Comparing PoE to BG is unfair

[fgalkin]

I disagree. Durance and Grieving Mother are every bit as deep as anyone from MotB or PS:T, even the really deep ones like Grace or Dakkon. 

The others were less so, but they still hold their own against Baldur's Gate companions. Remember Aerie, anyone? Anomen? 

EDIT: Not that you need depth to be good. My favorite NPC from the BG series happens to be Minsc. 

 

Have a very nice day.

-fgalkin

Edited April 30, 2015 by fgalkin

[Captain Shrek]

I disagree. Durance and Grieving Mother are every bit as deep as anyone from MotB or PS:T, even the really deep ones like Grace or Dakkon. 

 

The others were less so, but they still hold their own against Baldur's Gate companions. Remember Aerie, anyone? Anomen? 

 

EDIT: Not that you need depth to be good. My favorite NPC from the BG series happens to be Minsc. 

 

Have a very nice day.

-fgalkin

 

 

Griveing mother, No. Durance yeah. Again, both written by Chris Avellone. Durance I do not consider as great simply because of the setting. The gods are revealed to be mostly impotent idiots bickering amongst each other and with mortals. This practically flattens out the emotional power of what Durance is trying to say. Worse yet, it harms the entire setting in general as the central theme: 'can meaning exist without faith?" is practically pointless in a world where answers are forced on the PC and the chars. 

[redneckdevil]

i find the comparrisons to bg1 fair game and actually a good game to compare it to.

For comparing it to bg2...I don't think it's a game to compare it to and I will explain why.

1. Poe is low level vs bg2 high level. In Poe we start from level 1 and go up to lvl 12, and after we get some levels we get more options and the characters become more fun to play. Bg2, u already start off with a high level where u already start off with those options from the very beginning.

2. What levels and options the game is designed around. Poe a lot of the enemies are designed around what options we have at low levels which is less than when it's higher levels. Bg2 we are already high level with a good bit of healthy options and we can get even higher into epic levels and the game is designed around already having many options from the very beginning. Starting out at higher levels means that equipment, magic, encounters, etc starts off designed around those factors instead of being designed around the much fewer options and equipment and magic at low levels.

3. Design philosphophy. Poe seems like a low level low magic campaign where non magic users and magic users can find themselves on the same level. Bg2 is a high level high magic campaign where magic is "GOD" and the game is designed around the high epic magic and not around that AND marshals non magical classes. Also for Poe to compete that would mean that Poe 2 would have to step up and go beyond the epicness (aka brokeness) of system mastery to starting out near if not at mythic and/or epic level of gameplay when I think the design is to keep it more down to earth than basically "party of 6 but each and every combat solely relies on our wizard/sorcerer getting a spell off first and if the other side gets a spell off first, battles done and time to reload" scenario.

4. Yadda Yadda one already had a system in place and many many many dnd books to use as reference and pull from and incorporate with rules and designs already in place and tested whereas obsidian is from scratch basically all the way from engine to rules to lore etc (which tbh with their budget I believe they did fantastic).

 

It seems more natural to compare to bg1 since they share a lot of similarities than bg2 whereas there's just to much stuff getting in the way that screams out "of course bg2 felt more epic because of the reasons I just listed" type of deal.

[Captain Shrek]

That has nothing to do whatsoever ith High level vs Low level. In D&D Magic >>>> Not magic. 

[redneckdevil]

That has nothing to do whatsoever ith High level vs Low level. In D&D Magic >>>> Not magic.

Compare a lvl 1 thru 5 wizard and then compare a lvl 10 to 15 wizard. When designing around dnd's philosophy that magic is "king", the amount of options are lower when low level because dnd's philosophy that magic users become "king" because they had to start off lower than marshals. Poe is set in that level of design whereas bg2 is set in the design level that wizards already went thru their crappy levels and now are gods so we need to design around that, whereas lower level the Wizards had no where near the options at higher level but still had options. Just like in Poe, they don't have as many options due to levels but still have options to use in combat still.

I also pointed out that bg2 was "magic is king, marshals suck" and Poe is trying to put magic users and marshals on the same level of power.

Bah, hope that makes sense why "I" don't see the merit in comparing it to bg2 with what I stated above but do think it has merits when comparing it to bg1.

[Captain Shrek]

I don't know dude. This forced magic == Non magic kinda sucks to my tastes. Magic ought to be harder to use but more powerful than non-magic. The word does mean *something* no? I would say that make material components and cast times for spells larger and there is no need to change D&D system. 

[VioNectro]

PoE fails at its combat/rule-set. BG 1 is vastly more enjoyable in my opinion when it comes to encounters and combat.

[redneckdevil]

I don't know dude. This forced magic == Non magic kinda sucks to my tastes. Magic ought to be harder to use but more powerful than non-magic. The word does mean *something* no? I would say that make material components and cast times for spells larger and there is no need to change D&D system.

True, but it does come with its own problems though. In dnd at later levels we have to accept that the reason why magic users can do all the things they can do is "because magic" whereas the nonmagic classes that try to do u believeable stuff are pushed down because "without magic, ur judged by logic". Magic users in dnd eventually defy and reshape reality and logic to their whims "because of magic" but if u are playing a non magic class ur left in the dust because ur class is bound by "realistic" expectations of what would happen in real life.

What they are trying to pull is that magic "doesn't defy or define logic" but is subjected to logic and thru scientific means nonmagic users are able to step up and sometimes at least reach the plateau that magic users are on through science. IMHO I like it and wanna see where it goes because I have a feeling that magic won't stagnate but will evolve into something more to combat and try itself against what science has and will create. But it's all preference and a lot of people may not like that against what magic was in other games.

[hollowcrown]

I feel like it will be better to compare the games when we get a sequel to PoE with more high level and complex gameplay.

 

To weigh in for me, yes it is better than BG1, but not better than 2. It needs more content density and atmosphere in the world to top 2, however it's better in every single way compared to BG1.

[Sephie]

I think BG2 and BG are better. I'd rather play PoE instead of BG due to the engine, but BG2 even with the older engine. 

 

They made a mistake by making this more PS:Torment and NWN2 and less BG2 in my opinion. BG2 should've been the base, all they had to do is make a BG2 and build on it. 

 

BG2 has better characters and interactions and has romances. 

 

BG2 has better mechanics and more depth. 

 

BG2 has better fights and it's universe is more interesting. 

 

BG2 is bigger and better overall. 

 

PoE -> New engine, new game, more writing (pointless, I don't need to read someone's expression when I can hear him). I really don't see anything else being better.

 

I want to see PoE as BG though, the first and worse game that comes before the true masterpiece. A masterpiece that is going to be a BG2, not a PS:Torment or NWN2. 

 

PoE is a very good game, especially when there is nothing like it around. But a successor to BG2? No. PS:Torment maybe, NWN2 maybe, but this game is not a BG2, not even close. 

 

And I am not saying this to bring down PoE but that BG2 is so high up there that unfortunately PoE didn't manage to reach it. Hopefully PoE 2 will, as I don't see any other company even trying. 

[majestic]

This thread is a health risk, reading it can result in an aneurysm. I'm off having a stroke.

[Volourn]

"True, but it does come with its own problems though. In dnd at later levels we have to accept that the reason why magic users can do all the things they can do is "because magic" whereas the nonmagic classes that try to do u believeable stuff are pushed down because "without magic, ur judged by logic". Magic users in dnd eventually defy and reshape reality and logic to their whims "because of magic" but if u are playing a non magic class ur left in the dust because ur class is bound by "realistic" expectations of what would happen in real life.
What they are trying to pull is that magic "doesn't defy or define logic" but is subjected to logic and thru scientific means nonmagic users are able to step up and sometimes at least reach the plateau that magic users are on through science. IMHO I like it and wanna see where it goes because I have a feeling that magic won't stagnate but will evolve into something more to combat and try itself against what science has and will create. But it's all preference and a lot of people may not like that against what magic was in other games."

 

Except there is nothing 'logical' about PE magic. It works liek it does just because of magic... oops... 'souls'.

\

 

\Anyways, people whining that magic > non magic in games are crybabies. I say GOOD. Magic should be more powerful than a sword. LMAO

[CybAnt1]

I still think going with their own ruleset instead of sticking with D & D was the better choice. 

 

The main problem with using the D & D ruleset is you need WotC approval to make any changes to the rules, AND you're stuck with the world of Faerun. 

 

The rules can always improve when you have your own system, because you're not beholden to anybody else's IP. For example, if they decide to scrap Engagement, or rework it, they don't have to ASK anybody. 

 

Also, because they have their own game world/setting, they can be free to define the races, classes, etc. that exist within it.

 

I will confess PoE is still not terribly innovative at this point (same dwarves and elves as every other fantasy world), but the point is, it has ROOM to be. 

Edited April 30, 2015 by CybAnt1

[Sabin Stargem]

I would prefer it if swordsmen, sorcerers, and gunslingers are able to draw on magic, but use differing methods to achieve their goals.   Having magicians completely obsolete other classes isn't fun, ultimately limiting the resilience of a ruleset and weakens the setting.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Sabin Stargem

[Captain Shrek]

I would prefer it if swordsmen, sorcerers, and gunslingers are able to draw on magic, but use differing methods to achieve their goals.   Having magicians completely obsolete other classes isn't fun, ultimately limiting the resilience of a ruleset and weakens the setting.

 

How so? As I said: Just make magic costlier. Problem solved. 

[Sephie]

I still think going with their own ruleset instead of sticking with D & D was the better choice. 

 

The main problem with using the D & D ruleset is you need WotC approval to make any changes to the rules, AND you're stuck with the world of Faerun. 

 

The rules can always improve when you have your own system, because you're not beholden to anybody else's IP. For example, if they decide to scrap Engagement, or rework it, they don't have to ASK anybody. 

 

Also, because they have their own game world/setting, they can be free to define the races, classes, etc. that exist within it.

 

I will confess PoE is still not terribly innovative at this point (same dwarves and elves as every other fantasy world), but the point is, it has ROOM to be. 

 

Let's be honest here, this isn't going to be some saga with 10 games following this one. 

 

1 or 2 more games will be released, then they'll prefer to make another one with what they've learned. 

 

Thing is they already had something excellent to learn from and didn't do it. 

 

So much time lost. 

[Volourn]

. "  Having magicians completely obsolete other classes isn't fun, ultimately limiting the resilience of a ruleset and weakens the setting."

 

Yeah, because the DnD ruleset hasn't been resilient. LMAO And, its settings are weak. L0L PST L0L

[redneckdevil]

"True, but it does come with its own problems though. In dnd at later levels we have to accept that the reason why magic users can do all the things they can do is "because magic" whereas the nonmagic classes that try to do u believeable stuff are pushed down because "without magic, ur judged by logic". Magic users in dnd eventually defy and reshape reality and logic to their whims "because of magic" but if u are playing a non magic class ur left in the dust because ur class is bound by "realistic" expectations of what would happen in real life.

What they are trying to pull is that magic "doesn't defy or define logic" but is subjected to logic and thru scientific means nonmagic users are able to step up and sometimes at least reach the plateau that magic users are on through science. IMHO I like it and wanna see where it goes because I have a feeling that magic won't stagnate but will evolve into something more to combat and try itself against what science has and will create. But it's all preference and a lot of people may not like that against what magic was in other games."

 

Except there is nothing 'logical' about PE magic. It works liek it does just because of magic... oops... 'souls'.

\

 

\Anyways, people whining that magic > non magic in games are crybabies. I say GOOD. Magic should be more powerful than a sword. LMAO

True it's still following the same "logic" but just dialed back. I could actually see certain high level spells fitting in Poe like maze but re flavored. But I will admit with what the got set up for lore and "because souls" at higher levels I could and expect to see some crazy stuff.

 

Also I hope I didn't give that impression that I'm crying about magic>>>>>>marshals because that's how it works in dnd and I'm fine with that and play with that mindset and have lots of fun. At the same time I see Poe trying to do a "low magicish" campaign and tweeking where magic and nonmagic users can at times be on the same level and I'm digging that and enjoying it.

Edited April 30, 2015 by redneckdevil

[sim-h]

BG was awful. BG2 was better.

 

I feel genuine pity for people with this opinion. Genuine. Pity. There's nothing wrong with BG2 mind.

[Ink Blot]

 

BG was awful. BG2 was better.

 

I feel genuine pity for people with this opinion. Genuine. Pity. There's nothing wrong with BG2 mind.

 

I don't feel pity, but I am surprised that you could hate the first and like the second. Of course, since I actually like BG1 better, who am I to judge, right?

[Stun]

 

BG was awful. BG2 was better.

 

I feel genuine pity for people with this opinion. Genuine. Pity. There's nothing wrong with BG2 mind.

 

I agree. But mostly because I don't quite understand how 1 player can have such a chasm of opinion difference between the two games, where he sees one as awful but loves the other. BG1 and BG2 are remarkably similar, they use the same engine, same ruleset, they have basically the same gameplay. And they both take the same RPG approach (named companions, exploration, Gated Narrative structure etc) They're different only insofar as one is a high level campaign and the other is a low level campaign.

 

I can understand how someone can absolutely love one of them and see it as superior to the other. But to see one as "awful" and other as really good is....strange. It's like saying "Oreos are awful, but Double stuff Oreos are great!"

[Gromnir]

 

BG was awful. BG2 was better.

 

I feel genuine pity for people with this opinion. Genuine. Pity. There's nothing wrong with BG2 mind.

 

it is a valid opinion.  at the time, bg may have seemed like a revelation, but much o' the glory being heaped 'pon it is born o' nostalgia.  bg1 encounter design were a step 'bove diablo, but that ain't saying a whole helluva lot in 2015.  1 tactic were all we ever needed in bg1.  is not an exaggeration neither.  by the time we could cast haste and summon critters, our tactical considerations disappeared.  a hastened party armed with ranged weapons and utilizing near inexhaustible summons as a mobile meat shield, were the end o' bg tactical considerations. combat in bg1 were almost universal poor and more than a few such encounters were so freaking exploitable that it made a genuine mockery o' the pnp rules from which bg were spawned.  the greater basilisk map?  HA! took 5 minutes to clear the entire map o' gnolls and basilisk-- greater and lesser.  one character, made immune to petrification via a  2nd level spell, could wipe out the singest greatest xp pool in bg in 5 minutes or less.  whatever challenging or intriguing combat encounters bg1 did contain, such brief moments were largely nullified by the presence o' You Win potions and scrolls... which were one o' the few major legacy mistakes that carried over to bg2 btw.  immunity to undead/magic/whatever scrolls and/or supergroovypowerup potions should have remained a solely bg1 mistake.  

 

the writing in bg1 were cliché to the point o' camp and companion interaction amounted to a couple o' catch phrases and maybe a perfunctory quest... a quest that one mighta not even realized were completed.  not kidding.  kivan were wanting vengeance against tazok and his bandits... maybe.  he did not react after confronting tazok and even after possibly killing the half-ogre early in the game.  heck, due to a bug that never did get fixed, kivan could forcibly leave the party even after confronting and defeating tazok's bandits. regardless, there were zero recognition by kivan that his "quest" were resolved... and he were hardly an exception.  as for the bg story in general, the whole premise o' creating a synthetic iron shortage by "poisoning" iron in mines when you already got a small army o' bandits causing economic disruption along the sword coast were patently ridiculous, and the self-destruct mechanism for the cloakwood mines might have been appropriate in a James Bond game, but only if

 

 

 

ms. honey ryder had been the joinable npc you picked up at that location... as 'posed to the fighter/cleric dwarf.

 

sarevok?  he were a caricature.  a cackling villain bent not just on worldly domination but godhood... oh, and 'course he were unfeeling towards his moll as well.  poor tamoko, we knew you so briefly... but 'bout as well as any character in bg.

 

etc.

 

maybe you not agree with all such criticisms, but is not as if the critics o' bg were hard to find. all throughout bg2 development, the critics were quite vocal.  is kinda similar to how we can look at poe reviews and see near universal applause, but look at these boards makes it apparent that the appreciation is hardly universal.

 

bg2 fixed, or at least improved, many o' the more terrible aspects o' bg.  combat encounters became more complex and varied.  wilderness "exploration"were largely abandoned in favor o' more large set-piece quest loci such as eyeless and the planar sphere.  companions stories were actual developed in bg2.  the bg2 antagonist(s) were more complex than were bg1 sarevok, though even the biowarians concede that it were a bit difficult to get at the heart o' irenicus conflict in bg2.  bg2, not surprisingly given the number o' ie games that preceded it, were a much better game than the original ie offering.  should not be surprising that folks could like the improved model but not the original half-baked offering.

 

btw,

 

this is an example o' homage.

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

Methinks Gromnir just wanted to post pictures of Honey Rider and Jinx...

[Gromnir]

Methinks Gromnir just wanted to post pictures of Honey Rider and Jinx...

hmm.  our favorite bond girl were actually colonel rosa klebb

 

 

number two need not be named

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"a "low magicish" campaign"

 

Except PE isn't low magiic(ish). Not even close. It's way more high magic than BG1. And, I'm sure the sequel will be even more high magic than BG2 if it goes on its course.

 

 

This was all an attempt for 'balance'. Of coruse, spellcasters are still more dangerous than non spellcasters in PE.   So, even the 'balancing attempt' failed.