More like BG2 please

[Leferd]

 

 

 

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.

Somehow I think that this is appropriate:

 

[fruiteater]

 

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.

 

Sure you can, dont touch CON stat and you wizard will be dead as soon someone looks at him, cant get more physically frail/weak then that =D

Edited August 20, 2014 by fruiteater

[WTHHeroSin]

Okay,

 

BG2 was the first game I ever played. I have a lot of love for that game, and it has defined the way that I judge a good RPG. BG2 is often hitting the top of the list for best RPGs of all time even today, many years later. I'm not by any means trying to say that BG2 was anything less than a masterpiece. When I say masterpiece in this context, I do not mean perfect. When I say masterpiece I mean that it sits in a defining spot in video game history for western RPGs. 

 

All that being said, I hated BG2's inventory system, and when I go back to play it now I still hate it! It's really awful distributing items from screen to screen, and trying to find enough room to carry all the awesome stuff you want to keep with you can be tiresome. The multi-party inventory screen is f-ing amazing, and honestly one of the most awesome changes I've seen in this game so far. It's so convenient, and lets me get right back to the adventuring. I'm sorry, but I just don't see inventory management as part of roleplaying. That seems silly.

 

Regarding the stats. I really don't mind. It seems to me that the game allows you to define your character through reputation and the system seems to give you plenty of options for playing a certain kind of character. I don't think that because the stats aren't classic that they are terrible. I can see Mrakvampire's point about how he wants to try and build a character from a story focus which is understandable, but I don't think it's impossible to stat things in a way that makes sense like Kiel29 illustrated in his post. 

 

My only complaints about the stats are probably Perception and Resolve. I feel both those stats open up more dialogue options, but I don't have a lot of combat reasons to take them. At least not so far, but I am still learning the system. 

 

In regards to Fighters and such having abilities, for godsake leave that in. I don't want to play a fighter that just swings a sword, I like some tactical gameplay, and I don't mind things being a little micro-mangy. I do wish the combat was a little slower so I didn't have to rely on pause so much, but it's not terrible and there is a slow down button. 

 

My two cents is that I think that obsidian has done a great job of capturing the spirit of BG2, and it does fill me with nostalgia and tender emotions to play this game, and I'm excited to see what kind of stories I can get out of the main campaign. No, this game is not BG2. It does look amazing, it feels right, and it's also making changes that define it as it's own game that can stand on its own merits. Personally, I don't want to just play an upgraded copy of BG2. I want a game like BG2 with updated gaming sensibilities and better balance. So, um keep up the good work Obsidian? I'm not sure about the balance and mechanics yet (haven't had a lot of time to play), but so far it seems good.

[Ineth]

 

In AD&D, fighters were crap except early game. [...]

No one cares about the AD&D system at it's core. This is about the IE games, and the IE games made fighters plenty useful in the end.

 

Exactly. I wonder if the people who keep claiming that fighters are intrinsically underpowered in AD&D based games, have ever played BG2 and looked at the kill stats of their party members at the end of each chapter. At least in my experience, the main melee fighter would consistently get by far the most kills throughout all stages of the game.

 

Whereas wizards found increasingly powerful spells (and got more spell levels and spells per day) as the game progressed, warriors found increasingly powerful weapons and armor which they could use very effectively.

[Grand_Commander13]

Exactly. I wonder if the people who keep claiming that fighters are intrinsically underpowered in AD&D based games, have ever played BG2 and looked at the kill stats of their party members at the end of each chapter. At least in my experience, the main melee fighter would consistently get by far the most kills throughout all stages of the game.

 

Whereas wizards found increasingly powerful spells (and got more spell levels and spells per day) as the game progressed, warriors found increasingly powerful weapons and armor which they could use very effectively.

 

Egads, the people the wizard keeps around to deal with the ones who aren't worth a spell ends up getting the most kills?

 

Seriously, what a useless metric to track how powerful a character is. You want to kill people without using spells? Don't look to your mage. You want to kill someone who's a real threat? Wizard powers, activate!

[Mrakvampire]

Egads, the people the wizard keeps around to deal with the ones who aren't worth a spell ends up getting the most kills?

 

Seriously, what a useless metric to track how powerful a character is. You want to kill people without using spells? Don't look to your mage. You want to kill someone who's a real threat? Wizard powers, activate!

 

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

"Resolve reflects a character's internal drive, determination, and the emotional intensity they can project to others. It can be useful in for mental intimidation, leadership, and convincing performances. In combat..."

 

This is what it says on character creation. It doesn't evoke charisma to me, that strikes more as a combination of strength of will, and acting ability. Someone lazy and/or bad at deception and keeping a straight face, but is incredibly likable and friendly and nice fits that. Highly magnetic personality, but ultimately transient and unfocused.

 

::Edit to add quotes, jeez this thread moves::

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kiel29

[Mrakvampire]

"Resolve reflects a character's internal drive, determination, and the emotional intensity they can project to others. It can be useful in for mental intimidation, leadership, and convincing performances. In combat..."

 

This is what it says on character creation. It doesn't evoke charisma to me, that strikes more as a combination of strength of will, and acting ability. Someone lazy and/or bad at deception and keeping a straight face, but is incredibly likable and friendly and nice fits that. Highly magnetic personality, but ultimately transient and unfocused.

 

Now compare it to D&D 3 edition definition of Charisma. 

 

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

 

[Kiel29]

Well, if it is the same description, how do you justify a highly charismatic but weak willed character in RP terms for D&D.

I say RP terms, as opposed to mechanics, so will, not will saves- as affected by wisdom.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kiel29

[Grand_Commander13]

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

You got it right there: magic resistance. For them to be difficult, they need to be resistant to magic. If wizards weren't specifically nerfed against them, there would be no difficulty.

 

Listen, I'm really surprised to find someone trying to say that fighters are just as powerful as wizards in AD&D. Usually people make the argument about wizards only being able to kill so many people per day, so they keep fighters around so the mooks don't tire them out, but trying to straight up say the system gives them equivalent power levels is new. This has been a settled issue for a long time.

[Mrakvampire]

 

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

You got it right there: magic resistance. For them to be difficult, they need to be resistant to magic. If wizards weren't specifically nerfed against them, there would be no difficulty.

 

Listen, I'm really surprised to find someone trying to say that fighters are just as powerful as wizards in AD&D. Usually people make the argument about wizards only being able to kill so many people per day, so they keep fighters around so the mooks don't tire them out, but trying to straight up say the system gives them equivalent power levels is new. This has been a settled issue for a long time.

 

STOP RIGHT THERE CRIM... I mean... Stop. We are discussing not AD&D here. We are discussing Baldur's Gate 2 game (why it was so awesome, and why PoE should be more like BG2) here. These are 2 different things. At all.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mrakvampire

[Waywocket]

 

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

You got it right there: magic resistance. For them to be difficult, they need to be resistant to magic. If wizards weren't specifically nerfed against them, there would be no difficulty.

 

Listen, I'm really surprised to find someone trying to say that fighters are just as powerful as wizards in AD&D. Usually people make the argument about wizards only being able to kill so many people per day, so they keep fighters around so the mooks don't tire them out, but trying to straight up say the system gives them equivalent power levels is new. This has been a settled issue for a long time.

 

He didn't say in AD&D in general; he said BG2. In BG2, warriors are the most powerful in terms of raw killing power. I say 'warriors', rather than 'fighters', because the best of the lot are probably rangers since they get to dual wield. In all of my playthroughs when I wasn't myself playing a ranger or some crazy multi-class like fighter/mage/thief, Minsc consistently had the most kills, the most XP earned, and the most powerful creatures slain - with the exception of the occasional short period of time after a boss fight if some caster got an exceptionally lucky finger of death through, or similar.

 

If it's just a bunch of meaningless trash mobs, chuck a fireball at them and collect the loot, but if there's some crazy-hard boss monster, lich, or whatever: get somebody to cast haste on Minsc and he'll smash the flail of the ages into it's face for about 3 rounds until it's dead.

 

To claim that melee characters were underpowered in BG compared to mages is entirely without merit.

[_DrMario_]

Wow. If I had been aware of Sawyer's dislike of BG2 before the Kickstarter I never would have pledged the amount I did.

 

Funnily enough playing the beta I told myself multiple times that it felt like the person designing this game didn't seem to like the IE games too much since they were trying to change how everything worked.

[Kiel29]

If it's just a bunch of meaningless trash mobs, chuck a fireball at them and collect the loot, but if there's some crazy-hard boss monster, lich, or whatever: get somebody to cast haste on Minsc and he'll smash the flail of the ages into it's face for about 3 rounds until it's dead.

 

 

This right here I think is gonna be what people are worried about. BG2 gave awesome gear for warriors, some overpowered even*cough*carsomyr*cough*

 

What PoE looks like it is trying to do is keep the scaling the same, but make fighters' abilities what strengthen them, and not the loots

[Wintersong]

 

 

In AD&D, fighters were crap except early game. [...]

No one cares about the AD&D system at it's core. This is about the IE games, and the IE games made fighters plenty useful in the end.

 

Exactly. I wonder if the people who keep claiming that fighters are intrinsically underpowered in AD&D based games, have ever played BG2 and looked at the kill stats of their party members at the end of each chapter. At least in my experience, the main melee fighter would consistently get by far the most kills throughout all stages of the game.

 

Whereas wizards found increasingly powerful spells (and got more spell levels and spells per day) as the game progressed, warriors found increasingly powerful weapons and armor which they could use very effectively.

 

Fighter Level 1: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 5: "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

Fighter Level 10. "Look at me swinging my sword!"

 

etc

 

 

Yeah, braindead gameplay as indicator of power.

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

[Mrakvampire]

 

AD&D fighters are not weaklings... unless you compared them to wizards. Enemies with high magic resistance are there so the wizards are not always the stars. And fighters are totally boring too, which is the most important part.

 

 

Look. We are talking about RPG game that involves playing not 1 character but whole party of characters. So, some of them could be 'boring' from mechanics standpoint, yes. But overall, as you manage party, you will have whole bunch of abilities.

[hairyscotsman2]

 

If it's just a bunch of meaningless trash mobs, chuck a fireball at them and collect the loot, but if there's some crazy-hard boss monster, lich, or whatever: get somebody to cast haste on Minsc and he'll smash the flail of the ages into it's face for about 3 rounds until it's dead.

 

 

This right here I think is gonna be what people are worried about. BG2 gave awesome gear for warriors, some overpowered even*cough*carsomyr*cough*

 

What PoE looks like it is trying to do is keep the scaling the same, but make fighters' abilities what strengthen them, and not the loots

 

Exactly. The power-up weapons did their job in giving the front-liners some agency, but each weapon tied them to particular effects. To get the to-hit bonus of the next weapon, you had to give up the powers of the previous weapon. That is not good design.

[Mrakvampire]

Still in BG2 there was no need to micromanage all party with redundant abilities. Just send your Minsc in the direction of enemy and focus on micromanagement of 1-2 casters in your team. Now... You have to babysit all of them!

[Davaek]

My only problem with the game so far is the combat, I enjoyed the combat systems in PS:T, BG I & BGII and Icewind Dale 1 & 2. The combat in this game is far to different in my opinion, everything about it feels wrong. The stamina/health system isn't a good change in my opinion and the casting animations are almost non existent(maybe this will change because it is still beta). Although I generally play a less conflict based party, combat will always be a part of the game and I am really not happy with the way it is looking at the moment.

[hairyscotsman2]

My only problem with the game so far is the combat, I enjoyed the combat systems in PS:T, BG I & BGII and Icewind Dale 1 & 2. The combat in this game is far to different in my opinion, everything about it feels wrong. The stamina/health system isn't a good change in my opinion and the casting animations are almost non existent(maybe this will change because it is still beta). Although I generally play a less conflict based party, combat will always be a part of the game and I am really not happy with the way it is looking at the moment.

The stamina/health system is doing something important though. It's giving the player something to measure the use of per-rest abilities against. If health is an indicator of how often to rest, and the use of abilities does the same, then it encourages you to start using those abilities as health goes down. This is something that all D&D games have a problem with, some players saving their dailies for encounters that don't happen, or burning out their powers and forcing rests too often. Health/stamina is a good way of giving a guide to the dispensing of powers, yes it's a bit clunky and takes a bit of getting used to, but it works far better in a PC game than it would in a PnP game.

[Waywocket]

My only problem with the game so far is the combat, I enjoyed the combat systems in PS:T, BG I & BGII and Icewind Dale 1 & 2. The combat in this game is far to different in my opinion, everything about it feels wrong. The stamina/health system isn't a good change in my opinion and the casting animations are almost non existent(maybe this will change because it is still beta). Although I generally play a less conflict based party, combat will always be a part of the game and I am really not happy with the way it is looking at the moment.

Honestly I think right now it's too early to say. It feels to me like combat is simply too buggy to be meaningfully testable, because the experience is going to be so different once the bugs are fixed even without any changes to the mechanics themselves.

 

We know that some of the more obvious bugs are already on Obsidian's radar - doubtless since before the beta was released - so I'm reasonably optimistic that we'll get a build within a few weeks that has greatly improved combat from which we can draw more useful conclusions about the combat mechanics.

 

(I admit my immediate reaction upon my first combat encounter was basically 'Nope, nope, no. F*** this system', but that's a purely emotional response and I really don't think it's a fair one for a system that's at such an early phase of development)

[archangel979]

 

 

 

 

 

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).

So he is Dustin Browder of Pillars of Eternity? We are doomed :D

(for those that don't follow Starcraft 2, Dustin Browder is/was man in charge of creating Sc2 and he has a background from Red Alert games and he was brought to give Lazors, shiny Lazors to Starcraft....)

[hairyscotsman2]

Still in BG2 there was no need to micromanage all party with redundant abilities. Just send your Minsc in the direction of enemy and focus on micromanagement of 1-2 casters in your team. Now... You have to babysit all of them!

Well I count 6 powers on a 5th level fighter.

Here's a comparison to D&D:

Each encounter you get 2 knock-downs (a bull rush equivalent) and a nice defensive ability (potion of defense equivalent)

3 times per-rest you get a stamina regen power to get half health back from an attack (potion of healing equivalent)

So you get  to knock enemies over and the equivalent of some free potions. That is not really a lot to manage compared to most PC RPG games.

[archangel979]

 

Egads, the people the wizard keeps around to deal with the ones who aren't worth a spell ends up getting the most kills?

 

Seriously, what a useless metric to track how powerful a character is. You want to kill people without using spells? Don't look to your mage. You want to kill someone who's a real threat? Wizard powers, activate!

 

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

 

Well, I soloed both BG1, BG2 and ToB with a Sorcerer so I would not say that. I would not have a chance to finish it with a Fighter.

[Mrakvampire]

So you get  to knock enemies over and the equivalent of some free potions. That is not really a lot to manage compared to most PC RPG games.

 

Oh, you know a lot of RPG games with party-based real-time + pause combat beyond IE games?