Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[Kjaamor]

So I've recently been playing Vanilla BG2, and not all that long ago played PS:T, and there are a couple of experiences within that I'd like to share, because I think they embody what for me are lessons on the things that the IE games did right and did wrong. If anyone has recently played (say, last twelve months) any of the IE games I'd appreciate your input too.

 

I'm going to respect the fact that some people haven't played these games yet and keep this spoiler free as much as possible. I would appreciate it if people would also keep their posts spoiler free.

 

Having gotten halfway through reading this I'm going to pop a disclaimer here to say that the fanboi-ism is rampant within.

 

Baldur's Gate II

 

1. Save scumming

 

The first and most obvious thing from my recent BG2 playthrough is that I am saving and reloading a lot. This, for me, is of crucial importance to PoE because that saving and reloading is absolutely fine. An encounter opens before me, I save the game, and then I approach it in a certain way and either fail and reload or move on. At no point has saving and reloading as a result of combat become irritating and it feels more like the core of the gameplay; the equivilant of levels in the Super Mario sense.

 

There are often references on these forums to trying to eliminate save and reload, but I think it is actually one of the most defining elements of the IE games, and actually what makes them pleasurable for those playing in anything less than hardcore mode. I applaud those who will undertake the Trial of Iron, and I am glad for its inclusion, but for the standard playthrough save and reload is no bad thing, and embodies the challenge that the IE games had, and more modern games like DA sorely lack.

 

2. Save scumming because npc is too busy to talk right now

 

...apart from this, which is obviously infuriating. I don't know if there's a lesson in that, though.

 

3. Quadratic Mages

 

A well-equipped level 6 Fighter is more powerful than a level 6 Mage. A level 16 Mage is more powerful than a well-equipped level 16 Fighter. Again, this is fine, because we're playing a party-based game. It does not mean that I need to stop using fighters, but it does mean that the fighters' role in the group changes. It also provides variation in excitement on levelling up: I'm more excited when Nalia levels up than when Viconia does, because there are likely to be more toys at her disposal. Somewhat strangely, this doesn't appear to be a zero score game, because I'm still excited when Viconia levels up.

 

I know that by now the collection of us who shift uncomfortably when Josh mentions balance or 4E is fairly substantial, but again, for me the recent playthrough only supports this.

 

4. Level scaling

 

BG2 level scales with the best of them and, as I mentioned in the thread dedicated to it, it has completely turned around my opinion of level scaling. Every dungeon I have run has had challenging fights, but of the optional dungeons the ones I have run last have taken less time than the ones I ran first (although to be fair this is further exacerbated by my Quadratic party). Great.

 

5. Quest Hubs

 

So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game.

 

On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps.

 

6. Evil is stupid

 

The quadratic problem with BG2 is not Mages, but the forces of good. The good option will, time and time again, grant you the better item and more experience. It will, less frequently, grant slightly less gold, but good characters can shop for cheaper and by the time you leave Athkatla you are already so flush for gold that you could probably just pay the Gods themselves to deal with Irenicus.

 

Evil loses you items, experience, and if you don't change your tune quickly will make shopping an impossibility. So even if you mean to play as evil, the chances are you'll be off to donate to Umberlee to make you less evil.

 

I believe this fits under the tag of ludo-narrative dissonance. The dialogue and narrative can be harping on about your protaganist's sacrifices for good, but the reality is you have to "sacrifice" a whole lot of nothing just to get the best items.

 

7. Romance

 

It isn't as good as I remembered.

 

8. The writing generally

 

...and this is probably why. I love BG2, but by the Gods the writing within is cheesy. It isn't spoiling my enjoyment of the game, but it is noticeable. It goes hand in hand with the "Evil is stupid" but my character feels more likely Prince ****ing Charming than a great warrior.

 

But again, I stress that good writing does not necessitate inherent grittiness. The issue is not that there is an option to be good and leave the world a better place than you found it, it's that I am consistently able to sort out and fix almost every problem in any area without mishap and be the world's most sanctimonius **** about it. It's been a while since I played Fallout 2, but I recall being able to be a bit of a nob and still be good, and also face up to some tasks where I wasn't left as the hero of the land.

 

I stress again, however, that it isn't spoiling my enjoyment nearly so much as other rpgs where everything is so edgy such grittiness.

 

Planescape: Torment

 

So, I played Planescape again at the tail-end of last year, which makes it rather less fresh in my mind than BG2. For that reason, I'm going to keep things short on Planescape. The other reason I'm keeping it short is because, as I have said before, I don't like Planescape nearly as much as I like either of the BG games, and this list instead focuses on the negatives.

 

1. Character Creation

 

Would you like to be a Mage, or would you like to lose half the games' content?

 

It may not be as absolute as that, but it sure feels that way. I think part of the problem here is because Planescape sits uncomfortably between Fallout and Baldur's Gate. You can almost feel it squirming under a D&D ruleset whilst dreaming of SPECIAL.

 

For all I like sacrifice in character creation I wonder if tying dialogue options to class is a good idea - particularly if the dialogue class is perfectly competitive on a combat level as well.

 

2. The aesthetic of the interface

 

My ****ing eyes.

 

3. The narrative

 

It's no secret, it's good.

 

As to the "why", for me I think it is because, whilst retaining pcrpg control over the Nameless One's personality, he is known to the world. The story evolves around his person rather than him moving through it. I think that's more important than the word count. I get the impression that PoE is going down a more IWD "stranger in a strange land" approach.

 

4. The combat

 

The combat in Planescape feels contrary to its nature; like something that happens when either you've done something wrong or the publishers became concerned that no-one would buy it without an arbitrary amount of action.

 

The combat itself feels limited. Even as a mage, my tactics in fights are minimal and repetitive. To say that he is a Gith I have used Dak'kon's spell-set so sparingly as to wish he was just a straight-up fighter.

 

5. NPCs are, predominantly, neutral

 

I assume this remains the case until something changes it.

 

Assumption, because, of course, I have again failed to finish PS:T, but more on that later.

 

I like neutrality, combined with the story arc. I like the idea that the characters may or may not have my best interests at heart. I'm a sucker for characters who arc not by virtue of the changes that happen to them, but my understanding of their depths. PS:T does that well, for the most part.

 

6. The Modron Cube (contains mild spoilers)

 

The Modron Cube is the big issue with PS:T, and I now realise that it is the part where I stop playing every time. The Modron Cube is, essentially, a randomly generated repetitive optional dungeon that you can explore at what I assume is somewhere around the midpoint of the game. At this point my finances were relatively low and my shopping list was relatively high, but the Modron cube allows and infinite chain of wealth and experience for those willing to grind its depths.

 

And, given that the game encourages you do so, grind I did. And grind, and grind, and grind, and forget about the rest of the game, and stop playing.

 

PS:T's multitude of fanbois will suggest that it is not PS:T's fault that I engage in degenerative gameplay. I'd argue that the combination of an expensive shopping list and one manner of affording it all means that it is. If I do not grind, I cannot afford the tools that will allow me to best experience PS:T. I am punished for not grinding. And even by grinding standards the Modron Cube is an exasperatingly bland and boring experience.

 

I'm delighted to hear that PoE is going VtM:B and not granting combat experience. I also hope that if there are going to be expensive shopping lists within, then PoE will not make it practical and worthwhile to endlessly grind enemies for gold either. I know that many RPGs, including BG2, use the old "Party of Millionaires" trick, but I think that is endlessly preferable to The Elder Scrolls "Spoon Scavinger".

 

...

 

...bravo if you read all that.

[Sensuki]

Baldur's Gate II

 

1. Save scumming

 

The first and most obvious thing from my recent BG2 playthrough is that I am saving and reloading a lot. This, for me, is of crucial importance to PoE because that saving and reloading is absolutely fine. An encounter opens before me, I save the game, and then I approach it in a certain way and either fail and reload or move on. At no point has saving and reloading as a result of combat become irritating and it feels more like the core of the gameplay; the equivilant of levels in the Super Mario sense.

 

There are often references on these forums to trying to eliminate save and reload, but I think it is actually one of the most defining elements of the IE games, and actually what makes them pleasurable for those playing in anything less than hardcore mode. I applaud those who will undertake the Trial of Iron, and I am glad for its inclusion, but for the standard playthrough save and reload is no bad thing, and embodies the challenge that the IE games had, and more modern games like DA sorely lack.

I agree, I really enjoy the save and reload style of the IE games. Probably won't be required as much in PE because of the lack of GG status effects and save or die stuff. You'll be reloading for mismanaging your party resources over the adventuring day instead.

 

4. Level scaling

 

BG2 level scales with the best of them and, as I mentioned in the thread dedicated to it, it has completely turned around my opinion of level scaling. Every dungeon I have run has had challenging fights, but of the optional dungeons the ones I have run last have taken less time than the ones I ran first (although to be fair this is further exacerbated by my Quadratic party). Great.

I wouldn't be against some crit path encounter scaling because generally the crit path is easier than the optional stuff, sometimes a bit too easy.

 

5. Quest Hubs

 

So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game.

 

On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps.

I think that BG2 wouldn't have been as good if Athkatla didn't have an overload of content, that is one of the defining aspects of BG2 as a game. That said I think Josh's preference for spreading the content around is fine too, but it can also go the opposite way in a game with Chapter-gating of content, where it feels more like a railroaded experience.

 

He does however have a very good point about Chapter 4 onwards.

 

From what I gather, PE will have chapter gating of content in a similar manner to the Icewind Dales. Chapter 1 will by The Dyrford and it's surroundings. Once you complete Chapter 1 you'll be able to go to Defiance Bay. Chapter 1 will be Black Isle/Obsidian's trademark 'easing you into it' Chapter. The difference is where in IWD you progressed quite literally from area to area, in PE you will get a bunch of areas. Some optional content will probably be available from Chapter 2 onwards.

 

7. Romance

 

It isn't as good as I remembered.

Baldur's Gate 2 was written for a teenage audience. It was the best thing in the world when I was 12 years old. We are older now and used to better writing.

 

8. The writing generally

 

...and this is probably why. I love BG2, but by the Gods the writing within is cheesy.

That's BioWare. I actually prefer the writing style of BG1. It was overall a bit inconsistent, but a lot (not all) of the dialogue had a much better AD&D feel to it, whereas BG2 is like a complete step into modern language. They completely changed style for BG2.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Whoo, good summary and interesting thoughts there too. 

 

My quick take on the points:

 

BG2

 

1-2 - save-n-reload. Hate it. Wish it would die already.

 

3 - quadratic mages. Dislike. I tend to go for late-game power which means I play mages, which means early game is a tedious and tiresome careful tiptoe of rest-spamming. I strongly prefer classes to follow a roughly similar power curve, but be powerful in different areas.

 

4 - level scaling. No comment. If I don't notice it, I don't have a problem with it, and I never noticed it in BG2.

 

5 - quest hubs and narrative structure. Agree.

 

6-7-8 agree. I tried to start a BG2 playthrough a while back but after the first conversation was about a hamster up a retard's butt, I headdesked and gave up.

 

PS:T

 

1 - character creation. Agree. My radical take is that PS:T would've been better with no character creation at all. Just give a prefab TNO and let you evolve him when playing. You do know you can change class on the fly, any way you like, and the ridiculous logarithmic XP means you can get to quite decently high levels in thief and fighter even if your 'main' class is mage?

 

2 - aesthetics - never paid any attention.

 

3 - yep

 

4 - I didn't think the combat was all that bad actually, and except for the endgame and the lead-up to it it was pretty well paced too.

 

5 - npc's - yeah, they rule.

 

6 - Modron cube. Never had that problem with it. I don't think I've ever properly ground it, after completing the quests in it. Never had a problem affording things either.

[Valorian]

Oh, another 'general suggestions' thread. 

 

When playing a superb RPG with good challenging combat, I enjoy limiting the number of times I'm allowed to use the reload and replenish-all buttons. Self-assigned strategical resource. 

 

 

PS. I find your 4) particularly amusing. A game in which about 1% of encounters are scaled (chosen from ~3 different encounters) completely turned around your opinion of level scaling... k. 

[Greensleeve]

-snip-

 

3. Quadratic Mages

 

A well-equipped level 6 Fighter is more powerful than a level 6 Mage. A level 16 Mage is more powerful than a well-equipped level 16 Fighter. Again, this is fine, because we're playing a party-based game. It does not mean that I need to stop using fighters, but it does mean that the fighters' role in the group changes. It also provides variation in excitement on levelling up: I'm more excited when Nalia levels up than when Viconia does, because there are likely to be more toys at her disposal. Somewhat strangely, this doesn't appear to be a zero score game, because I'm still excited when Viconia levels up.

 

I know that by now the collection of us who shift uncomfortably when Josh mentions balance or 4E is fairly substantial, but again, for me the recent playthrough only supports this.

 

-snip-

 

This right here is probably the single largest reason to why I can't replay Baldur's Gate II again. I tried three years ago, and I tried earlier this year. But the boredom of anything but mages (which is by far my least favourite class in these types of games) upon level up and general gameplay is just too hard to overcome. 

[Death Machine Miyagi]

In regards to Planescape: Torment:

 

1. I also regret just how much more material there is for a mage. It would have been nice to make a thief or a fighter a more rewarding experience. As it stands, I've never finished a playthrough of P:T where I wasn't a mage with high wisdom, intelligence and charisma. Lack of wisdom, especially, closes off way too much of the game. Rather a foreshadowing of how the need to have influence with Kreia to understand the plot of KotoR 2 kinda made me feel restricted in how I played that game.

 

2. As for grinding? If you're really set on doing so, Undersigil is a better place to do it, at least in terms of experience. Get a whole batch of those worm-things to follow you. When you have a bunch of them on screen at once, cast Cloudkill and watch the XP roll in, especially if your Nameless One is alone. For the other things down there, there's that insect swarm spell; cast a few of those and they die in batches as well.

 

I hated the Modron Cube. Hated hated hated. I hated that I had to make my way through it on hard to get Nordom. I hated that I had to continue making my way through to fight the Evil Wizard. I hated how utterly, utterly repetitive it became as you had to enter the same damn dialogue over and over and over between rooms, only to fight 1 to 3 of those absolute pain-in-the-ass Hard Constructs every time.

 

I hope to never see a dungeon like the Modron Cube again. In my eyes, they were to P:T what the sewers were to VtM:B. They represented a failure of game design.

 

But I never worried as much about grinding as you seem to, so it wasn't as much of a problem for me.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Quetzalcoatl]

I didn't have a problem with saving and loading in BG2 either. The game also gives you plenty of information in the battle log and visual feedback so that you can turn the tide around even when you get a nasty status effect or the enemy puts up protection spells.

 

I hope to never see a dungeon like the Modron Cube again.

I doubt you will. The Modron Cube was a parody dungeon, the in-game explanation being that it was made by modrons to investigate why people like repetitive dungeon crawlers.

 

You can get through it without doing combat by the way, just immediately run for the exit as you enter a room and you'll be gone before the Constructs initiate their dialogue.  

Edited May 21, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

I hope to never see a dungeon like the Modron Cube again.

I doubt you will. The Modron Cube was a parody dungeon, the in-game explanation being that it was made by modrons to investigate why people like repetitive dungeon crawlers.

You can get through it without doing combat by the way, just immediately run for the exit as you enter a room and you'll be gone before they start their dialogue.  

 

Yeah, I know it was a parody. Its just that a joke is funny the first time and irritating the 50th time. And I've tried running through. The Hard Constructs still tend to get in a few good whacks, and I end up having to make my own map so I don't get confused as to where I've been before as well.

 

It would have been perfectly fine if there hadn't been anything worth finding in there, and you could just walk away when you were bored with grinding and the joke had worn thin, but the maze contained a party member and a boss fight.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Helz]

Having played BG2 recently, I can say that the biggest thing that caught my attention was the number of dialogue options.  I don't think there was ever a time I was limited to the 3 that are the standard these days.  Usually it was closer to 10.  That made RPiing my character so much more fun.

 

Also, I played a Wild Mage which I can say is the most fun playthrough I've ever done.  It kind of reminded me of playing a jinxed character in Fallout, except better.  I made a rule that I couldn't reload due to any unintended magic bloopers (except the sex change, that was too much) and it lead to all sort of unexpected, hilarious, and sometimes sad consequences.

 

"Save scumming" is a ridiculous term made by people who play their games on easy or exclusively use overpowered builds they copied from somebody else who figured it out through save scumming.  An encounter isn't much of a challenge if you already know how to beat it the first time through.

[PrimeJunta]

It would have been perfectly fine if there hadn't been anything worth finding in there, and you could just walk away when you were bored with grinding and the joke had worn thin, but the maze contained a party member and a boss fight.

Neither of which are in any way essential to the game or story.

 

Nowadays they would've just charged five bucks for it as a DLC.

[AGX-17]

Save scumming is a lifestyle choice. If people want to (or need to) do it, then let them. If you don't want to or need to, then don't do it. Learn some discipline and take personal responsibility for your life.

 

"Save scumming" is a ridiculous term made by people who play their games on easy or exclusively use overpowered builds they copied from somebody else who figured it out through save scumming.  An encounter isn't much of a challenge if you already know how to beat it the first time through.

Metagamers and powergamers don't really need to savescum if they're meta/powergamers. If you know how to beat it the first time through then you must have learned about it from another person, not by save scumming. Ignoring that, metagaming and powergaming are lifestyle choices, we don't need big brother forcing one group's values on the people who don't adhere to those values. If someone doesn't want much of a challenge, they shouldn't be forced to play Trial of Iron mode.

 

Everyone has their own pace, preferences and capabilities. People who just aren't good at the gameplay shouldn't be locked out of the game as some discriminatory punishment for being bad at RTw/P cRPGs.

Edited May 21, 2014 by AGX-17

[PrimeJunta]

"Save scumming" is a ridiculous term made by people who play their games on easy or exclusively use overpowered builds they copied from somebody else who figured it out through save scumming.  An encounter isn't much of a challenge if you already know how to beat it the first time through.

Only if encounters are designed only to be soluble by trial-and-error. It's totally possible to have challenging encounters that you can figure out on the fly, by playing carefully and intelligently and adjusting your tactics... if the mechanics support it. Try NetHack for example, no save-scumming there and if you're good enough almost every game is winnable -- but if you're a newbie, you're lucky to make it to level 3.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

It would have been perfectly fine if there hadn't been anything worth finding in there, and you could just walk away when you were bored with grinding and the joke had worn thin, but the maze contained a party member and a boss fight.

Neither of which are in any way essential to the game or story.

 

They should not taunt my inner completionist. 

 

For the record, I used to be so obsessive-compulsive in how I played the IE games that I would refuse to leave a screen in Baldur's Gate until I had removed as much of the black Fog of War from it as I could. 

 

Crazy? Yes. Yes, I suppose so. But to have a companion unobtained and a boss undiscovered...GAH. That's just sick.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[PrimeJunta]

Haha, yeah, I know what you're talking about. I've given up on some games for similar reasons. They do feed the OCD in us...

[Nonek]

A small note, one is more than able to make a balanced Nameless One whom can be a very effective combatant, and yet unlock all of the games content. I know it is commonly percieved that intelligence and wisdom must be immediately maxed, this however is not necessary. I find the game to be far more enjoyable as such a protagonist, whom can easily handle the thugs of the Hive, quickly gains giant strength and if tutored by Vhailor becomes a veritable Grim Reaper, while spending most of his points on the more mental attributes.

[Stun]

5. Quest Hubs

 

So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game.

 

On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps.

Well, lets remember that Chapter 5 is also a major Hub. You're in the Underdark. It's massive. There are dungeons within dungeons. There's an open area, And a town, and a little village, and a bajillion side quests that will take you in and out of all of these places for hours and hours and hours.

 

And then there's chapter 6, where you return to the world map. (just like chapter 2, 3)

 

So lets recap: The, open, non-linear chapters in BG2 are: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and chapter 6. That's practically the whole game. What's the gripe again?

 

 

Side note: We see a lot of people complaining about how BG2 starts off so breathtakingly open and free and then suddenly funnels you into a linear main quest for the second half of the game....almost as if they dropped the ball or quit being creative or something. And then, at the same time we see these same people complaining about how illogical the main quest is (you gotta rescue Imoen. It's Urgent! But....But.... Lets do Athkatla first, and the sewers under it. Lets do Kangaxx, and the planar sphere, lets get our stronghold and focus on it until all its quests have been completed. Lets save trademeet, and explore the Umar hills. And Kill Fiirkrag. Hell, lets even do Watcher's keep! Then lets go after Imoen (hopefully she's not dead yet!)

 

Which I find bizarre. People, BG2 is an RPG, remember? It's supposed to be up to YOU to act on this Urgency or not (depending on your motivations). And, interestingly enough, the entire game's progression and pacing begins making SO much more sense if you DO role play the game. Here, next time you play Bg2 try this:

 

1) Raise 15,000gp as fast as you can. As if it's an emergency. You can do this in the Copper Coronet alone (ie. without even leaving the slums)

2) Do Lindvail's (or Bodhi's) quests

3) Go to spellhold and rescue imoen.

4) Do chapter 5

5) Take your time and Explore the world in chapter 6.

6) Take care of Irenicus.

 

^If you do that, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with the narrative structure at all, or the quest volume pacing (or whatever Josh's strange gripes are)

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[MReed]

 

5. Quest Hubs

 

So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game.

 

On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps.

Well, lets remember that Chapter 5 is also a major Hub. You're in the Underdark. It's massive. There are dungeons within dungeons. There's an open area, And a town, and a little village, and a bajillion side quests that will take you in and out of all of these places for hours and hours and hours.

 

And then there's chapter 6, where you return to the world map. (just like chapter 2, 3)

 

So lets recap: The, open, non-linear chapters in BG2 are: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and chapter 6. That's practically the whole game. What's the gripe again?

 

 

Side note: We see a lot of people complaining about how BG2 is starts off all open and free and then pushes you into a linear main quest for the second half of the game....almost as if they dropped the ball or something. And then, we see these same people complaining about how illogical the main quest is (you gotta rescue Imoen. It's Urgent! But....But.... Lets do Athkatla first, and get our stronghold, and save trademeet, and explore the Umar hills. And Kill Fiirkrag. Then lets go after Imoen (hopefully she's not dead yet!)

 

Which I find bizarre. People, BG2 is an RPG, remember? It's supposed to be up to YOU to act on this Urgency or not (depending on your motivations). And, interestingly enough, the entire game's progression and pacing begins making SO much more sense if you DO role play the game. Here, next time you play Bg2 try this:

 

1) Raise 15,000gp as fast as you can. As if it's an emergency. You can do this in the Copper Coronet alone (ie. without even leaving the slums)

2) Do Lindvail's (or Bodhi's) quests

3) Go to spellhold and rescue imoen.

4) do chapter 5

5) Take your time and Explore the world in chapter 6.

6) Take care of Irenicus.

 

^If you do that, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with the narrative structure at all, or the quest volume pacing (or whatever Josh's strange gripes are)

 

 

Um, during Chapter 6 there is more urgency than in Chapter 3 -- you and Imoen have both lost your souls and the game tells you that this will kill you "soon" and Iranacus and Bodhi are currently attempting to commit diecide and ascend to godhood themselves.

 

But other than that, no reason not to take your time...

[Kjaamor]

1 - character creation. Agree. My radical take is that PS:T would've been better with no character creation at all. Just give a prefab TNO and let you evolve him when playing. You do know you can change class on the fly, any way you like, and the ridiculous logarithmic XP means you can get to quite decently high levels in thief and fighter even if your 'main' class is mage?

 

I agree that PS:T would've been better with no character creation at all, although personally I would've gone further and lost the D&D combat statistics system entirely. As I say, though, I'm not sure PS:T really warrants its combat at all.

 

3 - quadratic mages. Dislike. I tend to go for late-game power which means I play mages, which means early game is a tedious and tiresome careful tiptoe of rest-spamming. I strongly prefer classes to follow a roughly similar power curve, but be powerful in different areas.

 

There's a lot of dislike for Quadratic mages here, so I like the solution of similar power curves but powerful in different areas. Personal preference for that is to make it rewarding for maintaining a consistent party, so you are forced to have a balanced lot rather than just calling in the right folks for the job. Ymmv, of course.

 

 

Oh, another 'general suggestions' thread. 

 

When playing a superb RPG with good challenging combat, I enjoy limiting the number of times I'm allowed to use the reload and replenish-all buttons. Self-assigned strategical resource. 

 

 

PS. I find your 4) particularly amusing. A game in which about 1% of encounters are scaled (chosen from ~3 different encounters) completely turned around your opinion of level scaling... k. 

 

To be fair, the thread is more about current experiences from replaying the IE games at the moment, which I know a few of us are doing. Obviously the content contains general suggestions, but thats, well, most of the threads in these forums.

 

I think that people like yourself who like to limit their save/reloads are as much a reason to use save/reload systems as people like me who use them almost limitlessly.

 

On level scaling: I meant that in terms of simplifying it into a binary issue, which it was for me previously (and still is for many others here). If the question is "Can level-scaling be used appropriately and make an rpg better?" Then my previous answer was "No." Now it is "Yes." That's a complete turn around.

[Kjaamor]

 

 

5. Quest Hubs

 

So, in BG2 you complete the prologue dungeon and then are thrust into Athkatla where the world is open and you have tons of optional quests, and then you hop onto a comparitively linear adventure for the rest of the game.

 

On this one I'm closer to Josh's position. I don't have so much trouble with having a huge quest hub, but I question whether it wouldn't have been better to have placed it more centrally to the plot, and possibly split it into a few quest hubs with some variation of size between them. It's not that I haven't enjoyed it, but there is a sense that I've now put the world map into my pocket and am off on the main quest. It does make the world map smaller though, in the sense that travelling the map is an optional event and by no means mandatory to the story. The linear, non-exploratory nature of the main quest also clearly reduces my agency, although BG2 is at least does a fair job of mitigating that by having a small but effective variation of options through maps.

Well, lets remember that Chapter 5 is also a major Hub. You're in the Underdark. It's massive. There are dungeons within dungeons. There's an open area, And a town, and a little village, and a bajillion side quests that will take you in and out of all of these places for hours and hours and hours.

 

And then there's chapter 6, where you return to the world map. (just like chapter 2, 3)

 

So lets recap: The, open, non-linear chapters in BG2 are: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and chapter 6. That's practically the whole game. What's the gripe again?

 

 

Side note: We see a lot of people complaining about how BG2 is starts off all open and free and then pushes you into a linear main quest for the second half of the game....almost as if they dropped the ball or something. And then, we see these same people complaining about how illogical the main quest is (you gotta rescue Imoen. It's Urgent! But....But.... Lets do Athkatla first, and get our stronghold, and save trademeet, and explore the Umar hills. And Kill Fiirkrag. Then lets go after Imoen (hopefully she's not dead yet!)

 

Which I find bizarre. People, BG2 is an RPG, remember? It's supposed to be up to YOU to act on this Urgency or not (depending on your motivations). And, interestingly enough, the entire game's progression and pacing begins making SO much more sense if you DO role play the game. Here, next time you play Bg2 try this:

 

1) Raise 15,000gp as fast as you can. As if it's an emergency. You can do this in the Copper Coronet alone (ie. without even leaving the slums)

2) Do Lindvail's (or Bodhi's) quests

3) Go to spellhold and rescue imoen.

4) do chapter 5

5) Take your time and Explore the world in chapter 6.

6) Take care of Irenicus.

 

^If you do that, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with the narrative structure at all, or the quest volume pacing (or whatever Josh's strange gripes are)

 

 

Um, during Chapter 6 there is more urgency than in Chapter 3 -- you and Imoen have both lost your souls and the game tells you that this will kill you "soon" and Iranacus and Bodhi are currently attempting to commit diecide and ascend to godhood themselves.

 

But other than that, no reason not to take your time...

 

 

To be fair, Stun missed chapter 6 because he had passive-aggression class that day.

[Stun]

I'm sorry, and here I thought Imoen gets her soul Back in chapter six.... and that you're already the embodiment of the Slayer by then.

 

My bad.

[Cluas]

 

 

...bravo if you read all that.

I did

 

Great post

[Gromnir]

nobody else is gonna call the genesis poster on the ubiquitous and perplexing use of "quadratic"? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we does know difference 'tween linear, exponential and quadratic.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Valorian]

 

To be fair, the thread is more about current experiences from replaying the IE games at the moment, which I know a few of us are doing. Obviously the content contains general suggestions, but thats, well, most of the threads in these forums.

 

I think that people like yourself who like to limit their save/reloads are as much a reason to use save/reload systems as people like me who use them almost limitlessly.

 

On level scaling: I meant that in terms of simplifying it into a binary issue, which it was for me previously (and still is for many others here). If the question is "Can level-scaling be used appropriately and make an rpg better?" Then my previous answer was "No." Now it is "Yes." That's a complete turn around.

 

 

Most threads are about a specific subject, I'd say. Although, there's certainly nothing wrong with wishlist topics like this one. 

 

Indeed, I have nothing against being required to save and reload. It's a consequence of challenging combat.

I don't limit saves however, because I don't see any point in doing that and I'll pretty much always use the last one.

The possibility of 'failing' is exciting, that's why I limit the number of times I can reload (after a party member dies etc.). It's a reasonable version of Trial of Iron.

 

Oh, I got that. I just find it odd that a game in which scaled encounters constitute less than 1% of combat encounters changed your opinion about level scaling. Maybe not odd, just... indicative.

[ManifestedISO]

Beats me. Sounds like a term used to describe the automatic transmission of a four-wheel drive ATV. New, improved Quadratic PowerShift^TM technology.

[Lephys]

^ No no, it's a house blueprint featuring not one, but FOUR attics.