Baldur's Gate was pretty bad. Play BGT without any AI mods(which is a waste of time, tbh) and the difference in quality going from BG to BG2 is pretty startling.

 

I'm afraid we're going to have to put you down, old boy.

 

*Missing String*

Gotta go with dual wielding shields.  I don't care if the game only give me experience for reciting sonnets to lusty Aedyrian maids, is filled with giant spiders the size of islands, and deletes my save every time I click on an odd numberd pixel, this would make it hilarious.

Robust Talents @ 1 every 2.

 

Baldur's Gate was pretty bad. Play BGT without any AI mods(which is a waste of time, tbh) and the difference in quality going from BG to BG2 is pretty startling.

 

Currently playing BGT-BWP with SCS right now and without the enhanced AI and encounters, the BG section would be pretty boring.

 

You're insane! BG is fantastic. 

 

 

Better pc models and use them as pc icon as an alternative to portraits.

(The game already feels a lot as a spiritiual successor to IE games. Heck, even Dragon Age felt as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate for me).

Oi, don't compare that piece of **** to Baldur's Gate.

 

Baldur's Gate was pretty bad. Play BGT without any AI mods(which is a waste of time, tbh) and the difference in quality going from BG to BG2 is pretty startling.

 

 

 

Nope

 

Baldur's Gate was pretty bad. Play BGT without any AI mods(which is a waste of time, tbh) and the difference in quality going from BG to BG2 is pretty startling.

 

Currently playing BGT-BWP with SCS right now and without the enhanced AI and encounters, the BG section would be pretty boring.

You're insane! BG is fantastic.

 

No, BG2 was. Vanilla BG is the worst parts of low-level D&D shoved into a vidya game.

 

 

Baldur's Gate was pretty bad. Play BGT without any AI mods(which is a waste of time, tbh) and the difference in quality going from BG to BG2 is pretty startling.

 

Currently playing BGT-BWP with SCS right now and without the enhanced AI and encounters, the BG section would be pretty boring.

You're insane! BG is fantastic.

 

No, BG2 was. Vanilla BG is the worst parts of low-level D&D shoved into a vidya game.

 

A vidya game? What are you, Hank Hill? I'll admit, without the tutu mod BG1 has some serious flaws. I still loved the exploration though.  BG Enhanced Edition is pretty great since it introduces some needed improvements if you don't use mods. If you use mods though it hardly matters.

 

Sadly, I think BG2 EE was barely improved at all. 

 

EDIT: I guess I've played with the tutu mod so much I forget about the vanilla game.

Edited September 8, 201411 yr by Namutree

A vidya game? What are you, Hank Hill?

Yes.

 

I'll admit, without the tutu mod BG1 has some serious flaws. I still loved the exploration though.  BG Enhanced Edition is pretty great since it introduces some needed improvements if you don't use mods. If you use mods though it hardly matters.

If you $10 and a few hours to kill, play the original vanilla. Encounter design and enemy variety sucks, there is almost no character development wit NPCs, and the story is a bit lacking. I'd go as far to say that IWD is better in all areas except for exploration. do the BGT if you feel like playing through BG1 content, and add a lot of mods.

 

Sadly, I think BG2 EE was barely improved at all.

The EE added some nice things, like 2 evil NPCs that made it possible to have an all-evil full party, but with the lack of support for Ascension and no compatibility for a plethora of older mods, I honestly can't recommend it. In fact, doing a BWP install of BGT would be the best course of action, but it takes like 3+ hours to do it manually with SCS' AI components taking a very long time. Worth it IMO, currently playing as a SK'd Kensai Magus(google Pathfinder Kensai Magus if confused) and am having a real good time.

 

To get back on topic, I would tweak Cipher to be role-ready for gish stuff. Paladins and Gishs are my favorite characters to play, and I don't think the PoE Cipher is that great as a gish. IMO, it needs a higher base deflection, health, and melee accuracy along with powers that focus on debuffing enemies or strengthening combat ability.

Edited September 8, 201411 yr by KaineParker

 

I'd go as far to say that IWD is better in all areas except for exploration. 

 

The characters in BG1 were underdeveloped, but they had more personality than the generated generics of IWD. 

More combat and character feedback.

 

To a lesser degree, sharper Aumaua models.

More non-combat exploration, being able to throw a stone without hitting some enemy.

More tactical combat where it doesn't feel like everything devolves into a dog pile almost immediately.  More advantages for players who actually use positioning. 

Combat (feedback, pace, etc...)

Getting a talent on every odd level, in particular at character creation.

I want the character to be my own character, in particular not the one everyone else is starting with.

Getting a talent on every odd level, in particular at character creation.

I want the character to be my own character, in particular not the one everyone else is starting with.

That's a cool idea.

Yeah I was disappointed that you don't get to pick a talent at level 1. Every 2nd level would be cool as well.

Yeah. But given the talents at the moment, it wouldn't be of much use as you'd have enough slots to learn them all anyway, so no diversity in the end and therefore no real evaluation.

 

Therefore I plan on writing a thread were I want to suggest talents that would enable classes to become more like certain prestige classes in DnD 3.X, deluding myself into thinking I would know something about class design. Will take some research though and given that I haven't played much of the beta due to bugs, I'll probably wait a bit before doing that.

Edited September 8, 201411 yr by Doppelschwert

UI and combat feedback. Especially feedback from interacting with items in your inventory.

I can't identify exactly what's wrong with it but it feels sluggish and unsatisfying. Maybe it's the sound effects.

bigger maps!

Combat feedback and pacing.

am not having an issue with pacing, but combat feedback is a particular shortcoming in our estimation. we can assume that stuff such as DoT can be balanced rather easily in a patch as they weren't such a big deal previous to the recent patch. likewise, encounter abilities not resetting 'cause we never leave combat is also annoying but fixable... we hope.

 

we can't see debuffs on foes. now, for some games this ain't a problem 'cause o' fewer mob attacks, differences in ai or (*groan*) pacing or whatever. regardless, keeping track o' foes in PoE presents seeming unique difficulties. is the Scrum mentality o' foes causing issues unique to this game? with all foes stacked on top of each other, how does we distinguish two beetles, spiders or guards that otherwise looks the same? perhaps the lack o' meaningful visual contrast is handicapping the ability to discriminate? dunno. what we do know is that either some single fixable issue or a gestalt o' issues is making it exceeding difficult to keep track of enemies such that we may not intelligently utilize debuffs. 

 

as a side issue to combat feedback, we will once again note that the combat log, complete extended, is effectively making so that we may only see one action by each party member at one time. given that we can't tell which foes is affected by debuffs, this makes the combat log a bit too brief for us to be getting genuine useful feedback. it would be extreme helpful to makes savable text versions o' combat logs.  

 

fight a single foe in bg2 such as a dragon and you not need help to follow debuffs layered 'pon it. in bg2 you could also buff your own party before combat, so one/many steps were removed to make actual combat less frenetic. per encounter PoE abilities for virtual all characters also tends to increase the number o' debuffs we have available. we got stuff such as grass and additional foes stacking or interfering such that even if there is subtle visual cues for debuffs, we ain't seeing what to look for in PoE. 

 

...

 

the thing is, we don't have a single fix for our debuff complaint. we can't think o' an obvious fix, and am doubting there is time to address complex or subtle fixes. discouraging.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 8, 201411 yr by Gromnir

^ That's a good point about pre-buffing I hadn't thought about, another of Sawyer's (many) bugbears. Is using buffs in battle any more elegant or enjoyable? Especially, when as currently constituted, you don't know if they've even taken effect half the time.

I think its less about elegance or enjoyability and more about establishing "opportunity cost". Also, some people got red faced by prebuffing.

Turn-based combat.

 

I played for a few hours after finishing Divinity: Original Sin twice, and just got reminded hard why I always preferred it.

The flock of hopeless, headless chicken that a lousy AI moves around with no ounce of common sense, that require constant babysitting to even walk to a halfway sensible position or attack the most obvious enemy...

Turn-Based Combat. Period.

^ That's a good point about pre-buffing I hadn't thought about, another of Sawyer's (many) bugbears. Is using buffs in battle any more elegant or enjoyable? Especially, when as currently constituted, you don't know if they've even taken effect half the time.

we can see valid reasons for eliminating pre-buffing. am recalling more than a few dragon or lich battles in bg2 wherein the prebuffing took longer than the battles themselves. the thing is, the lack o' pre-buffing does add a level o' complexity and distraction that makes combat all the more chaotic. am having a difficult time keeping straight who and is not buffed or debuffed.  half of what is occurring in battles is functional a "mystary."  am knowing that the obsidians think the "mystary" bit is funny, but is Gromnir's opinion that squad-based, tactical combat should be a bit more transparent. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Combat Feedback. I have to really really work at telling what anyone is doing.