More like BG2 please

[AdaMusic]

 

 

 

More like BG2 please

You do realise that Sawyer is not a fan of Baldur's Gate 2. Right?

 

 

Huh? Where? How? When?

[Giubba]

 

Basically every new interation of D&D since the classic one has a bunch of people that think that is the worst piece of crap ever spawned by human mind.

 

I'm not terrible impressed by those kind of statemente since the 90s.

Except I'm not talking about a new iteration, clinging to the old. I'm talking about a ranking of all the iterations since the original AD&D. 2nd Edition ranks in the back of all versions.  1st edition was wonky, but had some fun exploits and oddities that 2nd edition "fixed", to its detriment.  4th edition is a weird attempt at making play different, with some systems that work well and some that are bloated and ugly, but overall it's more fun to play than 2nd edition.  3rd edition greatly simplified systems, making them easier to understand and slightly more modal, leading to a deeper game than 2nd edition.  There just isn't anything that 2nd edition has to offer that isn't done better by one of its predecessors or successors.  2nd edition just doesn't bring anything to the table - it was what we had at the time those games were made, but it's certainly not a bar to measure games against today.

 

Baldur's Gate and Torment were great because of the writing and stories, not because of the combat mechanics.  The greatest weakness of all the IE titles was always the combat mechanics, and that's because 2nd edition is simply not very well designed, especially for implementation by a computer that cannot fudge rules on the fly as can a human Dungeon Master.

 

Ah no.

 

For me those games were good also for their combat and if i have to confront those classics with this mishmash that we should try to test i wouldn't think 2 second picking something similar to BG2 .

[hairyscotsman2]

 

 

 

 

 

Mechanically almost everything "original" seems to be a problem. Obsidian should have been original with the races/lore, and be very traditional with the mechanics.

 

When you try to reinvent the wheel there is a good (actualy a 100%) chance that your new hexagonal wheel will not work as good as your traditional round wheel (see guild wars 2 for reference)

This is the part where I remind you guys that they don't have a D&D license and as a result can not copy the systems of the Infinity Engine games and as such had no choice.

 

 

This is the part where i remind you that D&D do not have any royalty over every d20 system baesd on strength,dex,con,int,wis,char.

 

Am I alone in having an opinion that goes something like: No way on this earth I would have backed any RPG tied to the awful, unbalanced and soul destroying systems of early D&D? I played that way for 24 years, lost potential players to the inherent and undecipherable class progression and balance differences and there's no way on this earth I'm going back to it, unless its the last game in town, which it won't be if I have any say in it whatsoever.

 

 

1. Maybe the reading comprehension of the nayser isn't high enough. I never wrote that i wanted D&D system but a d20 system with canonical stats
2. Lol pretty much incredible how the cornerstone of RPG gaming (BG1&2,IDW1&2,Torment) sudddenly became "awful, unbalanced and soul destroying systems"

 

Canonical titles for the stats of the PoE system wouldn't make sense. Too many people would see strength as a purely physical statistic, not a damage booster for all classes.

No part of my disenchantment over those 24 years was sudden

Edited August 20, 2014 by hairyscotsman2

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

More like BG2 please

You do realise that Sawyer is not a fan of Baldur's Gate 2. Right?

 

 

Out of curiosity, do you know the reason/s?

 

He didn't like the quest density in the first chapter, he didn't like the (absolutely EPIC!) mage battles and he hates Imoen with a burning passion. Just a few of the reasons that I can remember.

 

He also said that there isn't much that he likes about Baldur's Gate 2 (whatever that means).

 

 

 

 

 

More like BG2 please

You do realise that Sawyer is not a fan of Baldur's Gate 2. Right?

 

 

Huh? Where? How? When?

 

There are threads about this somewhere on the forum. Use the search option.

[InsaneCommander]

While we are it, remove any dialogue choice regarding stats and move the same dialogue choice to a serie of skills influenced by stats.

 

At the moment the main char must waste point in stats that influence only the conversation.

There are multiple ways to progress. If you want a character that has every option available, then yes, you'll need to invest in every stat that influences conversation. If so, then play as a character that will benefit from those attributes, one that doesn't really need constitution or dextery.

 

But is it really necessary? I'd rather leave some of those options for a second playthrough. For example, first I play as a intelligent and perceptive character and later as an intimidating bully with high might and resolve.

 

There is absolutely no problem in wanting to have all options available , but I don't think Obsidian expect players to do that.

 

Just look at the discussion on the thread below and the comments made by one of the developers (Eric Fenstermaker):

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66862-dialogue-options-dont-really-do-anything/

Edited August 20, 2014 by InsaneCommander

[hairyscotsman2]

Give someone a magic sword in a high fantasy world to gain bonuses and combat abilities and everyone's fine. Suggest that someone can tap into the inherent magic of the high fantasy world to gain abilities as a melee fighter and everyone loses their minds.

[Giubba]

 

While we are it, remove any dialogue choice regarding stats and move the same dialogue choice to a serie of skills influenced by stats.

 

At the moment the main char must waste point in stats that influence only the conversation.

There are multiple ways to progress. If you want a character that has every option available, then yes, you'll need to invest in every stat that influences conversation. If so, then play as a character that will benefit from those attributes, one that doesn't really need constitution or dextery.

 

But is it really necessary? I'd rather leave some of those options for a second playthrough. For example, first I play as a intelligent and perceptive character and later as an intimidating bully with high might and resolve.

 

There is absolutely no problem in wanting to have all options available , but I don't think Obsidian expect players to do that.

 

Just look at the discussion on the thread below and the comments made by one of the developers (Eric Fenstermaker):

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66862-dialogue-options-dont-really-do-anything/

 

 

Point is if you want some option in the dialogue (not all) inevitably you must put point is intelligence and the other skill which i don't remember the name (the one just above int.).

 

And secondary this being a RPG is quite normal that you want have as much control as you can over the dialog but this system, and again with this absurd combat, force you to choose between a character that maybe can survive a 10 more sec in a combat or a char that can choose something different from the standard answer.

 

 

 

Canonical titles for the stats of the PoE system wouldn't make sense. Too many people would see strength as a purely physical statistic, not a damage booster for all classes.

No part of my disenchantment over those 24 years was sudden

 

In fact the cretine who had the brillant idea of might should never be put in the position to do this mess.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Giubba

[Helm]

 

In fact the cretine who had the brillant idea of might should never be put in the position to do this mess.

 

[wolfstriked]

 

 

 

In fact the cretine who had the brillant idea of might should never be put in the position to do this mess.

 

Uhhhhhh buh bye now.

[InsaneCommander]

@Giubba If a character without intellect and perception can solve all quests in a different way, it's fine for me. But I understand some people won't like it. As for the combat, let's see if they'll change it and how it will affect the attributes choices.

[Grand_Commander13]

Give someone a magic sword in a high fantasy world to gain bonuses and combat abilities and everyone's fine. Suggest that someone can tap into the inherent magic of the high fantasy world to gain abilities as a melee fighter and everyone loses their minds.

 

A fair point, Joker, a fair point.

[applesaucers]

 

 

 

More like BG2 please

You do realise that Sawyer is not a fan of Baldur's Gate 2. Right?

 

Here's Josh debunking that very idea: http://new.spring.me/#!/JESawyer/q/476555580379526832?utm_source=social

Being critical is very necessary to being a designer. It always seems weird to me that some don't understand hating parts of things you love.

 

The current compromises for attributes, class abilities, the item stash, health/stamina are the result of lots of very intense forum discussions and iterations, and their fundamental goal are very unlikely to change.

 

In particular, Josh seems very attached to the attributes, attribute-based dialogue options, and health/stamina, which aspire to goals he considers very important and are informed by games he loves a lot. In addition, Stealth, slot-based inventory, attribute dialogue, DT, and health/stamina seem to have some very big fans. You'd need a better reason than just your own happiness, since your happiness would have to come at the expense of some one else's happiness.

 

During the KickStarter, they said they were willing to make changes to the original game systems, specified how they were interested in changing them, and outlined their design philosophies many times. But also the project was pitched as being Obsidian made, designed by Josh Sawyer, Chris Avelone, and Tim Cain. Many backers would be disappointed if the systems weren't Obsidian-ish. Honestly, compared to other spiritual successor KickStarters, only Wasteland 2 doesn't make more radical changes than this. 

[Mrakvampire]

He didn't like the quest density in the first chapter, he didn't like the (absolutely EPIC!) mage battles and he hates Imoen with a burning passion. Just a few of the reasons that I can remember.

 

He also said that there isn't much that he likes about Baldur's Gate 2 (whatever that means).

 

Very interesting revelations from development team. It pitty that those revelations were not made during Kickstarter campaing. Oh, stop, this would greatly reduce amount of money they would get from us. Bingo!

[Amentep]

This game needs less BG because most of this games real flaws come from them wanting to do something original with vision but being handicapped and having to make it reminiscent of the Infinity Engine games.

To be fair, if it is a handicap, its one they readily accepted when they pitched the Kickstarter as a successor to the IE games.

[Helm]

 

He didn't like the quest density in the first chapter, he didn't like the (absolutely EPIC!) mage battles and he hates Imoen with a burning passion. Just a few of the reasons that I can remember.

 

He also said that there isn't much that he likes about Baldur's Gate 2 (whatever that means).

 

Very interesting revelations from development team. It pitty that those revelations were not made during Kickstarter campaing. Oh, stop, this would greatly reduce amount of money they would get from us. Bingo!

 

It would have been the truth to say that the lead designer dislikes BG2, but that would have also been terrible for marketing, because many (very, very many) backers consider BG2 to be one of the best games ever made. Me included.

 

Anyway, just because someone doesn't like BG2 doesn't mean that they will design a bad game. Although I have to admit that the only really good stuff that I have seen was developed by the art and writing department, not by the person responsible for designing the mechanics, who also just happens to strongly dislike BG2....

Edited August 20, 2014 by Helm

[Mrakvampire]

Regarding Mrakvampires points: I wouldn't consider those "constructive criticism", at least not at this stage, He might just as well said "Make the game true Skyrim like 3D".

He essentially says "Redo most class mechanics and the whole attribute system". Those are no "easy fixes", that is redesigning a significant part of the game. Realistically it is around a year too late for changes of this magnitude,

 

 

I'm not requesting whole redesign of class system. Is it a big deal to move one bonus from one stat to another? No. Is a big deal to move several bonuses from one stat to another? Not a big deal, and it doesn't require any kind of super costly effort. Moreover they have more than half year till release (and even more, as I'm sure that game will not be released in 2014 as they say). 

All that I require doesn't involve engine or graphics change (most time consuming parts of development) - nothing at all. Moreover, I don't ask to change plot, or lore of the game that would require tons of changes in game texts. 

So I'm curious if my suggestions are too complicated - then why at all we have this beta? Only to find bugs? Ok, then do it without me.

 

If no major changes will happen, than I'm sorry to say that - I will consider myself cheated by Obsidian on the promise to deliver me a successor of Infinity Engine games, cause there is nothing that is common with them right now except usage of 2D graphics. Combat is micromanagement hell (nothing in comparison with BG1/2 combat), inventory is console-like, rpg system is not intuitive and even doesn't resemble classic old-school CRPG systems... And as a cheated person hamster I would feel bad. I don't want to feel bad, and I don't want to feel cheated.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mrakvampire

[Kiel29]

The starter promise was to make a game that feels like playing the old games. The system is different, but sitting down it feels like years ago, playing those games, through for the first, second, or third time. What it doesn't feel like is playing BG2 last year, two character run, one of which being a purposely gimped bard.

And I hope it never does feel that way.

 

The changes to the attributes aren't inherently necessary to bring IE games to the modern age, but they, at least for now, get rid of all the cheese and meta-gaming that-for good and for bad- currently comes with playing those games.

 

A few attribute tweaks may be in order(the biggest-PER and RES were acknowledged before the beta even came out), but the system they have now succeeds in the goal of the style of those games, while coming up with a new mechanic.

[Mrakvampire]

The changes to the attributes aren't inherently necessary to bring IE games to the modern age, but they, at least for now, get rid of all the cheese and meta-gaming that-for good and for bad- currently comes with playing those games.

 

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one.

[Answermancer]

Ok. Here is my constructive criticism:

 

1. Return classic intuitive stats (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). Don't want to have dump stats? Just make sure that there is logical explanation why should Wizard take high Strength. Maybe there could be builds of melee wizard? Or maybe Strength could contribute to defenses vs. some kind of physical attacks (like knockouts). No need to actually use D&D system, just use classic stats that are self-explanatory.

 

2. Return classic IE inventory and add more filters/etc to it. Bring back item weight and encumbance. No more console-like infinite stashes! If you want more space - buy magic bags. 

 

3. Remove at least 50% of abilities from non-casters and make others mostly in format of 'enabled / disabled'. This will greatly reduce amount of micromanagement that is required in combat.

 

Adding my feedback so that devs don't think that the people who want BG2.5 are a majority.

 

Dear Obsidian, please don't do any of the things this person says. Please keep the game as is and polish. The stat system is much better, the combat is much more active and interesting (and better), the classes are much better.

 

I disagree with anyone who wants to remove/change features for "immersion" which is a nonsense word that means something else to every single person who says it.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Answermancer

[Kiel29]

 

The changes to the attributes aren't inherently necessary to bring IE games to the modern age, but they, at least for now, get rid of all the cheese and meta-gaming that-for good and for bad- currently comes with playing those games.

 

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one.

 

 

 

Taking meta out of the equation and just looking at the RPing side then, sure you can. Explicitly because Might does not use the word strength, Might can mean what you want. The might of his soul can translate into several things. Spellpower might, because his soul is 'mightier' than others. He can physically(soul-ly?) do more because of that.

 

It isn't the same, but it isn't worse for RP.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kiel29

[Stun]

 

 

More like BG2 please

You do realise that Sawyer is not a fan of Baldur's Gate 2. Right?

 

 

Huh? Where? How? When?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/39401-armor-abstractions-in-fallouts-special-game-system/?do=findComment&comment=526647

 

 

 

What about BG2 bothered you, do you think? That seems to me a pretty classic crpg-style game, I'm surprised yiou didn't enjoy it so much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really disliked most of the CNPCs, I really disliked being forced to go find Imoen, I really disliked the style of dialogue, and I really disliked being flooded with a million quests by every shmoe on the streets of Athkatla. Basically, there wasn't a whole lot I did like about it.

 

Basically he disliked just about everything I loved about BG2. Edited August 20, 2014 by Stun

[Mrakvampire]

 

 

The changes to the attributes aren't inherently necessary to bring IE games to the modern age, but they, at least for now, get rid of all the cheese and meta-gaming that-for good and for bad- currently comes with playing those games.

 

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one.

 

 

 

Taking meta out of the equation and just looking at the RPing side then, sure you can. Explicitly because Might does not use the word strength, Might can mean what you want. The might of his soul can translate into several things. Spellpower might, because his soul is 'mightier' than others. He can physically(soul-ly?) do more because of that.

 

 

I don't understand you, sorry. I want to have physically weak old, very old wizard that can blast mountains with his spells. Or I want to have weak willed charismatic bard. Try to stat them in this new system.

[Mrakvampire]

I really disliked most of the CNPCs, I really disliked being forced to go find Imoen, I really disliked the style of dialogue, and I really disliked being flooded with a million quests by every shmoe on the streets of Athkatla. Basically, there wasn't a whole lot I did like about it. 

 

 

How interesting. And those people asked my money to create IE games successor? Oh crap, I'm really dumb hamster, really. Shame on me for not reading dev posts about my favorite games.   

[Kiel29]

I can understand the stretching it takes for the wizard, and I know in this conversation I am the weird one for, back in the day, always stretching the limits of mental RPing in CRPGs. Might will also make your character, mechanically, stronger at hitting a sword, but if I am picturing a feeble old spellcaster in my head, I'm just not going to give him a sword. So high Might(strength of spells), Intelligence(very learned), and Resolve(lots of gumption), and low Dex(arthritis), Per(glaucoma), and Con(old and feeble) is how I would stat an old, but powerful wizard.

 

The bard would be easy, because charisma is explicitly not part of the stats, but the dialogue in this game is extensive and incredible. Dialogue as charismatically as you want, and stat super low Resolve.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kiel29

[Mrakvampire]

I can understand the stretching it takes for the wizard, and I know in this conversation I am the weird one for, back in the day, always stretching the limits of mental RPing in CRPGs. Might will also make your character, mechanically, stronger at hitting a sword, but if I am picturing a feeble old spellcaster in my head, I'm just not going to give him a sword. So high Might(strength of spells), Intelligence(very learned), and Resolve(lots of gumption), and low Dex(arthritis), Per(glaucoma), and Con(old and feeble) is how I would stat an old, but powerful wizard.

 

The bard would be easy, because charisma is explicitly not part of the stats, but the dialogue in this game is extensive and incredible. Dialogue as charismatically as you want, and stat super low Resolve.

 

Resolve has part of charisma description. Something about influencing people.

Yeah and you go way to far in protecting obvious RP flaws of this new system.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mrakvampire