. What do we want to accomplish when we talk about the weather? Interact. Then someone says, warm weather is better than cold weather and .. here we are. 
 
 
This thread is about exchanging ideas, opinions, and arguments from where I sit. That it got a bit personal, well, apparently it's not a meaningless discussion to some ;)
 
I would post more on topic but I cant answer the question asked in OP. 

 

 

I agree with the premise, but it feels like often in... exchanges such as these the 'exchanging' part tends to get snowed under quite quickly. In my view, that actually requires actively trying to understand the other person's point of view, and engaging with it. Whereas often, people tend to remain stuck in their own perspective too much. That is, when someone says "warm weather is better than cold weather" we should ideally react more along the lines of "why does (s)he think that" rather than "that's wrong" (though in this particular example of course, cold weather is objectively superior and no discussion is really needed or possible  :grin: ). 

 

The internet isn't necessarily ideal for this of course, anonimity and distance doesn't help empathising with another's point of view. Though clearly it is quite embedded in human psychology, all too often you see relationships of all sorts fall apart simply because of poor communication. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet is great as it allows for interactions never possible before ;)

 

As someone noted before, the fact that Obsidian is virtually the only developer who recently attempted BG2, I would say, true "spiritual successor" is a blessing and a curse. There are no other "spiritual successors" to be compared with and no matter what they do, they will not be able to re-create BG2 experience for some. What probably bothers me most about PoE are inconsistencies, constant changes, and unclear ruleset. Complexity does not necessarily add to fun experience. 

 

btw Edwin was the best BG2 character. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

I'm gonna tell you about it anyways, because it is in parts about nostalgia. If you replay Baldurs Gate II now, the dialog is often really cringe worthy. And descriptions and mechanics aren't up to par for this age. I look at BG II with rose tinted glasses, because it might be my favorite game of all time. But I was 20 years younger back then, and I was more excitable and knew  a lot less about most things.

 

Personally, I find it impossible for games now in my early thirties, with all the games I have played by now, to replicate the feelings I got when I played Baldur's Gate II the first time, thou I admit Twitcher 3 did a grand job of trying. But if I played BG II for the first time now, it wouldn't be nearly as good or impactful for me, as it was then. 

 

You may like BG II more, but that is not objective. I like PoE's mature and complex writing much more now, than I like the immature, D&D trope style writing from BG II. So don't discard nostalgia like that, because it does play a significant role in your perception of games you play now.

 

 

The dialogue is pretty good, though I'm sure there are side quests where it's weak.  The gameplay is about as good as you could have expected 2E to be.

 

I'm not sure if it's fair or not to compare modded BG2 to vanilla Deadfire - but I also think that those mods for BG2 have been out for a VERY, VERY long time and Obsidian has had more than enough time to go over them, so I consider it fair game.  And the fact is, even with 2E's ridiculous nonsense getting in the way, modded BG2 (especially with mods like Sword Coast Stratagems) is DRAMATICALLY better than Deadfire.  It's not even a contest.

 

I feel like removing the buff/dispel mechanics entirely (except for Arcane Dampener, I guess) was a really terrible decision for the Pillars games.  That dynamic made battles so much more interesting in BG2, especially when mods let the game cheat (such as by having illegal Contingency or Spell Trigger spells, or Contingency on a Cleric, etc) to compensate for the Ai simply never going to be able to match an attentive player.

 

People bitch and moan about how you had to refer to a glossary to fight a Mage (maybe the first couple of times, afterwards you always knew to just have a copy of Breach, Dispel Magic, etc ready to roll, or a scroll of such spells in your hotbar), but at least fights with spellcasters in BG2 were INTERESTING.  You had to REACT to what they were doing.

 

In Pillars and Deadfire?  No, you just buff up.  Then they buff up.  Then you and them beat each other with sticks until one side's numbers end up being better than the other side's numbers.  Oh, sure, Flames of Devotion is a very flashy, SHINY way of beating someone with a stick but it's fundamentally no different from a 2E Paladin walking up and twatting someone upside the head with Carsomyr.

 

I don't see anything wrong with having fights that REQUIRE certain spells or actions to be taken in order to have a decent shot at winning.  This isn't tabletop or a roguelike where one death means you're done - it's a CRPG with the almighty power of quicksave and quickload.  Give Wizards and Priests their full spell lists back, make encounters REQUIRE certain responses or abilities, and then let the player figure out what tools they need to pull out of their great big toolbox.  And then, once they know what tools they need, let them then have to figure out where those tools should be used and in what order.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see those threads they somehow manage to sour my memory of Baldur's Gate. I should probably stop reading them and keep some of my nostalgia intact.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BG2 represents a particularly serendipitous mixture of timing and execution.

Obviously it's inherently harder to make many big areas for a game like POE than for IE games, expectations in certain areas have become either counterproductively high (e.g. companions, reactivity) or somewhat limiting (the whole open world business makes it very hard to do extensive cutaways like Spellhold + Underdark, which feels essential to the pacing of BG2 and really vastly improves the replayability, players understandably don't go in for instant death effects these days). 

That said, BG2 did phenomenally well with its tone, the story is functional, has a reasonable scope and instilled an impression of urgency that's very rarely been matched (the original Fallout, perhaps? but in that case the urgency was real), I think it's got the best itemisation of any game in the genre, which is hugely important. Its maps and encounters were well-designed and varied, it pushed the boundaries of the CRPG in positive and logical ways. I don't think any general-purpose RPG since has proved equal to it.

To return to Deadfire - I think it is the best setting for an RPG since PST. I do feel like it's set preposterous expectations for itself in some respects, there were obviously difficulty issues on launch and I don't really think that 'isn't the single best game in its genre' is any more meaningful a criticism for Deadfire than it is for every shooter that isn't Half-Life 2.

Edited by Blovski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Josh make POE2 like the Baldur's Gate, Deadfire is more like part Storm of Zehir and part Icewind Dale.

 

I wish DLC content is happens after the main game. or maybe expand and improve main quest and companion quest.(Like Tyranny Bastard's Wound)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an age-old discussion, and if you get more deeply into it, you'll realize that it's not like you said.

 

Besides, we're not talking about ranking everything here. We're talking about two important titles in a niche genre, and I think it's a perfectly valid discussion. Or, if it doesn't seem valid for you, it's very simple to stay out of it.

 

There's an argument to be made for the idea that "everything is just opinion and that's it", but then, if somebody really tried to claim that The Shaggs is better than The Beatles, or that James Patterson is better than Hemingway, or that Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than The Shining, I'm pretty sure that essentially everybody sane would question their capacity for reasonable judgement. So when you get down to it, it's not just opinions -- there are reasonable arguments to be made for why something is or isn't good.

 

In my book, both PoE and BG2 are definitely good, even very good. It's just that BG2 is a couple of notches better, for reasons I've described above.

Well, I kinda agree because that's not what I was saying.

I too hate when people disregard critics and think they can have any opinion whatsoever and you just have to respect it because reasons even if is bullsH*t.

 

I was talking about measuring the value of two really good things and decide which is better. I think that is crazy, you can't measure it and between two good things it really probably just end up being about personal tastes.

 

You can measure and say who's better between two really great artists? Even if you could how useful would that be? They probably wouldn't care themselves.

 

Edit: I wanted to add. Even two things that appear similar can be very different and come from a different place, so if they are "close enough" I don't see much the point of conclude which is better.

 

BG2 is from entirely another era of games for instance, much different development and challenges.

Edited by Daled

I know my english is not the best, every single post will be a step closer to proper english, please bear with me until then  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storywise BG is definitly better. But there is a tight level cap in the first BG. You always have to use a mod to increase that. Same with the second game. If you play solo, you are max level at the drow city and have not even played throne of bhaal.

 

There are some things that are better in poe than in bg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Dragon Age Origins already surpassed BG2 as this style of WRPG, and for me is the current high-water mark. I honestly liked NWN2 more than BG2 as well.

 

BG2 is an all-time great, but obviously had some warts. The horrid pacing and lack of urgency in the first half, the pointless underdark/drow chapters, the characters that were one-dimensional examples of alignment.

 

Irenicus was a brilliant villain, but your own party members had no depth. Maybe a romanced Jaheira, but the rest were "LoL Chaotic Evil!" or whatever alignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Dragon Age Origins already surpassed BG2 as this style of WRPG, and for me is the current high-water mark.

42a.jpg

  • Like 1

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here are my thought about this:

 

- I cannot compare BG2 and deadfire objectively because I have played one almost 20 years before the other. BG2 was my second western RPG ( the first one was realm of arcadia 3) while I have played lots of other RPGs in the meantime. Both games are very good and BG2 had a big impression on me, but if I would somehow lose my memory and play both games for the first time I would probably think that BG2 is terrible in many regards.

 

- For me story and setting are very importent. So for me PST is the best game ever although PST had many flaws game mechanics wise. Arcanum is similar in that regard. Great game regarding exploration and reactivity, terrible game mechanics.

I have started IWD1 but I quit half way, not because it was too hard but because it was too little story, never got a pure dungeon crawler after that.

 

- I am one of the "idiots" who have problems with high level mages. STS ( or however the mod is called) would destroy me.

Mages trigger immunity to everything at the start of combat. They also become invisible so I cannot target them and while I cast something that removes invisibility they destroy me. I spend eterneties with pre buffing and then I cast dispell magic on the enemy which removed my spells, had no effect on the enemy and I got destroyed. I somehow managed to finish the game and I also beat the lich and the twisted rune ( exactly once, no idea how), but usually after some tries or with half of my party dead.

OK, in PoE1 I could not beat the alpin dragon and Lengrath fight. PoE2 version 1.02 was pathetically easy, did not play afterwards yet.

 

- If you call the mage battles in BG good tactics or "super annoying *** that only some crazy power gamers can enjoy" is up to you.

But game mechanics wise the DnD Computer games were terrible: ( I only played computer games with DnD 2nd and 3rd edition and I did not play PnP)

+ Some classes, subclasses were completely useless. How could new players know that fighter->mage is good while mage->fighter is bad

+ On the other hand, high level mages were gods and high level priest were better fighters than any martial class, after an eternity of pre buffing

+ Even if you have a good class it is still possible to have a useless char. When playing for the first time, did anyone use a mage without max int or a fighter without max str?

+ Regarding items, BG2 strongly encourages meta gaming. You can find an item that gives you high cha or str very fast if you know where to find them. Did you ever have a paladin without greatsword profiency?

+ On high levels (ToB) things go crazy. Rogues can use everything, mages change from gods to machine gun gods, you always hit and enemies always hit too. I finished ToB excactly once because it was too epic for me. Having one epic battle after the other gets boring after some time.

 

- I always played with the same party members. I cannot play with Edwin, Viconia or Korgan because I get max reputation fast and then they leave the party.

 

- BG2 was a very good game and most later games (PoE, DA:O) would not exist without it. But BG2 is far from perfect.

 

About deadfire I really like:

+ exploration (like arcanum or Storm of Zehir)

+ equipment and its enchantment ( more unique effects, not so generic as in PoE1)

+ classes,multi classing and the fact that the devs actually care about balancing ( Josh posted why balancing is importent in single player too)

+ each class or class combination is viable and there are several different possible builds for each class.

 

This is my personal opinion, so feel free to praise BG2 ( or any other game ) as the best game ever.

Edited by Madscientist
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like removing the buff/dispel mechanics entirely (except for Arcane Dampener, I guess) was a really terrible decision for the Pillars games.  That dynamic made battles so much more interesting in BG2, especially when mods let the game cheat (such as by having illegal Contingency or Spell Trigger spells, or Contingency on a Cleric, etc) to compensate for the Ai simply never going to be able to match an attentive player.

 

People bitch and moan about how you had to refer to a glossary to fight a Mage (maybe the first couple of times, afterwards you always knew to just have a copy of Breach, Dispel Magic, etc ready to roll, or a scroll of such spells in your hotbar), but at least fights with spellcasters in BG2 were INTERESTING.  You had to REACT to what they were doing.

 

In Pillars and Deadfire?  No, you just buff up.  Then they buff up.  Then you and them beat each other with sticks until one side's numbers end up being better than the other side's numbers.  Oh, sure, Flames of Devotion is a very flashy, SHINY way of beating someone with a stick but it's fundamentally no different from a 2E Paladin walking up and twatting someone upside the head with Carsomyr.

 

I don't see anything wrong with having fights that REQUIRE certain spells or actions to be taken in order to have a decent shot at winning.  This isn't tabletop or a roguelike where one death means you're done - it's a CRPG with the almighty power of quicksave and quickload.  Give Wizards and Priests their full spell lists back, make encounters REQUIRE certain responses or abilities, and then let the player figure out what tools they need to pull out of their great big toolbox.  And then, once they know what tools they need, let them then have to figure out where those tools should be used and in what order.

 

With a few select mods that overhaul combat balance (Spell/Item Revisions, SCS), combat in BG2 is incredible. I've been playing modded BG2 for years and honestly I haven't found any other game's combat that truly compares to BG2's (modded). High-level fights with enemy mages (or an entire group with balanced composition) are really exciting. Mage duels are usually cool exchanges of counters and counter-counters. Many combos are insanely powerful, but then there is always a counter to pretty much anything. In my experience, modded BG2 combat has amazing depth, requires quite a bit of thinking and strategizing, and feels rewarding as hell. Mods also make it usually very hard to hit the level cap (I don't know about playing solo), so it's still exciting even in very late game.

 

On the other hand, one of the things I love about PoE2 is the fact that they tried to give you options to approach situations as much as they could. Combat, stat check, skill check, background check, and all that. The tabletop-style scripted encounter system is really neat too. All these help make your journey feel very personal to you, and increase replayability.

 

One thing I agree with is that these two games are made in two different eras with a huge time gap between them. All the cool things about PoE2, they are only achievable after RPG in general has been evolving for a long enough time. Now we know better about what makes the game cool, what players would love, etc. Some might say BG2 has rather cringy writing and silly/comical NPCs, extreme/one-dimensional companions, and I would agree to some extend, but I still love all the silly, awkward things about that game, given the era in which it was made. And the last thing, games like BG2 are the models after which games like PoE2 are shaped, and that gives games like BG2 a special value.

 

TL;DR: BG2 is my most favorite game after about 10 years of playing mostly RPG. I enjoyed PoE2 a lot and appreciate all the cool things it has to offer - in terms of role-playing. The things that disappointed me in PoE2 were: the combat falling flat around mid-game and beyond, leveling up very exciting early on but falling off very fast at some point, combat too forgiving in general, and I would keep getting the impression the game tried too hard to be "grand" and "epic" and "complicated" - all the "talking to a bunch of gods, sounding like an equal" and all that. Oh yeah... and main story WAY, WAY TOO SHORT.

Edited by try2handing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to hear concrete examples of BG2's "silly/comical NPCs, extreme/one-dimensional companions", particularly in contrast to the PoE franchise, where the writing is supposedly superior.

 

(And I only mean BG2. BG1 writing is bad.)

  • Like 1

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...