Baldur's Gate 2 > PoE 2 Deadfire

[MrMoe]

@xzar_monty You can actually escape combat. Try to park your group someplace and aggro a group with one of your guys, preferable someone with + stride. After some distance the enemy gives up chasing you. I think that's how so many people are solo'ing this game.

Edited July 2, 2018 by MrMoe

[TheMetaphysician]

I agree with the points that many have made about nostalgia -- and Minsc/Boo. The other thing that made BG/BG2 the best for me is that I already knew a lot about and cared about the world, since I had read dozens of Forgotten Realms books already before I played the game. That fact DRAMATICALLY enhanced immersion -- I was in a world that already felt completely real to me. No CRPG that is set in a proprietary world (one made up for the purposes of the game) can match that level of immersion. The only other game that achieved that level of immersion was KOTOR, not just because of the familiarity of the Star Wars movies, but because I had read dozens of the Expanded Universe Star Wars books. Which is why, I think, that the Baldur's Gates and KOTOR are my favorite games of all time.

Edited July 2, 2018 by TheMetaphysician

[Evange]

The main thing that PoE lacks as compared to BG series is the companions. The companions in PoE have such boring and shallow quests. And so few companions! Zahua was the only one interesting to me. Dopey monk lulz.

[Loren Tyr]

Ok, there's nothing wrong with that. But, can you tell me in which way is the writing and characterization in PoE better? I'd really like some concrete examples. Personally, I don't think it is, but I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

 

If we take Mazzy from BG2, just as an example, we can quite easily compare her to Sagani, and I don't think there's much difference in the quality of writing between the two. Sagani has more material, quantitatively, so in that she's more "whole" than Mazzy, but as characters they're quite close (there's a bit more ambiguity in Sagani).

 

 

Frankly, I barely remember Mazzy; other than "some variation on standard paladin character template", she barely left an imprint on my memory in that regard. But this is rather my point, this applies to most of the characters in the BG series. To me they felt as just that, variations on stock characters and tropes. There is never any sense that there is an actual personality to them; motivations, quirks, likes, dislikes.

 

Whereas in the PoE series, by and large, it feels to me like there is. Through their interactions with each other and the main character, their interjections during story events, their overall tone. Which applies to non-companion NPCs as well, actually. Metaphysics aside, the PoE world in many respects simply comes across as more realistic and believable. It's of course less of an over the top fantasy setting of course, and doesn't have nonsensical alignment systems (which very much feels like in BG is part of the problem with characterisation), though that in itself isn't a deciding factor given that Planescape: Torment also had actually memorable characters with depth to them as well. 

[xzar_monty]

Fair enough. I don't think it's like that, but we'll just agree to disagree on this.

[AFA]

 

 

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.)

Minsc - He's mentally handicapped and has a hamster. That is his entire characterization, the sole extent of his dialog, and his connection to the story

Korgon - Chaotic Evil, likes murder. That's it

Aerie - Complains about wings. If romanced, she complains about it more

Keldorn - Cliched Lawful Good Paladin. That's it

Mazzy - Same as above, but a hobbit

Cernd - Damn dirty hippie (on the rare chance someone actually uses him)

Jan - Grobnar 1.0

 

I've said all along that Minsc is terrible.

 

Keldorn and Cernd have a reasonable story arc that shows how pretty good character depth which is definitely not restricted to what you just said there. Keldorn's family problems make him anything but a cliche. Having Korgan and (I think) Mazzy in the party shows some pretty good non-cliched character interaction. Aerie is severely traumatized and works pretty well (which is not to say that I like that kind of behaviour, mind you).

 

If I were to resort to that kind of characterizations, I would say that only Eder really shines in PoE. Durance, the Devil of Caroc and the Grieving Mother are particularly poor (the Grieving Mother hints at superb stuff but doesn't deliver). I can't say about PoE2 yet.

 

Character interaction in PoE was also a bit strange, because Eder, in particular, appeared to have a long-lasting dislike to Durance from the moment the two met. Eder commented as if there was a backstory, although there was none. There was never any "I wonder what kind of guy you are, but you sure seem suspicious" from Eder, it was instantly into "bloody hell priest, I hate you". That was a bit WTF, in terms of writing.

 

 

Keldorn being racist against Drow is about the only non-standard paladin thing he does, but the whole "evil races" thing complicates it.

 

As far as Durance vs. Eder goes, Durance was a religious fundy that burned men, women, and children of Eder's faith alive under shady pretext. He fully admits and boasts about it to anyone that will listen. In cut content, GM was one of Durance's victims, though he doesn't remember her.

 

I agree that the Devil was wasted. Took forever to get a second evil team member, and she had one crappy sidequest and that was it. I had expected her to be like Bishop from NWN2.

 

GM did leave some interesting stuff on the cutting room floor, but I really liked her. Her, Durance, and Zauha were the three best characters IMO. A shame that we got stuck with Pallagina over any of them.

[Blovski]

 

Ok, there's nothing wrong with that. But, can you tell me in which way is the writing and characterization in PoE better? I'd really like some concrete examples. Personally, I don't think it is, but I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

 

If we take Mazzy from BG2, just as an example, we can quite easily compare her to Sagani, and I don't think there's much difference in the quality of writing between the two. Sagani has more material, quantitatively, so in that she's more "whole" than Mazzy, but as characters they're quite close (there's a bit more ambiguity in Sagani).

 

 

Frankly, I barely remember Mazzy; other than "some variation on standard paladin character template", she barely left an imprint on my memory in that regard. But this is rather my point, this applies to most of the characters in the BG series. To me they felt as just that, variations on stock characters and tropes. There is never any sense that there is an actual personality to them; motivations, quirks, likes, dislikes.

 

Whereas in the PoE series, by and large, it feels to me like there is. Through their interactions with each other and the main character, their interjections during story events, their overall tone. Which applies to non-companion NPCs as well, actually. Metaphysics aside, the PoE world in many respects simply comes across as more realistic and believable. It's of course less of an over the top fantasy setting of course, and doesn't have nonsensical alignment systems (which very much feels like in BG is part of the problem with characterisation), though that in itself isn't a deciding factor given that Planescape: Torment also had actually memorable characters with depth to them as well. 

 

I think Planescape: Torment has absolutely the best companions in any game ever. For POE my feeling was that companions were designed on a slightly more sophisticated version of the Bioware template (must have a connection to the game's theme, must have a personal quest that is conveniently resolved in act 3, must have some major decision you can make to alter their personality) and the greater realism really makes it much more puzzling when characters aren't reacting to things they really should and when the characters are designed to rather obvious specifications. Avellone's characters are great but don't really fit the world or the mechanics in the way that the PST characters did.

[AFA]

 

 

 

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.)

Minsc - He's mentally handicapped and has a hamster. That is his entire characterization, the sole extent of his dialog, and his connection to the story

Korgon - Chaotic Evil, likes murder. That's it

Aerie - Complains about wings. If romanced, she complains about it more

Keldorn - Cliched Lawful Good Paladin. That's it

Mazzy - Same as above, but a hobbit

Cernd - Damn dirty hippie (on the rare chance someone actually uses him)

Jan - Grobnar 1.0

 

I actually like BG2's characters, and they do sometimes get a little development in personal quests, but they are usually one-note and static. IMO, even poor characters in PoE, like Sagani, are better developed. To say nothing of great ones like Durance.

 

Honestly, NWN2's cast are all better than those in BG2, except for Grobnar.

 

 

All of the character romances are cringeworthy as such things nearly always are, but all of the characters show substantial character growth - Anomen perhaps more than anyone else.  Jaheira's is the only one that doesn't make much sense to me, and that's only because I feel like it'd take a long time to get over seeing your husband having been flayed alive and tortured to death (well past the point that Raise Dead could help, although I'm pretty sure Resurrection would've worked fine, or maybe Wish) and while I don't see anything wrong with her relying on Gorion's ward for emotional support, the fact that she's rather receptive to CHARNAME blatantly hitting on her (by buying a necklace for her, for example) in a matter of in-universe days is kind of disturbing, especially when Jaheira and Khalid were kind of like adoptive parents to CHARNAME.

 

 

Yeah, this is the suspicious part. There should have been a timer of let's say at least a week on the Jaheira romance. It's not realistic the way it appears now. It doesn't even work as a rebound kind of thing. And if it was a question "oh god I'm bereaved and I can't stand my loneliness I've got to find someone instantly", then Jaheira's dialogues should look much more desperate, which they don't.

 

I agree the romances are cringeworthy, but the fact is, much of lovetalk is cringeworthy to someone who isn't emotionally involved (i.e. all outsiders), and I seriously hope no gamer is seriously involved in the lovetalk of a game.

 

Anomen is a very good character in the end, really well written. The way he comes across as a complete oaf that really gets on your nerves is great, especially when you consider how things change.

 

I must also give special mention to the Aerie -- CHARNAME -- Haer'dalis love triangle, which is really nice. There's the cynical Haer'dalis, then there's the overtly naive and traumatized Aerie, and then there's you, what are you going to do?

 

 

I liked her romance well enough, but it needed a time skip to not be some damn cringy.

 

The only romance I can think of that isn't awful in an RPG is maybe male Warden and Leliana in DAO. But, if you carry it over for the rest of the series, it is super depressing. Not to mention, if the Warden dies in DAO, she commits suicide years later.

[Murp]

There being ways to "break the system" doesn't mean it has no depth. They are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what you consider "broken", I believe the majority of games have stuff that can be considered broken. Does The Witcher 3 have broken stuff? Does PoE2 have broken stuff? They all would have no depth whatsoever then. As a side note, Time Stop is part of the system BioWare had to work with, it had to be in there, whether they found it "broken" or not. And yes, I agree that in end game you can literally spam Time Stop nonstop and that is rather broken. But that is very, very late in the game. The depth of combat before you reach that point in the game doesn't just disappear simply because in end game you have access to something "broken".

 

Even vanilla BG2 feels more exciting, especially when you compare late game BG2 and late game PoE2. With the Sequencer/Trigger mechanics, there is a wide range of legit combos that make combat feel dynamic and flexible. It also lends emphasis to pre-combat preparations. When you see the damage your party have to suffer after combat and that you had to burn through many valuable resources to beat a fight, it feels rewarding. As spellcasters you can summon stronger and stronger creatures, can actually control most of them and use their abilities. It feels good to have access to higher level spells because they are actually powerful, as they are meant to be.

 

To me, PoE2 combat fell flat really fast. I admit, it was extremely exciting to level up my characters up to like level 10. I played a cipher, and I have access to a total of  NINE spells from level 7, 8, and 9. The three 7th-level spells are complete crap. Haunting Chains inflicts Terrified and Hobbled. For 18s. I was like, why is THIS even a NINTH-level spell? Same for Xoti. The 9th-level Priest spells sound so mind-numbing I didn't even bother taking a single one. I just opted for the passive +1 power level. As for Aloth, he suffered from the grimoire system. There's no excitement whatsoever in leveling up your mage when you know that with a bunch of grimoires in your quickslots you cover essentially ALL spells from any level. As I figured out some potential "combos" early on in the game, I was very excited. That didn't last very long, since the game became easier and easier and, sadly, more casual as I progressed. By the time I finished setting up combos and ready to unleash them, most enemies were almost dead anyway. Why bother with "advanced" stuff when just basic attacks and a few basic skills will carry you through everything?

 

I'm not trying to sound like a hater. I *really* enjoyed PoE2 before it started falling flat. It's just that there are so many big let-downs for me as far as combat is concerned. BG2 is far from perfect but at least I never had any major let-down playing BG2. In another topic, I said I was still early in the game but already almost hit level-cap, someone else said I was literally two quests away from endgame, so not that "early". It was actually a spoiler for me, but I was surprised to find that, I wasn't bothered by that at all. In fact, I felt relieved because it was almost over. Game was getting so dull, sorry to say. I didn't even bother with some other major questlines like the entire Crookspur conflict. Just couldn't find the motivation.

 

 

I never said Deadfire was perfect and I do agree that fun should override balance even though I do hold it in a higher regard. I'm saying that Baldur's Gate Isn't perfect with glaring problems and people tend to be really bias towards it. The Baldur's Gate series is in like my top five favorite by the way.

 

As far as late game goes I rather enjoy not making nearly every fight irrelevant cannon fodder when (for whatever reason) a thief has the ability to make traps that stop time (somehow).

[Manveru123]

All this Time Stop hate, when in vanilla BG2 you get it near like the last dungeon of the game, and in ToB every major enemy is immune to it.. Time Stop was only abuseable if you did something like a solo Sorc playthrough and got it early. But the game was not intended for solo so it's on you for gaming the system.

 

Of course BG2 isn't perfect but they did the best they could with 2E rules imo. Combat is not everything in games like these, too. Just look at all these people fawning over Torment. Sure, Torment is probably the best written cRPG in history, but combat in that game was complete horse****.

[knownastherat]

I suspect those using Time Stop (Improved Alacrity and Robe of Vecna) either have not grasped let's say finer elements of game mechanics or just wanted to be done with encounters as soon as possible

 

And even with Time Stop BG2, whether it's better than PoE or not, is regarded and accepted as of one the greatest RPGs ever. So much for "need for balance argument" which is supposed to make the game better, right? Right

Edited July 3, 2018 by knownastherat

[Madscientist]

First of all, I have never played PnP RPGs and I never dealt with DnD outside of computer games. So for me DnD is just a set of rules, I have no emotional connection to it.

 

With that in mind, I think that DnD is completely unbalanced and broken. It will be very hard to create a computer game that sticks to the DnD rules where it is not easy to create chars that are completely useless and other chars who are godlike OP. This is not a problem for the "nerds" who know everything about the game, but is is a problem for new or not so experianced players who make a bad choice without knowing it and then they quit and think the game is junk. It is not, they only have a bad char or made a bad decission otherwise. In a PnP game ( remember, the rule set has been designet for it) a good game master can deal with it. He knows the players and their chars and tries to make an experiance all of them will enjoy. The players can talk with each other and say : "This looks like a really bad choice, maybe you should try something else."

In a computer game like BG or PoE you sit alone in front of the computer. All you have is the manual and the information the game gives you. I consider it bad game design if the game offers you several options that look all valid, but most of this choices are terrible and a few ones are OP.

A company who sells games has to attract new players. Obsidian cannot live from the oldschool BG lovers alone. It is OK if they change things to make it easier for new players to get into the game and that they try to fix that are useless, broken or OP.

Personally I prefer computer games where the rules were made for computer games from the beginning. Game mechanics wise I prefer DA:O or PoE1+2 over any DnD game. I do not say that BG2 or other DnD games are bad, they are very good. But I do not consider them good because of DnD. They are good because of the story, the locations, the characters, the quests or maybe other things, depending on what game we talk about. But for me DnD is just one possible rule set among others and it is more obstuse, unbalanced and broken than some other possible systems.

 

I like games that surprise me and that play with expectations. I do not mind lots of reading and I can live with bad game mechanics if the rest is good. Here is an incomplete list of games I love:

- PST: A masterpiece of setting, characters and writing. It turns everything upside down. An immortal main char, epic fights with rats, philosophical talks with undead, good demons and bad angels, and so on. It had the best characters ever. I love the discussions with Dakkon about the unbroken circle, for example.

- KotoR2: The first game was standart fantasy, but the second really shines. Star wars is about two sects of mages drunk with power who follow an extreme ideology that is doomed to fail. The conflict between them is the main reason for suffering in the world. Its best to get rid with both of them. ( Says a mage who is drunk with power and who follows an extreme ideology that is doomed to fail. )

- Arcanum: I have never had a game with more reactivity. I had one playthrough with a char who had very high int and cha, who had an army of followers and who convinced the bad guy to give up. An I had a dumb orc who talks like an idiot, does everything bad he can, kills lots of people and joins the bad guy to destroy the world.

- Undertale. This game is so weired that I cannot describe it. Kill everyone, become friend of everyone, anything in between and lots of things that are just nuts. Its fantastic.

- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, best played as malkavien. No other game created such a great atmosphere of impending doom and madness.

      All of these games have one thing in commen: They will never win a prize for the best game mechanics or best balancing, in some cases its quite the opposite in fact. But I love them anyway.

 

Which leads me to a strange thought:

Maybe many people dislike PoE because it is more balanced and the rules make more sense than other games.

I think that deadfire has the best rule set from any RPG I know. The rest of the game is way above average, but not as unique as the examples above.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Madscientist

[try2handing]

Of course BG2 isn't perfect but they did the best they could with 2E rules imo. Combat is not everything in games like these, too. Just look at all these people fawning over Torment. Sure, Torment is probably the best written cRPG in history, but combat in that game was complete horse****.

You could say PST is not about combat AT ALL and you wouldn't be wrong. I attempted to play that game a couple times over the years, but only finally played through it completely a few months back with Beamdog's  Enhanced Edition. Before that I'd heard many praised the writing and story of that game, and I only really understood why after finishing the game. The dialogues with NPCs in the world are on a whole other level and really bring the characters to life. The story in general is well written and is really one of a kind. It's just one hell of a very bizarre and extraordinary journey. To me the writing/storytelling completely makes up for the crappy combat.

[ThacoBell]

First of all, I have never played PnP RPGs and I never dealt with DnD outside of computer games. So for me DnD is just a set of rules, I have no emotional connection to it.

 

With that in mind, I think that DnD is completely unbalanced and broken. It will be very hard to create a computer game that sticks to the DnD rules where it is not easy to create chars that are completely useless and other chars who are godlike OP. This is not a problem for the "nerds" who know everything about the game, but is is a problem for new or not so experianced players who make a bad choice without knowing it and then they quit and think the game is junk. It is not, they only have a bad char or made a bad decission otherwise. In a PnP game ( remember, the rule set has been designet for it) a good game master can deal with it. He knows the players and their chars and tries to make an experiance all of them will enjoy. The players can talk with each other and say : "This looks like a really bad choice, maybe you should try something else."

In a computer game like BG or PoE you sit alone in front of the computer. All you have is the manual and the information the game gives you. I consider it bad game design if the game offers you several options that look all valid, but most of this choices are terrible and a few ones are OP.

A company who sells games has to attract new players. Obsidian cannot live from the oldschool BG lovers alone. It is OK if they change things to make it easier for new players to get into the game and that they try to fix that are useless, broken or OP.

Personally I prefer computer games where the rules were made for computer games from the beginning. Game mechanics wise I prefer DA:O or PoE1+2 over any DnD game. I do not say that BG2 or other DnD games are bad, they are very good. But I do not consider them good because of DnD. They are good because of the story, the locations, the characters, the quests or maybe other things, depending on what game we talk about. But for me DnD is just one possible rule set among others and it is more obstuse, unbalanced and broken than some other possible systems.

 

I like games that surprise me and that play with expectations. I do not mind lots of reading and I can live with bad game mechanics if the rest is good. Here is an incomplete list of games I love:

- PST: A masterpiece of setting, characters and writing. It turns everything upside down. An immortal main char, epic fights with rats, philosophical talks with undead, good demons and bad angels, and so on. It had the best characters ever. I love the discussions with Dakkon about the unbroken circle, for example.

- KotoR2: The first game was standart fantasy, but the second really shines. Star wars is about two sects of mages drunk with power who follow an extreme ideology that is doomed to fail. The conflict between them is the main reason for suffering in the world. Its best to get rid with both of them. ( Says a mage who is drunk with power and who follows an extreme ideology that is doomed to fail. )

- Arcanum: I have never had a game with more reactivity. I had one playthrough with a char who had very high int and cha, who had an army of followers and who convinced the bad guy to give up. An I had a dumb orc who talks like an idiot, does everything bad he can, kills lots of people and joins the bad guy to destroy the world.

- Undertale. This game is so weired that I cannot describe it. Kill everyone, become friend of everyone, anything in between and lots of things that are just nuts. Its fantastic.

- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, best played as malkavien. No other game created such a great atmosphere of impending doom and madness.

      All of these games have one thing in commen: They will never win a prize for the best game mechanics or best balancing, in some cases its quite the opposite in fact. But I love them anyway.

 

Which leads me to a strange thought:

Maybe many people dislike PoE because it is more balanced and the rules make more sense than other games.

I think that deadfire has the best rule set from any RPG I know. The rest of the game is way above average, but not as unique as the examples above.

I actually agree with both of your strange thoughts completely. A perfectly balanced single player game (especially one where you build your own character) is boring. When everything is equal, nothing is special.

[Barleypaper]

I'm rather tired of people saying "BG2 isn't perfect", as though there exist some legion of impenetrably dim grognards who believe otherwise. Of course BG2 isn't perfect. But it was, and still is, loved by many people for many good reasons (yes, even after removing all nostalgia-enhancing headgear; not everyone played BG for the first time 20 years ago, nor is everyone in this thread incapable of exercising objectivity).

 

Anyway...

 

 

Which leads me to a strange thought:

Maybe many people dislike PoE because it is more balanced and the rules make more sense than other games.

I think that deadfire has the best rule set from any RPG I know. The rest of the game is way above average, but not as unique as the examples above.

I actually agree with both of your strange thoughts completely. A perfectly balanced single player game (especially one where you build your own character) is boring. When everything is equal, nothing is special.

 

This. For numerous, subtle reasons. The whole design focus of the game is balance-oriented. I think that many people, ostensibly including Obsidian and/or Josh Sawyer, don't understand how this can be a bad thing. I'm not sure I do, either, fully. But I know a bad smell when I smell it and I wish developers could figure it out.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Barleypaper

[Gfted1]

This. For numerous, subtle reasons. The whole design focus of the game is balance-oriented. I think that many people, ostensibly including Obsidian and/or Josh Sawyer, don't understand how this can be a bad thing. I'm not sure I do, either, fully. But I know a bad smell when I smell it and I wish developers could figure it out.

Imo, there's a fine line to walk between "game balance" and "saving people from their own crippling ocd". I don't know where that line is but it seemed like PoE stepped across it, for me at least.

[Aotrs Commander]

I personally prefer PS:T to BG2.

 

(I mean, don't get me wrong, BG2 was frackin' great, but...)

 

I have yet to find anything that hits the perfect storm like Torment did.

 

Torment Tides of Numenara has come very close - for the first time, capturing some of that outlandish other-world feel that is part of what made PS:T work for me; but I think was just let down by them going to turn-based combat (not in and of itself a problem), which caused them to drop the chaff-level fights which get so easily tedious in turn-based RPGs (not in and of itself a problem), but which lead to a game which, without much combat to bulk it out, felt way too short - less than half the time it took for me to play PoE[1].

 

(Which, by the by, I was very happy with. Not played enough of PoE2 yet to determined plus or minus.)

 

PS:T and the IE games succeeded DESPITE the base rules of AD&D, in my opinion. While all the lovely spell-effects and explosions are lovely, and I'd love to all the explosions in PoE 1/2 as well, as someone who came to D&D as a distant forth RPG on the tabletop, I have no illusions about its quality as a rule-system. (Tabletop, I prefer a VERY heavily modified version on 3.5/Pathfinder, which addresses those system's core flaws (and they have big flaws), but for me and my game paradigm, the are worth working around. Otherwide, I use Rolemaster... Which has never had an RPG, though honestly, there might be too much RNG in RM for even people who love being screwed by the RNG and such...!)

 

 

 

[1]I keep forgetting I have the enhanced version of PS:T to play and it will be interesting to measure actually how long a playthrough takes... And PS:T is one of the very few games (period) I have played more than twice (alongside C&C and Dungeon Keeper 1 (though War for the Overworld is very perilously close to making the grade.))

[Loren Tyr]

This. For numerous, subtle reasons. The whole design focus of the game is balance-oriented. I think that many people, ostensibly including Obsidian and/or Josh Sawyer, don't understand how this can be a bad thing. I'm not sure I do, either, fully. But I know a bad smell when I smell it and I wish developers could figure it out.

 

There's nothing for them to figure out if they don't agree it smells bad in the first place, though. So you'd have to be rather more explicit on why balance-oriented design is a bad thing to convince them. Although I must say I don't see it as anything other than positive, good balance is of rather fundamental importance to the quality of (almost) any game as far as I'm concerned. 

[Hayte]

Nostalgia is a helluva drug, I agree but even when I played BGII at release, I was aware the writing was silly and the mechanics were clunky. Since then I have replayed it 9 or 10 times all the way through and the game as a whole holds up well. The writing is still crass and the mechanics are still clunky but the epic journey is still there and it is only dulled by the experience of having seen it at all at least once before. Unfortunately, you only get one first playthrough.

 

What BGII does that so many rpgs don't is dare to go big. I don't mean big in terms of land area or gameplay hours. I mean big in terms of scope. BGII is a theme park ride through all the major attractions of the Forgotten Realms setting.

 

From Athkatla to the Planar Sphere to Spellhold to the City of Caverns to the Underdark to Suldanessellar, its an odyssey from one awe inspiring sight to another to another to another.

 

Witcher 3 is the only rpg since then that for me has dared to aim for a similar scale - the kind of scale where you play it the second and third time and you have a checklist as long as your arm of all the best bits. Both games are stuffed full of "best bits" queuing up to be relived. I look forward to playing Witcher 3 again (which will be the 4th time). I'm talking full RP walk, man mode playthrough (no Aerondight/Euphoria because it breaks the game). My brain is bursting just trying to remember my own personal, canonical order and choices to relive the most satisfying version of what seems at this point to be a very familiar tale.

 

It has been a few years but my last BGII playthrough was just like that. After I've had my fill of drab brown and grey villages and vapid fetch quests, those 2 games are the ones I keep going back to.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Hayte

[the streaker]

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?

 

Well let me tell you, OP, that I've been waiting for something to top the Godfather trilogy for 30 years and we're no closer to that either.

[Multihog]

 

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 disagree on all counts. BG2's writing is solid and entertaining—very often funny—as are its mechanics. "Mature" doesn't mean better, though I'm not sure if it's even that to begin with. Not sure what you mean by "descriptions" either, but if you mean the grey descriptive text in PoE, then I'm glad for its absence in BG2 as it's all just redundant text. I'd turn it off in PoE if I could. Less is more. I don't care about the wrinkles some character has on their face. BG2 also has amazing companions and companion interactions.

 

By the way, no nostalgia: I played for the first time in 2012. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Multihog

[knownastherat]

 

This. For numerous, subtle reasons. The whole design focus of the game is balance-oriented. I think that many people, ostensibly including Obsidian and/or Josh Sawyer, don't understand how this can be a bad thing. I'm not sure I do, either, fully. But I know a bad smell when I smell it and I wish developers could figure it out.

 

There's nothing for them to figure out if they don't agree it smells bad in the first place, though. So you'd have to be rather more explicit on why balance-oriented design is a bad thing to convince them. Although I must say I don't see it as anything other than positive, good balance is of rather fundamental importance to the quality of (almost) any game as far as I'm concerned. 

 

 

Well, while you are certainly entitled to the opinion that good balance (we could spend years trying to define it) is a fundamental property of any game, I would argue, just like some before me, that fundamental property of a game is fun. While these two are not mutually exclusive, if a game is not fun, it does not matter if its balanced or not because who would play a game which is not fun? It's like with art. It can be the most artistic art ever made but if nobody will see it and enjoy it, what is the point? 

Edited July 3, 2018 by knownastherat

[TheisEjsing]

 

 

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 disagree on all counts. BG2's writing is solid and entertaining—very often funny—as are its mechanics. Not sure what you mean by "descriptions", but if you mean that grey descriptive text in PoE, then I'm glad for its absence in BG2 as it's all just redundant text. I'd turn it off in PoE if I could. Less is more. I don't care about the wrinkles some character has on their face. BG2 also has amazing companions and companion interactions.

 

By the way, no nostalgia: I played for the first time in 2012. 

 

What a wonderful world we got, where we are allowed to disagree. ^_^

[xzar_monty]

 

Well let me tell you, OP, that I've been waiting for something to top the Godfather trilogy for 30 years and we're no closer to that either.

 

In strictly mathematical terms, probability-wise, the fact is that if something has already been around for a number of years, it is very likely indeed that it will continue to be around. Conversely, the chances that anything new will make more than a splash are infinitesimally small. To illustrate: practically every canonical literary classic from, say, the 19th century, will maintain its status for the next 100 years, while very little from the past 50 years will be remembered, and absolutely everything from the year 2018 will almost certainly be forgotten. (So if you're interested in good stories, start from the Greeks and the Romans and work your way up to the Renaissance, after which you might, if so inclined, check out some newer stuff.)

 

Since you brought up films, that's a lost industry. There's practically nothing there anymore, particularly in mainstream. Incidentally, one somewhat amusing thing that most North Americans don't realize (and I'm not saying they should) is that they are no longer the target audience for North American movies. The Far East is: the market is simply so much bigger there. So if you've ever felt that mainstream films are less subtle (ha!) than they used to be, there's a very clear cultural reason for that.

[Loren Tyr]

Well, while you are certainly entitled to the opinion that good balance (we could spend years trying to define it) is a fundamental property of any game, I would argue, just like some before me, that fundamental property of a game is fun. While these two are not mutually exclusive, if a game is not fun, it does not matter if its balanced or not because who would play a game which is not fun? It's like with art. It can be the most artistic ever made but if nobody will see it and enjoy it, what is the point? 

 

I'd say the fun isn't so much a property of the game itself, but rather people's experience of it. What someone considers to be fun of course ties directly to their individual preferences, and how well a particular game (or anything else) caters to those. Though I'm certainly not denying the fundamental importance of having fun when playing a game, because indeed why play it if not to have fun?

 

For me a game feeling unbalanced would detract from my enjoyment of it, in part because it tends to rather constrain viable playing styles and options and such. How a game being/feeling too balanced would for others reduce their enjoyment though, I don't quite see; hence my curiosity (complaints about insufficient energy having been spent on other things or post-release rebalancing I get, but then it's not really about being 'over-balanced' as such).