Rhomal's Commentary - Old school in NWN 2 - Part

[Rhomal]

NWN 2 & Old School - Part 2

 

My thanks to everyone, agreed or not, for at the very least reading what I had to say and posting feedback. There were many interesting comments and I would like to take this time to address a few of them. This before I get into the bulk of this article, which is the 5 points I feel Obsidian needs to address in NWN 2 vs. NWN 1.

 

Acrodania: Micro-managing, for the sake of micro-managing is BAD.

 

I agree 150% and I am NOT advocating putting what I describe below in for just the effect of putting it in. I believe everything suggested later on in this commentary has a point and advantages to the game either in SP or/and MP mode. I believe there should be a balance between fun and difficulty/management. It seems some of those who posted feedback to my initial overview seemed to be under the impression it

[Darque]

[Maedhros]

)

[Arkan]

[Volourn]

For your five points...

 

 

1. I agree the OC henchmen were rather weak interatcion compared to BG2. SOU,a nd espicially HOTU were almost on par with that game, and they were much better than the BG1 npcs. Still, overall, this one area I agree with. NPC interaction should always be worked on.

 

2. I agree. I'm one of those anal people that feel that the need of supplies is a good thing. Of course, it shouldn't be taken to the extreme like food/water if used should be subtracted automatically when you rest. Though, that said, torches can and have played an important role in NWN. Though; not as often as I'd like.

 

3. Eh. The BT were always about ph@t lewt. Ultima wasn't much better. BG1 was okay; but still it had lots of ph@t lewt. Considering that in NWN1 you wer elucky to have a +5 weapon at 20th level (not all weapon types had that version), and in BG1 at 8-th level you'd have access to a +2 or +3 weapon; there isn't that much of a difference. The only bad thing NWN did with ph@t lewt is the overuse of barrels which has more or less been fixed with the expansions. Obviously, BIO got the message that barrels = bad.

 

4. Yeha, the OC handled resting horribly, imo, too. That said, once again, the expansions handled this just fine. From random encounters when resting to not being able to rest in ceratin areas it gives lots of restrictions.

 

5. No. I like the diea here; but in essence it's friggin' annoying to suggest. I'd rather not have to take 10 minutes to walk past an area that I've gone through or to run across town just to buy a few arrows. That's annoying. At least in pnp, you simply tell the DM, I go buy arrows and babing you get your arrows. Or, if you want to return the town after exploring the dungeon, you don't have to take the 3 hours of RT to get back to town, you just say I hea dback to town, the DM rolls for random encounters (if he feels the need to), and you get back to town within seconds of RT. And, having DMs only have access to shout is a bad decision for default. Mnay PWs are all about dungeon crawling, and party building so that shouldn't be taken away. Of course, there is already ways to disable shouts if one so chooses so you already have that option.

 

 

In essence, your ideas are good; but they've pretty much been covered by NWN1 already..

[Ellester]

I like Wraithcallers argument. NWN was a 3D version of IWD2. Kill a million baddies and collect tons of loot. And the best loot was left out in the open, in the street barrels. Bio fixed this with their expansions, though. His argument about the FR in general is expected. If you

[Ellester]

Concerning No2:

 

a) I agree FPS does stuff like this, no reason why an rpg can

[Reveilled]

I'm not sure about expiring torches. If you're going to have expiring torches, then you have to remove permanent ones on walls to make that aspect worth putting in at all (Torches were next to useless in much of the OC because of ambient light), and if you do that, it's really not fair to make the player have his own source of light unless he has an actual party rather than just a henchman. If you're playing a fighter and your henchman is a dual-wielding rogue, it's not very fair on the player to force either of his characters to lose their off-hands to a torch. If the player has a party, or several henchmen, it's not so important, because there will certainly be one character who can afford to lose their off-hand. "[The wizard gets] the lantern and the ten foot pole, some robes and this thing that does 1d4."

 

Mind you, the most fun I ever had in NWN was when a bug in a fan module meant I had three henchmen. Having something like a party, in a way especially because I didn't completely control them, made it lots of fun. I hope Obsidian can do that on purpose with NWN 2. Of course, I haven't been keeping up with NWN 2's development, so maybe that's already a given.

[Volourn]

"I hope Obsidian can do that on purpose with NWN 2."

 

NWN already does this by purpose. And, Obsidian has already confirmed a minimum of three henchmen at once being possible; if not more.

[Serious Callers Only]

The only game that i remember playing that had food was Betrayal in Krondor. I'm sure there were more but BaK rocked so damm hard, it's the only one i remember having food. I'm indifferent to food in games.

[metadigital]

SubBassman has written a complex module Tortured Hearts for NwN (over eighty hours) which includes food and encumberence for gold; it also includes a bank for safe deposit of gold (because it becomes increasingly untenable to carry large sums -- greater than a few thousand GP -- around).

 

He has also implemented day and night scripts for each NPC.

 

One warning, though, the save games are >80MB !

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

And the module takes ages to load.

[Gromnir]

is lots of assumptions made in the link above that not seem to match Gromnir's recollections.

 

just one example:

 

old skool bg1 had something like 7 levels, and folks is now ascribing kewlness to this fact.

 

*shrug*

 

one o' the most common complaints on the boards following bg1 were (along with people groaning 'bout largely unused and uninteresting wilderness maps that seemed to contain not much more than a couple bandit encounters and maybe a fed-ex quest,) the snail's pace o' levelling.

 

the bis and bio developers listened and when iwd and bg2 were made, those games offered almost 2x as many levels... levels for a party o' 6 as did bg.

 

now, when nwn gots made by bio they had choices to make 'bout levels. as the folks at bio were not retarded, they wasn't gonna do something so stoopid as to implement level progression similar to bg... 'cause that were something that the overwhelming majority o' folks were 'gainst. the bio developers also recognized that in nwn you would only be leveling a single character... not six. 6 characters that you got to level 'bout 5 times apiece (rarely got joinable npcs who were 1st level,) resulted in 'bout 30 level opportunities in bg.

 

...

 

no doubt some folks is starting to see problem faced by developers of such games as nwn and kotor and kotor2.

 

regardless, old skool kewl slow levelling were never kewl. it were a mistake that the developers tried to fix.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Shadowstrider]

I disagree with Gromnir's wording, but not the message. Slow level progression wasn't the problem, the problem was the level CAP. Maximum level of BG1 with TotSC was 8. For a player like me, thats plenty, I prefer low-level adventures.

 

Unfortunately the vast, vast, vast majority of players prefer [lame] 'epic' levels, so they can pack in all the feats they possibly can. *Shrugs* Different strokes for different folks.

 

P.S. The 'lawn-mowing' areas in BG1 were awesome. I loved wandering around the maps and stumbling across encounters.

[metadigital]

game balance

 

That's what it's all about; KotOR:TSL appeared to my amateur eye to have had the XP rewards doubled ex post facto. Also, the biggest problem with K2 was not the levelling, per se, but the ludicrously skewed bonuses ascribed to level which totally overshadowed the bonuses due to attribute, item and feat.

 

I have no problem with low level characters, that is a perfect opportunity for more friendly NPCs, for example, and more diplomatic solutions instead of military ones. High (epic) level characters provide a means to see complex feat chains in their glory

[Gromnir]

I disagree with Gromnir's wording, but not the message.  Slow level progression wasn't the problem, the problem was the level CAP.  Maximum level of BG1 with TotSC was 8.  For a player like me, thats plenty, I prefer low-level adventures.

 

Unfortunately the vast, vast, vast majority of players prefer [lame] 'epic' levels, so they can pack in all the feats they possibly can.  *Shrugs*  Different strokes for different folks.

 

P.S. The 'lawn-mowing' areas in BG1 were awesome.  I loved wandering around the maps and stumbling across encounters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

if you disagree with wording you is missing the point. Gromnir ain't stating preferences... am just pointing out what happened. is not really a mater of opinion. people did complain 'bout lack o' levels in bg1. whatever you thinks folks REAL problem with bg1 levels aside, we is telling you what folks did complain 'bout. Co6 boards were full of such complaints. weekly. daily. hourly.

 

levels is not important to Gromnir. a handful of levels in a 40+ hour game is okie dokie. that not change what were the complaints.

 

oh, and the vast majority of folks did complain 'bout largely empty wilderness maps.

 

revisionist history is popular... but you is getting the real story from Gromnir... likes it or not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Shadowstrider]

Again, the complaints I recall weren't with slowly leveling up, simply that you would hit the cap (7 in BG1, 8 with TotSC) and then could do nothing else (without unofficial modding). As I recall I levelled quite quickly in BG1, and was actually to the cap by the time I reached Baldur's Gate City, which is like 2/3s the way through the game.

 

There is a difference between 'the snail's pace o' levelling' and hitting the cap too quickly. I don't recall much griping with the level PACE on the old Developer's Corner or BG1 forums.

[Gromnir]

you got an odd memory. sure, the hardcore players complained that they hit cap way too early, but complaints that there weren't 'nuff levels were near universal.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Shadowstrider]

Gromnir, your wording has changed slightly. Are you saying that people were complaining about not leveling OFTEN enough, or simply not leveling enough?

 

I remember the latter, not the former.

[Gromnir]

our wording is changing? no it ain't. the vast majority complained that they not get 'nuff levels... period. people complained 'bout the levelling... period. you ascribe some specific meaning to our words that ain't there maybe.

 

7 were too few. people rarely went into huge detail when they complained... didn't note how many hours they played or how often they leveled in 10 hour periods o' time... they simply complained.

 

there were complaints 'bout the cap being set too low for such a large/long game. there were also a recognizable group that complained that getting to level 4 or 5 were quick, but that getting from 5 to 7 were interminable. however, the vast majority o' folks complaining 'bout levels just ranted 'bout how 7 weren't 'nuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nightblade]

I loved the huge wilderness areas in BG1.

So what if people complained, it's still the best crpg.

 

Pff.. people don't know what they like.

[EnderAndrew]

I loved the huge wilderness areas in BG1.

So what if people complained, it's still the best crpg.

 

Pff..  people don't know what they like. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BG1 I could explore in 25 hours. Try doing that in say Morrowind, Gothic or Ultima 7.

[Volourn]

"BG1 I could explore in 25 hours."

 

Only if you rushed through after having played it multiple times. 25 hours first time? I think not.

[GhostofAnakin]

"BG1 I could explore in 25 hours."

 

Only if you rushed through after having played it multiple times. 25 hours first time? I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He said explore, not complete or defeat all enemies in that time.

 

I think it's plausible to be able to travel to all the areas within that time frame, if you have a semblence of idea what you're doing. Doesn't mean you'll be able to finish the quests associated with each area though.

[Volourn]

"He said explore, not complete or defeat all enemies in that time."

 

He also said explore not rushing from one screen to another like he wa son speed. Exploring to me means actually explorinh.

 

 

"I think it's plausible to be able to travel to all the areas within that time frame, if you have a semblence of idea what you're doing."

 

Travelling from area to the next isn't neccesary exploring. I can get to a city in the US within hours by jumping on a plane. That doens't mean I was exploring. Or I could take my time in explore the area in between, say, New York and North Bay. See the difference?