Why the hype?

[Jimmious]

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

I'm definetely not saying they're bad games. I love them, especially BG2. However I do think that for me currently it would be really hard to go back to BG1 after playing PoE. For a lot of reasons varying from quality of graphics,sound etc to ease of use and user-friendliness etc

BG2 is a different beast as everyone has already said. It's the best IE could do.

[Hellraiser789]

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

 

Gotta say, wasn't impressed with the "EE" of the BG games. Just didnt think they were worth it, honestly. I liked Dorn though - thought he was awesome, Neera reminded me too much of Aerie (whiny and I dislike Wild Mages), and Raasad was eh...Although I actually did like the Black Pit - that would actually be great for trying out various build for PoE.... Didn't buy BG2EE though, just because I didn't think the new companions were worth it, although it wouldve been nice to actually have an evil thief (and have a full evil party of NPCs for once...). Just sucked they had so many liimitations and what not, just figured I'd save my money for this or Torment:Tides of Numenera.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Hellraiser789

[sim-h]

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

 

THIS. So many times over. I confess I have put my latest BG1:EE all the way through to ToB (I never actually had ToB back in the day) on hold whilst I play PoE.

 

They are waiting on Shandalar's Ice Island, where time means nothing...

[Lord Weh]

 

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

 

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

Gotta say, wasn't impressed with the "EE" of the BG games. Just didnt think they were worth it, honestly. I liked Dorn though - thought he was awesome, Neera reminded me too much of Aerie (whiny and I dislike Wild Mages), and Raasad was eh...Although I actually did like the Black Pit - that would actually be great for trying out various build for PoE.... Didn't buy BG2EE though, just because I didn't think the new companions were worth it, although it wouldve been nice to actually have an evil thief (and have a full evil party of NPCs for once...). Just sucked they had so many liimitations and what not, just figured I'd save my money for this or Torment:Tides of Numenera.

I wasn't too impressed with them either, the UI Looked nicer, but wasn't really anymore useful. I love the UI in PoE, feels a nice compromise between modern and old school and is just minimal / extensive enough. The Enhanced Editions feel very clunky still, and I wasn't impressed at the quality of writing for the new quests and characters at all, I'm not holding my breath for the BG 1.5 they're supposed to be working on.

 

I hope they don't attempt a PS:T Enhanced Edition either, any additions they make will stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Still, making the games more appealing to a new audience is always good, so I'm glad they're doing them.

[Aramintai]

Imho, EE versions allow for a better transition on modern widescreen pc systems without the need for numerous mods and that's it, but that's not the point of my earlier post. The point is that the games themselves underneath all that EE polish are still awesome and very much playable even to this day.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Aramintai

[Katarack21]

 

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

 

THIS. So many times over. I confess I have put my latest BG1:EE all the way through to ToB (I never actually had ToB back in the day) on hold whilst I play PoE.

 

They are waiting on Shandalar's Ice Island, where time means nothing...

 

I put my recent playthrough of BG2 on hold for PoE.

 

 

BG2 writing is like in all BioWare games before and since: shallow, generally between mediocre and bad, with a few memorable high points, and the slightly-tragic comic relief character(s) best of the bunch. Jan Jansen's writing is excellent, Keldorn's is passable, everybody else's is eminently forgettable unless it's grating (Minsc). 

 

I've learned to really really love BG2, but it's despite the writing, not because of it, Jan Jansen notwithstanding. Its strength is that it's so incredibly big and has so much stuff in it that you can basically set your own objectives, select the way you want to go after them, and take off. At least my main problem with it was that it took me many, many, many attempts before I knew where everything is so I could actually start doing it. Until then it just felt that it was repeatedly kicking me in the groin for no good reason. I admire the people who got into it from the start; I'm not among them.

I could not disagree with you more strongly. I found Jan Jansen the most annoying little bugger on the face of Faerun. I sometimes murder him just because. Keldorn, on the other hand, is just boring to me. Minsc, though, is one of my favorite charcters in any RPG ever. I usually run with Viconia, Minsc, Jaheira, Yoshimo for the first half (replaced by Imoen) and often Aerie (even though I loathe her almost as much as Jan). I found the storyline compelling, the dream sequences riveting, and Irenicus a fascinating image of a sympathetic villain who is no less villainous for being so tragic. In short, I *really* love the writing in BG2.

[Kveldulf]

To the OP - because apparently a lof of people like this type of game.

 

I'm enjoying it.

 

The few let-down/gripes I have are fairly superficial; that there is no physical brawn/strength and there's a playable mermaid/avatar race. Seriously, Aumaua look/sound pretty dumb, though I don't mind Kana. His portrait reminds me of a fantasy version of a toked out Jamaican - so its iconic enough to give him a grace card.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Kveldulf

[Aramintai]

 

 

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

 

THIS. So many times over. I confess I have put my latest BG1:EE all the way through to ToB (I never actually had ToB back in the day) on hold whilst I play PoE.

 

They are waiting on Shandalar's Ice Island, where time means nothing...

 

I put my recent playthrough of BG2 on hold for PoE.

 

 

BG2 writing is like in all BioWare games before and since: shallow, generally between mediocre and bad, with a few memorable high points, and the slightly-tragic comic relief character(s) best of the bunch. Jan Jansen's writing is excellent, Keldorn's is passable, everybody else's is eminently forgettable unless it's grating (Minsc). 

 

I've learned to really really love BG2, but it's despite the writing, not because of it, Jan Jansen notwithstanding. Its strength is that it's so incredibly big and has so much stuff in it that you can basically set your own objectives, select the way you want to go after them, and take off. At least my main problem with it was that it took me many, many, many attempts before I knew where everything is so I could actually start doing it. Until then it just felt that it was repeatedly kicking me in the groin for no good reason. I admire the people who got into it from the start; I'm not among them.

I could not disagree with you more strongly. I found Jan Jansen the most annoying little bugger on the face of Faerun. I sometimes murder him just because. Keldorn, on the other hand, is just boring to me. Minsc, though, is one of my favorite charcters in any RPG ever. I usually run with Viconia, Minsc, Jaheira, Yoshimo for the first half (replaced by Imoen) and often Aerie (even though I loathe her almost as much as Jan). I found the storyline compelling, the dream sequences riveting, and Irenicus a fascinating image of a sympathetic villain who is no less villainous for being so tragic. In short, I *really* love the writing in BG2.

 

Lol, the fact that so many gamers still remember BG companions even to this day is also a testament to their awesomness. I'm still waiting in vain for BioWare to make a better set of companions and better romances. PoE companions while amusing at times are nothing to write home about, unfortunately. I hope they will be more developed in the sequel, their endings reactivity is a good step in that direction.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Aramintai

[Lord Weh]

Imho, EE versions allow for a better transition on modern widescreen pc systems without the need for numerous mods and that's it, but that's not the point of my earlier post. The point is that the games themselves underneath all that EE polish are still awesome and very much playable even to this day.

Absolutely. The games themselves are still awesome, whether the original editions or EE. The EE didn't add anything much at all, in my opinion, other than (as you say) being a little more modern PC friendly without the need for mods.

 

I'm sure part of it is nostalgia, but I think it's almost impossible to separate it out. Still, I'm absolutely loving PoE, and I think the combat and writing are awesome, can't wait to see where they go next!

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

The biggest enemy PoE has to face is our nostalgia of the IE games. Since (I guess) we're mainly older people that played these games when we were young it's really hard for a game 15 years later to beat the "wow" factor that BG1 gave us when we first played it back then.

As a player who played EE versions of BG series and IWD just recently I can tell you it's not nostalgia, they're just that bloody good and worthy of occasional replays. Still not sure about PoE replayability though.

 

 

THIS. So many times over. I confess I have put my latest BG1:EE all the way through to ToB (I never actually had ToB back in the day) on hold whilst I play PoE.

 

They are waiting on Shandalar's Ice Island, where time means nothing...

 

I put my recent playthrough of BG2 on hold for PoE.

 

 

BG2 writing is like in all BioWare games before and since: shallow, generally between mediocre and bad, with a few memorable high points, and the slightly-tragic comic relief character(s) best of the bunch. Jan Jansen's writing is excellent, Keldorn's is passable, everybody else's is eminently forgettable unless it's grating (Minsc). 

 

I've learned to really really love BG2, but it's despite the writing, not because of it, Jan Jansen notwithstanding. Its strength is that it's so incredibly big and has so much stuff in it that you can basically set your own objectives, select the way you want to go after them, and take off. At least my main problem with it was that it took me many, many, many attempts before I knew where everything is so I could actually start doing it. Until then it just felt that it was repeatedly kicking me in the groin for no good reason. I admire the people who got into it from the start; I'm not among them.

I could not disagree with you more strongly. I found Jan Jansen the most annoying little bugger on the face of Faerun. I sometimes murder him just because. Keldorn, on the other hand, is just boring to me. Minsc, though, is one of my favorite charcters in any RPG ever. I usually run with Viconia, Minsc, Jaheira, Yoshimo for the first half (replaced by Imoen) and often Aerie (even though I loathe her almost as much as Jan). I found the storyline compelling, the dream sequences riveting, and Irenicus a fascinating image of a sympathetic villain who is no less villainous for being so tragic. In short, I *really* love the writing in BG2.

 

Lol, the fact that so many gamers still remember BG companions even to this day is also a testament to their awesomness. I'm still waiting in vain for BioWare to make a better set of companions and better romances. PoE companions while amusing at times are nothing to write home about, unfortunately. I hope they will be more developed in the sequel, their endings reactivity is a good step in that direction.

 

Again, I disagree. PoE's companions are more subtle and complex, with more nuanced shading as compared to the clear, brightly colored archetypes in BG2. Eder's tired, world-weary cynical humor as compared to Minsc's brazen slap-sticky goofiness is a good example of that.

 

"Trouble with having all these gods is you’ve got support no matter how dumb your ideas are. Maybe we had the right idea blowing some of ‘em up. Less of them to hide behind." --Eder

[CaptainMace]

It's just not the same companion design logic. Baldur's gate was all about second degree, a sort of hommage to the typical characters we'd incarnate during p&p sessions. The sneaky thieves, the plotting wizards, the light-hearted badass warriors, the aragorn-like rangers etc. Added to the general funny tone were some very peculiar individuals, including a depressive folk (love you xan <3) or a power-mongering crazy midget.
They kept, somehow, this logic for BG2 though they added a well-deserved and needed depth... that still makes 'em archetypes, the faithful aspirant to a paladin order, the plotting wizard is still a plotting wizard etc.
POE companions are more about participating in the game's lore, hence why so many of 'em either come from a specific land or worship a specific god, and their design is both about their own personality and giving the player some insight on the universe and its history. It's clearly not the same, Edwin for example is a red mage of Thay, yet his purpose as a character was clearly not to know more about them, but more to reference it. Since BG design considered the player would be familiar with the forgotten realms, and those who wouldn't still had a tonne of books to know more if that interested them.

Edited April 2, 2015 by CaptainMace

[DocDoomII]

It's just not the same companion design logic. Baldur's gate was all about second degree, a sort of hommage to the typical characters we'd incarnate during p&p sessions. The sneaky thieves, the plotting wizards, the light-hearted badass warriors, the aragorn-like rangers etc. Added to the general funny tone were some very peculiar individuals, including a depressive folk (love you xan <3) or a power-mongering crazy midget.

They kept, somehow, this logic for BG2 though they added a well-deserved and needed depth... that still makes 'em archetypes, the faithful aspirant to a paladin order, the plotting wizard is still a plotting wizard etc.

POE companions are more about participating in the game's lore, hence why so many of 'em either come from a specific land or worship a specific god, and their design is both about their own personality and giving the player some insight on the universe and its history. It's clearly not the same, Edwin for example is a red mage of Thay, yet his purpose as a character was clearly not to know more about them, but more to reference it. Since BG design considered the player would be familiar with the forgotten realms, and those who wouldn't still had a tonne of books to know more if that interested them.

Exactly what I was trying to say some pages ago, but you explained it way better.

[Hellraiser789]

It's just not the same companion design logic. Baldur's gate was all about second degree, a sort of hommage to the typical characters we'd incarnate during p&p sessions. The sneaky thieves, the plotting wizards, the light-hearted badass warriors, the aragorn-like rangers etc. Added to the general funny tone were some very peculiar individuals, including a depressive folk (love you xan <3) or a power-mongering crazy midget.

They kept, somehow, this logic for BG2 though they added a well-deserved and needed depth... that still makes 'em archetypes, the faithful aspirant to a paladin order, the plotting wizard is still a plotting wizard etc.

POE companions are more about participating in the game's lore, hence why so many of 'em either come from a specific land or worship a specific god, and their design is both about their own personality and giving the player some insight on the universe and its history. It's clearly not the same, Edwin for example is a red mage of Thay, yet his purpose as a character was clearly not to know more about them, but more to reference it. Since BG design considered the player would be familiar with the forgotten realms, and those who wouldn't still had a tonne of books to know more if that interested them.

 

Its funny. I find that makes a lot of sense, but the BG games were actually my introduction to the Forgotten Realms. This was followed by Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (the book), the Baldurs Gate books, the Drizzt books, the Icewind Dale Games, the Dark Alliance console games (wouldve been OK but to use the Baldur's Gate name like that...they were completely unrelated - except that it took place in the city of "Baldur's Gate", supposedly), the Sellswords books, and finally and recently Planescape: Torment, which I somehow overlooked and enjoyed immensely. I'm sure there's others I can't think of, but those are the ones that come to mind. Plus, I never had any DnD experience with PnP or anything like that (something I still want to try but can't find enough people to do it!). So its interesting to me, as BG was my entry to the Forgotten Realms, while for others it seems to remind them and connect everything that they loved about the universe. At least, thats my interpretation of your words   

[Aramintai]

Yea, BG companions, or FR setting didn't need exposition - you could just dive into the game and feel at home. PoE on the other hand being a new setting is way too self-absorbed with its own lore. Even most of the companions dialogue is about the setting exposition, that's why I can't say I find any of them memorable. But I suppose it's understandable for a new franchise, but I hope sequel will treat setting lore differently. For example, Dark Souls series is a quite lore heavy game, but in a "less is more" manner that doesn't stuff lore exposition in your face all the time, but makes intrigued gamers brimming with heavy questions about it.

[Aramintai]

Its funny. I find that makes a lot of sense, but the BG games were actually my introduction to the Forgotten Realms. This was followed by Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (the book), the Baldurs Gate books, the Drizzt books, the Icewind Dale Games, the Dark Alliance console games (wouldve been OK but to use the Baldur's Gate name like that...they were completely unrelated - except that it took place in the city of "Baldur's Gate", supposedly), the Sellswords books, and finally and recently Planescape: Torment, which I somehow overlooked and enjoyed immensely. I'm sure there's others I can't think of, but those are the ones that come to mind. Plus, I never had any DnD experience with PnP or anything like that (something I still want to try but can't find enough people to do it!). So its interesting to me, as BG was my entry to the Forgotten Realms, while for others it seems to remind them and connect everything that they loved about the universe. At least, thats my interpretation of your words   

 

Hey, we're in the same boat here, pal!  I too started digging through all those 2nd edition FR and Planescape setting books after playing BG and PS:T respectively. Personally, old Planescape setting is my favourite - it's so amazingly bizzare and well thought out, and it ties all other AD&D settings together like mortar. Numenera setting from what setting books I've read has the same crazy vibe so I have high hopes for new Torment.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Aramintai

[Katarack21]

PS:T has the unfair advantage of also using the single coolest setting D&D ever had.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Katarack21

[DocDoomII]

Yea, BG companions, or FR setting didn't need exposition - you could just dive into the game and feel at home. PoE on the other hand being a new setting is way too self-absorbed with its own lore. Even most of the companions dialogue is about the setting exposition, that's why I can't say I find any of them memorable. But I suppose it's understandable for a new franchise, but I hope sequel will treat setting lore differently. For example, Dark Souls series is a quite lore heavy game, but in a "less is more" manner that doesn't stuff lore exposition in your face all the time, but makes intrigued gamers brimming with heavy questions about it.

Souls game are horrible with "exposition" in my opinion.

I played all 3 of them, and I have very little understanding of the lore, and very very little memory of it. And the games never made me care about any of it.

[Aramintai]

 

Yea, BG companions, or FR setting didn't need exposition - you could just dive into the game and feel at home. PoE on the other hand being a new setting is way too self-absorbed with its own lore. Even most of the companions dialogue is about the setting exposition, that's why I can't say I find any of them memorable. But I suppose it's understandable for a new franchise, but I hope sequel will treat setting lore differently. For example, Dark Souls series is a quite lore heavy game, but in a "less is more" manner that doesn't stuff lore exposition in your face all the time, but makes intrigued gamers brimming with heavy questions about it.

Souls game are horrible with "exposition" in my opinion.

I played all 3 of them, and I have very little understanding of the lore, and very very little memory of it. And the games never made me care about any of it.

 

You should see those crazy threads about DS lore where ppl are gathering astounding amount of it from ingame items and sparse npcs dialogues. But it was just an example of a different exposition style, personally I prefer games where it is assumed that your character knows the world he lives in and lore unpervasively is in the background.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Aramintai

[CaptainMace]

I like the design idea behind Dark Souls that the narration of a game should be game-specific. We got, for a long time, literature-style narration and when the technical aspect allowed it, movie-style narration. Dark Souls is pretty much in the same vein as Half Life, except that it pushes this idea to the extremes.
Pretty much any enemy, its placement in the world, the items he wears, the attack-types he uses (type of magic/miracle) is relevant to the lore, and sometlmes is actually the only way to know more by deduction. From the hole in the roof in the undead asylum to the corpse of Tarkus in Anor Londo, there is no text nor cutscene and yet you can understand what happened through world design and bestiary. It's pretty brilliant for that matter.

Problem is :

- Dark Souls lore is entirely back-looking. It's almost always about what happened while there's actually not much happening during the course of the game, besides the player deeds.

- Dark souls got a rather tough world. It's difficult to take time to notice Tarkus fate in Anor Londo while DEM THESE F***ING KNIFE THROWERS AND WHY IS THIS PLANK SO NARROW. You know :D

But yeah Dark Souls is pretty awesome in that regard.

Edited April 2, 2015 by CaptainMace

[sorophx]

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. IWD was a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl with a thin veneer of a plot and no story companions.

This is....not.

turn on developer commentary in the game and prepare yourself. the words "dungeon crawl" are said in half of them

[Katarack21]

 

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. IWD was a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl with a thin veneer of a plot and no story companions.

This is....not.

turn on developer commentary in the game and prepare yourself. the words "dungeon crawl" are said in half of them

 

I have it on. They talk about "designing the dungeon crawls", that is the part of that game that is dungeon. IWD was *just* a series of dungeon crawls with no real plot and no story. I mean, it was fun for what it was, but that's like comparing a bowl of rice crispies and a Fruity Pebbles Medicated Rice Krispy Treat.

[sorophx]

my point was - every area of the game that is not a quest hub is a dungeon. the only difference from IWD is there were no quest hubs in that game, it was more linear. on the other hand, Baldur's Gate 2 was exactly the same - quest hubs and dungeons around them, so maybe PoE is similar to BG 2 in more ways that one would think

[Katarack21]

my point was - every area of the game that is not a quest hub is a dungeon. the only difference from IWD is there were no quest hubs in that game, it was more linear. on the other hand, Baldur's Gate 2 was exactly the same - quest hubs and dungeons around them, so maybe PoE is similar to BG 2 in more ways that one would think

Congratulations, you just described the basic quest structure of every non-sandbox open world RPG since FF II.

[Blovski]

It's just not the same companion design logic. Baldur's gate was all about second degree, a sort of hommage to the typical characters we'd incarnate during p&p sessions. The sneaky thieves, the plotting wizards, the light-hearted badass warriors, the aragorn-like rangers etc. Added to the general funny tone were some very peculiar individuals, including a depressive folk (love you xan <3) or a power-mongering crazy midget.

They kept, somehow, this logic for BG2 though they added a well-deserved and needed depth... that still makes 'em archetypes, the faithful aspirant to a paladin order, the plotting wizard is still a plotting wizard etc.

POE companions are more about participating in the game's lore, hence why so many of 'em either come from a specific land or worship a specific god, and their design is both about their own personality and giving the player some insight on the universe and its history. It's clearly not the same, Edwin for example is a red mage of Thay, yet his purpose as a character was clearly not to know more about them, but more to reference it. Since BG design considered the player would be familiar with the forgotten realms, and those who wouldn't still had a tonne of books to know more if that interested them.

Well the article I've never written about BG 2 is that all of the companions, and especially the ones you take from the first game, are traumatised in some way or other. Even the comedy relief gnome has a subplot which is equal parts deliberately obtuse ridiculous fetch quest and dealing with domestic violence. The gradient of darkness from BG -> TOTSC (especially Durlag's Tower) -> BG 2 results in a completely different tone, even with the same archetypes. It really is the textbook example of how to make a faithful sequel that nonetheless differentiates itself from the first game.

[Stun]

IWD was *just* a series of dungeon crawls with no real plot and no story. I mean, it was fun for what it was, but that's like comparing a bowl of rice crispies and a Fruity Pebbles Medicated Rice Krispy Treat.

Oh! I guess I just imagined the blood war feud between Yxonnemai and Belhifet. The influence of Crenshinibon. The Drow betrayal of the Elven and Dwarven alliance, and the failed Mythal at the Severed Hand. The Barbarian tribes duped into trying to start a war with the 10 towns, by a dragon who successfully preserved her soul and channeled it into a revered, long dead Barbarian hero of Forgotten Realms lore. A cowardly king who betrayed Helm's chosen and the tortured-to-undeath Bard who witnessed this betrayal then invoked a Curse on the King's castle and subjects.

 

Icewind Dale had a better written (and delivered) Story than Both Baldurs Gates. The people who say otherwise are the same simple-minded demographic that Bioware attracts with their gimmicky, teenage, beat-you-over-the-head-with it narrative style.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Stun