Volourn tends to use an "interesting" style when it comes to discussions, but there wasn't anything wrong with his arguments, nor was he insulting.

 

I wasn't aware sticking your fingers in your ears and going "NANANANANA NOT LISTENING" was a discussion style.

I have never felt that while playing an obsidian title to date that some sort of boundary in regards to RPG gameplay is being pressed. Standard gameplay with above average story telling.

 

I disagree. It is precisely through intertwining the story with the gameplay that Obsidian has pushed the boundary of RPGs in the Mask of the Betrayer, as story is such a vital feature of RPGs. The Spirit Meter mechanic in the Mask of the Betrayer is the perfect example of this - it was innovative, fitted well with the story and provided for very interesting gameplay options that fed back again to an engaging story in a loop. That definitely pushed the boundary of RPG gameplay and in a very positive way.

 

If you exclude the Mask of the Betrayer, however, and concentrate solely on previous titles, than you may have a point, though I never felt particularly bothered by that. That said, I liked the innovation of the MotB so much, that I am somewhat apprehensive that Obsidian might back off further such experiments due to the negative reaction of some posters on the forums to the Spirit Meter mechanic.

 

While the whole spirit thing in MoB was cool and all... It didn't feel like something dramatically new, kinda reminded me of the day when food existed in CRPG's. It was an extreme modification of an old mechanic coupled with the story.

 

Well, what I am trying to say is that interlacing this new mechanic with the story has been a clear innovation on Obsidian's part and a very positive one at that. Obsidian's strengths are story and dialogue and they have managed to find a new mechanic that plays into their strength. Oh, well, we are debating semantics - after all we both agree that we liked it and that it was something new, so the 'degree of newness' is not so important.

I have never felt that while playing an obsidian title to date that some sort of boundary in regards to RPG gameplay is being pressed. Standard gameplay with above average story telling.

 

I disagree. It is precisely through intertwining the story with the gameplay that Obsidian has pushed the boundary of RPGs in the Mask of the Betrayer, as story is such a vital feature of RPGs. The Spirit Meter mechanic in the Mask of the Betrayer is the perfect example of this - it was innovative, fitted well with the story and provided for very interesting gameplay options that fed back again to an engaging story in a loop. That definitely pushed the boundary of RPG gameplay and in a very positive way.

 

If you exclude the Mask of the Betrayer, however, and concentrate solely on previous titles, than you may have a point, though I never felt particularly bothered by that. That said, I liked the innovation of the MotB so much, that I am somewhat apprehensive that Obsidian might back off further such experiments due to the negative reaction of some posters on the forums to the Spirit Meter mechanic.

 

Yep though it seems the best way to enrich the experience is to break rules and introduce new things. Perhaps DnD 3.5 might be getting a little stale cRPG wise.

 

Well, yes and no on the new things. I like the aura of familiarity with D&D 3.5E and am a fan of the system (I DM/play it in PnP too). It is nice to spice it up with new mechanics and the breaking of the rules here and there for story purposes, but I am not clamoring for something dramatically different in every way or a replacement of the ruleset (especially not if it meant its replacement with 4E...), though using a similar ruleset, such as the Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG) would be fine. Hmm, I guess I am a conservative gamer who likes just enough differences in games to spice things up, but isn't looking for something completely and utterly different.

Well, yes and no on the new things. I like the aura of familiarity with D&D 3.5E and am a fan of the system (I DM/play it in PnP too). It is nice to spice it up with new mechanics and the breaking of the rules here and there for story purposes, but I am not clamoring for something dramatically different in every way or a replacement of the ruleset (especially not if it meant its replacement with 4E...), though using a similar ruleset, such as the Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG) would be fine. Hmm, I guess I am a conservative gamer who likes just enough differences in games to spice things up, but isn't looking for something completely and utterly different.

 

Its just a question how much repetition bores you.

As for DnD, pathfinder is an option certanly, while the 4E is... horrible

Funny thing though, regardless of our opinions on the matter Bioware has abandoned the license for a time at least, and Obsidian is making an expansion only. Actually I'm not aware of any DnD games being made at this time apart from SoZ. (KOTOR3?) Which just might show that devs are foucsing on other things as well.

Well, yes and no on the new things. I like the aura of familiarity with D&D 3.5E and am a fan of the system (I DM/play it in PnP too). It is nice to spice it up with new mechanics and the breaking of the rules here and there for story purposes, but I am not clamoring for something dramatically different in every way or a replacement of the ruleset (especially not if it meant its replacement with 4E...), though using a similar ruleset, such as the Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG) would be fine. Hmm, I guess I am a conservative gamer who likes just enough differences in games to spice things up, but isn't looking for something completely and utterly different.

 

As for DnD, pathfinder is an option certanly, while the 4E is... horrible

 

We agree on that certainly. Perhaps in CRPG format 4E might not be as bad as in the PnP format, but I would still prefer that 4E not be used. 3.5E is no longer supported by WotC, so that leaves Pathfinder as the main possibility for my CRPG D&D-style fix other than NWN2 expansions.

 

Funny thing though, regardless of our opinions on the matter Bioware has abandoned the license for a time at least, and Obsidian is making an expansion only. Actually I'm not aware of any DnD games being made at this time apart from SoZ. (KOTOR3?)

 

I am not aware of any other D&D game in production either, though I hope they do make more expansions for NWN2 even after SoZ. There are some pretty strong rumors of Baldur's Gate 3 being in production by an unannounced developer (it was explicitly stated that the developer is not BioWare and I doubt it would be Obsidian, as they are not a huge studio and have their hands full with so many other games), but despite being seemingly credible it is not certain - they are still only rumors. Of course any BG3 game would not continue the BG series storyline and would be just a D&D game using the name, though it could have some references to the Bhaalspawn saga. It would also unfortunately likely be in 4E, unless it was in production already long before 4E was made public.

I am not aware of any other D&D game in production either, though I hope they do make more expansions for NWN2 even after SoZ. There are some pretty strong rumors of Baldur's Gate 3 being in production by an unannounced developer (it was explicitly stated that the developer is not BioWare and I doubt it would be Obsidian, as they are not a huge studio and have their hands full with so many other games), but despite being seemingly credible it is not certain - they are still only rumors. Of course any BG3 game would not continue the BG series storyline and would be just a D&D game using the name, though it could have some references to the Bhaalspawn saga. It would also unfortunately likely be in 4E, unless it was in production already long before 4E was made public.

 

BG3 rumors have persisted for years... At least it would be unrelated, I wouldnt like to see a real sequel, that story is done and it has played its part....

But I dont see the point of using the game's name anymore, a lot of time has passed and the older games who know what BG is about wont be fooled by the use of the name, while the newer gamers are just likely to be confused...

I am not aware of any other D&D game in production either, though I hope they do make more expansions for NWN2 even after SoZ. There are some pretty strong rumors of Baldur's Gate 3 being in production by an unannounced developer (it was explicitly stated that the developer is not BioWare and I doubt it would be Obsidian, as they are not a huge studio and have their hands full with so many other games), but despite being seemingly credible it is not certain - they are still only rumors. Of course any BG3 game would not continue the BG series storyline and would be just a D&D game using the name, though it could have some references to the Bhaalspawn saga. It would also unfortunately likely be in 4E, unless it was in production already long before 4E was made public.

 

BG3 rumors have persisted for years... At least it would be unrelated, I wouldnt like to see a real sequel, that story is done and it has played its part....

But I dont see the point of using the game's name anymore, a lot of time has passed and the older games who know what BG is about wont be fooled by the use of the name, while the newer gamers are just likely to be confused...

 

 

Well, BG3 rumors have been here before, but they do seem credible this time, coming from CVG.

"Sorry but this is absurd. BG2 has everything those games have and more. Even its playing time is larger than all of them combined."

 

It's absurd that anyone would think that BG2 and esp0icially BG1 actualkly have more ROLE-P0LAYINg than BIO's newer games. It's not even a contest. BTW, longer does NOt equal role-playing superiority,

 

" I think even the guys from Bioware would be shocked to hear this."

 

That's their opinion, and I doubt every BIO emp0loyee has the same preferences. Afterall, there's like 300 of them. That said, BIO has gone on record to call NWN their most successful game ever.

 

"You're the first person I've seen in the last 7 years who would even venture to compare NWN and JE with BGII..."

 

Either you lived in a hole, or purposefully ignored people who have had different opinions than you. MANY people share my opinions. Many don't. *shrug*

 

Also, by me saying that JE is better at role-playing than BG/BG2 is NOT the same as me saying it's a better game. BG2 is a better game; but JE is a better RPG. Period.

Of course the BG games have more RPing value compared to newer games. You think that NWN does? Not.

 

R00fles!

I basically said the same thing on Bioware's forum only to be mobbed by rabid fanboys who think that KOTOR 1 is the next best thing after pre-sliced bread...

Knights 2 was a pretty good game, but that is based upon my biased opinion. When it comes down to measuring Knights 1 to Mask of Betrayal, even KotOR 2 for that matter, I don't find myself yawning by the time I hit the end of the game. Knights 1 has to be the most entertaining, chiche' based, game I have ever played in a long time.

"Of course the BG games have more RPing value compared to newer games."

 

O RLY? What role-playing? Very little. That's how much. And, remember, I loved the BG series, too.

 

 

"You think that NWN does? Not."

 

Absolutely does comapred to BG. Even more so with BIO's newer games.

 

NWN has dialogue skills. BG doesn't.

 

NWN quests have more ways to complete them than BG does.

 

More NWN quests have non combat ways tfor solutions than BG.

 

Character wise, NWN fighters have more ways to make themselves different as one example.

 

The list can go on, and on, and on; but RPG wise, NWN is easily better.

 

And, oh, I like BG/BG2 more than the OC; but logically, it's ludicrous to claim that BG or even BG2 has more actual role-playing than NWN, JE, or ME. It's beyond silly.

 

 

"Knights 1 has to be the most entertaining, chiche' based, game I have ever played in a long time."

 

KOTOR is an okay. Not great, and MOTB is wayyyyyyyyyyyy better. No contest.

"Of course the BG games have more RPing value compared to newer games."

 

O RLY? What role-playing? Very little. That's how much. And, remember, I loved the BG series, too.

 

 

"You think that NWN does? Not."

 

Absolutely does comapred to BG. Even more so with BIO's newer games.

 

NWN has dialogue skills. BG doesn't.

 

NWN quests have more ways to complete them than BG does.

 

More NWN quests have non combat ways tfor solutions than BG.

 

Character wise, NWN fighters have more ways to make themselves different as one example.

 

The list can go on, and on, and on; but RPG wise, NWN is easily better.

 

And, oh, I like BG/BG2 more than the OC; but logically, it's ludicrous to claim that BG or even BG2 has more actual role-playing than NWN, JE, or ME. It's beyond silly.

 

 

"Knights 1 has to be the most entertaining, chiche' based, game I have ever played in a long time."

 

KOTOR is an okay. Not great, and MOTB is wayyyyyyyyyyyy better. No contest.

 

Ah so that's where the misunderstanding was. To me better role play has nothing to do with how many options the PC has, what's important is whether the ones offered feel meaningful, whether the gamer really feels

that the chosen dialogue option carries weight and that it would be something he would say (regardless of what's actually going on behind the scenes).

 

For me the choices offered in BGII felt like real choices, while in the latter games whatever you chose felt irrelevant, you're still rewarded, usually much more than you felt you earned (It took 3 days to reach lvl 20 in NWN, while it took the entire gameplay of BGII for just around 12 levels) . Choosing from the offered options felt like choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Whichever you pick its still ice cream. This goes for Jade Empire and Mass Effect especially, and somewhat less for NWN and KOTOR.

 

Here's an example, when you burn through the 300 hundred hours of adventure from the first BG to ToB, and finally get to make the choice at the end, you look back through all the sweat and blood it took to get there , and damn - you are actually getting to decide your destinly at last after being thrown around by fate, hunted, chased and god knows what for so long. You're choosing how things go and you feel you earned the choice.

 

On the other hand in the last six days I've thouroughly completed KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect (90% of game content seen). For something that was supposed to be epic role playing, it boiled down to the goodie goodie choice and the baddie baddie choice, none of which I cared about, forcing you to make the persistantly irritating (and totally impersonal) save the world goal (or screw the world goal).

I'm role playing me why do I give a toss about the world, galaxy or whatever??

Edited October 6, 200817 yr by RPGmasterBoo

So, to you, role-playing is about length. Weird. BIO's newer games have more meaningful role-playing. I agre that BG2 has a better story than NWN OC; but that doesn't make it better RPG. It's even worse in BG1. BG2 has solid role-playing for the most part (better than most agmes); but BG1's role-playing is nowhere near that good. Role-playing in BG1 mostly comes down the chocie between doing a quest or not doing it. There ane't really multiple ways to do things. Exceptions only prove the rule.

It's still the overall experience that matters. BG2 may have "worse" role-playing than ME, but it's still the better and more enjoyable game, thus superior.

 

Here's my personal Bio list (1st = best, last = worst)

 

BG2

Hotu

Kotor

NWN

ME

Jade Emire

BG1

SoU

 

So I don't care about "better role-playing" since every supposed choice has been a weak fake anyway.

Edited October 7, 200817 yr by Morgoth

So, to you, role-playing is about length. Weird. BIO's newer games have more meaningful role-playing. I agre that BG2 has a better story than NWN OC; but that doesn't make it better RPG. It's even worse in BG1. BG2 has solid role-playing for the most part (better than most agmes); but BG1's role-playing is nowhere near that good. Role-playing in BG1 mostly comes down the chocie between doing a quest or not doing it. There ane't really multiple ways to do things. Exceptions only prove the rule.

 

There are some exceptions... I personally found that to be quite cool, lots of little caveats, is BG1 as in depth as BG2 in that respect? no... Is it as in depth as NWN1 OC, no, but when it does do it, it does it far better I feel than NWN1 OC. BG2 more so... I really get the feeling that with some of the BG1 stuff not only can you miss paths entirely, they're actually not apparent at all until you reveal them as being practical options, which sometimes they are.

 

To be utterly clear on the matter, when BG1 does RP well, it does it better than NWN1 OC by far, from my humble experience.

So, to you, role-playing is about length. Weird. BIO's newer games have more meaningful role-playing. I agre that BG2 has a better story than NWN OC; but that doesn't make it better RPG. It's even worse in BG1. BG2 has solid role-playing for the most part (better than most agmes); but BG1's role-playing is nowhere near that good. Role-playing in BG1 mostly comes down the chocie between doing a quest or not doing it. There ane't really multiple ways to do things. Exceptions only prove the rule.

 

If you could tell an epic story in a few pages, LoTR wouldn't have a thousand. Epic role playing requirs a lenghty plot, lots of twists and a feeling of lasting adventure. Obviously epic isnt a requirement for a good RP. Fallout never really feels epic but its still great. The same goes for VtM Bloodlines, for example. But Bioware likes to make epic games and I feel that is exactly where the stories of latter RPGs are unsuccessful.

 

You forget that BG was first of its kind. The concept has been refined later, but what I always thought and still think is that Bioware hasn't really improved anything since BGII, even though you get more options quest wise (in NWN and KOTOR), or more detail to characters (Jade), or a more cinematic experience (ME) the games as a whole fall flat.

For everything that was done well in them something else collapsed.

For example in ME for the sake of (admittedly) pretty graphics, and good (visual) character design, the same characters ended up shallow and the overall world design felt crappy since every planet except the main quest ones was more or less identical...

It's still the overall experience that matters. BG2 may have "worse" role-playing than ME, but it's still the better and more enjoyable game, thus superior.

 

Here's my personal Bio list (1st = best, last = worst)

 

BG2

Hotu

Kotor

NWN

ME

Jade Emire

BG1

SoU

 

So I don't care about "better role-playing" since every supposed choice has been a weak fake anyway.

 

ToB?

 

Here's mine

 

BG2

ToB

BG1

KOTOR

Hotu

NWN

Mass Effect

Jade Empire

SoU

 

Overall its:

BG2 + ToB

Planescape Torment

Fallout

The Witcher

Vampire Bloodlines

Gothic II

Lists are cool!

 

Mine...

 

NWN:TP

BG2

ME

JE

BG1

KOTOR

 

 

"You forget that BG was first of its kind."

 

No, it wasn't.

 

 

 

"but what I always thought and still think is that Bioware hasn't really improved anything since BGII, even though you get more options quest wise (in NWN and KOTOR), or more detail to characters (Jade), or a more cinematic experience (ME) the games as a whole fall flat.

For everything that was done well in them something else collapsed."

 

Sure, they have, and you even admit it in this quote of yours.

 

 

"since every planet except the main quest ones was more or less identical..."

 

The worlds were, yes, but the quests themselves no. It sure beats the non variety of BG1 quests which were mostly kill x. It's one of things that make BG2 1 million times superior than BG1 and makes it worthy of RPG discussion.

 

 

"when BG1 does RP well, it does it better than NWN1 OC by far"

 

Nowhere even close. The deepest role-playing BG1 has is which npcs to keep your in party. That's it.

"when BG1 does RP well, it does it better than NWN1 OC by far"

 

Nowhere even close. The deepest role-playing BG1 has is which npcs to keep your in party. That's it.

 

I don't remember specific's, it's been years... But it certainly wasn't so shallow as merely NPC interaction, I knows you're mistaken in that. Things are very thin on the NPC NPC and PC interaction, but there are multiple paths to solutions.

 

My statement stands, if I had time I'd hunt out the specifics, but I distinctly remember several scenarios to certain situations, it didn't happen as often as in NWN, but it was much better when it did happen. I'm not even certain most people actually found out about them, as there is an obvious linear path.

 

It all boils down to opinion, NWN OC was poor, in my opinion.

Here is my list of already existing Obsidian's and BioWare's games in order of preference:

 

MotB / BGII / KotOR (I honestly cannot decide which of the three gets the top spot)

ToB

NWN2 OC

KotOR 2

BG

NWN 1

 

Not played at all: Mass Effect & Jade Empire

Lists are cool!

 

Mine...

 

NWN:TP

BG2

ME

JE

BG1

KOTOR

 

 

"You forget that BG was first of its kind."

 

No, it wasn't.

 

 

 

"but what I always thought and still think is that Bioware hasn't really improved anything since BGII, even though you get more options quest wise (in NWN and KOTOR), or more detail to characters (Jade), or a more cinematic experience (ME) the games as a whole fall flat.

For everything that was done well in them something else collapsed."

 

Sure, they have, and you even admit it in this quote of yours.

 

 

"since every planet except the main quest ones was more or less identical..."

 

The worlds were, yes, but the quests themselves no. It sure beats the non variety of BG1 quests which were mostly kill x. It's one of things that make BG2 1 million times superior than BG1 and makes it worthy of RPG discussion.

 

 

"when BG1 does RP well, it does it better than NWN1 OC by far"

 

Nowhere even close. The deepest role-playing BG1 has is which npcs to keep your in party. That's it.

 

NWN? R00fles! NWN had as much RPing value as Sonic the Hedgehog. BG1 was far at the top of the list for RPing value.

As a company, I believe our biggest weaknesses have been the following:

 

* Games that are not fundamentally fun. That is, their core mechanics are not quickly enjoyable or do not have lasting value at a variety of difficulty levels.

* Characters that are not visually appealing. This doesn't mean characters that are attractive, but certainly that's part of it.

* Poor overall production values, polish, and stability. Not much to say here.

 

I think we are realistically raising the bar on all of these issues on our next two titles, though obviously the proof is in the eating of the proverbial pudding.

 

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

 

It's absurd that anyone would think that BG2 and esp0icially BG1 actualkly have more ROLE-P0LAYINg than BIO's newer games. It's not even a contest. BTW, longer does NOt equal role-playing superiority,

 

I'd agree with this.

Edited October 8, 200817 yr by Maria Caliban

NWN? R00fles! NWN had as much RPing value as Sonic the Hedgehog. BG1 was far at the top of the list for RPing value.

 

It's amazing, but when I couldn't see the name/avatar at the top of that post...

No, it wasn't.

 

 

 

"but what I always thought and still think is that Bioware hasn't really improved anything since BGII, even though you get more options quest wise (in NWN and KOTOR), or more detail to characters (Jade), or a more cinematic experience (ME) the games as a whole fall flat.

For everything that was done well in them something else collapsed."

 

Sure, they have, and you even admit it in this quote of yours.

 

 

"since every planet except the main quest ones was more or less identical..."

 

The worlds were, yes, but the quests themselves no. It sure beats the non variety of BG1 quests which were mostly kill x. It's one of things that make BG2 1 million times superior than BG1 and makes it worthy of RPG discussion.

 

 

"when BG1 does RP well, it does it better than NWN1 OC by far"

 

Nowhere even close. The deepest role-playing BG1 has is which npcs to keep your in party. That's it.

 

You are getting very tiresome and contradicting only for the sake of contradiction. Everybody knows that BG1 was the first real time-with-pause, isometric DnD RPG in the infinity engine. Every single Bioware/Obsidian/Black Isle game is derived from it as far as gameplay is concerned (except for lionheart). Those are facts, nothing more nothing less.

 

You'll have to start reading my post. Its quite clear. I said they made one aspect better, but everything else was screwed. Yes, Jade Empire had more in depth characters, but it had the the worst action gameplay ever seen, the shallowest charater progression possible, a very predictable plot,very few side quests and places to explore, a lame morality system and finally for the 50$ it costs you could finish it in a day of playing, after which you wont even remember what you played since everything except for a character or two is utterly forgettable. Like a friend of mine said, if games were drinks, Jade Empire was lemonade.

 

What are you talking about? Every single planetside mission on ME is a kill mission. You can wrap it up in whatever lame quest you want, but the only thing I recall doing in ME on planets was going through tottaly identical corridors of two or three generic dungeons stuffed with crates and killing everything in them. A few of the missions had a non violent option and that was it.You are stretching the truth to prove your point as if we are in court or something.

Edited October 8, 200817 yr by RPGmasterBoo

NWN? R00fles! NWN had as much RPing value as Sonic the Hedgehog. BG1 was far at the top of the list for RPing value.

 

Of course. NWN OC was DnD's Diablo 2. Except that Diablo 2 was more fun to play.

"Every single planetside mission on ME is a kill mission."

 

"A few of the missions had a non violent option and that was it."

 

So which is it?

 

 

 

"Everybody knows that BG1 was the first real time-with-pause, isometric DnD RPG in the infinity engine."

 

Next time clarify. All you said was 'first of its kind'. That could mean so many things.

 

Bottom line is BIO's newer games are superior role-playing games than BG.

 

 

"Of course. NWN OC was DnD's Diablo 2. Except that Diablo 2 was more fun to play."

 

BG has just as much in common with D2 as NWN OC does. In fact it has more since NWN OC actually has more role-playing than BG.

Edited October 8, 200817 yr by Volourn