|
The problem with all these games that "just let you flow the general story" more often than not are just easy and therefore get very boring.
Dragon Age for instance, for me, has exactly two memorable fights.. And these are not memorable because of difficulty but because they looked cool (Broodmother and the Boss of the Magetower).
KOTOR? I don't remember any fight as being anything special.. In fact the only fight i remember at all is the final boss.
.
.
Baldurs Gate? Counltess enemies "stick" with you because even most "normal 08/15" groups just stick with you because they actually can kill you if you do not take care.
|
On March 09 2012 00:15 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:02 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
N0ise pretty much nailed it.
In relation to being underleveld in the cave: I like it when there are areas where the enemies are simply too strong for you and you have to choose wisely were you go. I just cant get into it if your hero can go anywhere and the enemies are always on his level. It takes away from really feeling like your getting stronger and more powerful.
Kill Dragons in an epic battle on lvl 1 and then later struggle with some bandits on lvl 20 because they scaled with the hero? Can't get into that at all. Dont like it in Skyrim, hated it in DA2 where the most random bandits just had ridiculous hitpoints later in the game. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on. In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem. It blows my mind how this is what I have been talking about the whole time (margin of error) and so many people has been opposing it... turns out, it was fixed (in a way I find very reasonable) in later rulesets. Well, one thing's for sure, if they actually make a BG3, one would assume they use a later ruleset, so that would fix any issues I might have with the old ones ^^ (Not that it matters since you don't start as lvl 1 in BG2... still) ^^ Seems like the whiners have been whining long enough for any possible excitement and difficulty of the starting levels to get dropped out of the system.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same 12 yo kid would be sucessful with BG3 despite his wrong choices and misunderstanding of the system, as long as he stays behind the monitor. I don't say your reasoning is wrong but this is what it ultimately leads to.
Now ask yourself. Do you want to play a game beatable by a 12 yo who ragequits because of a kobold he doesn't even have to engage? I hope this doesn't turn out that way.
|
On March 09 2012 00:15 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:02 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
N0ise pretty much nailed it.
In relation to being underleveld in the cave: I like it when there are areas where the enemies are simply too strong for you and you have to choose wisely were you go. I just cant get into it if your hero can go anywhere and the enemies are always on his level. It takes away from really feeling like your getting stronger and more powerful.
Kill Dragons in an epic battle on lvl 1 and then later struggle with some bandits on lvl 20 because they scaled with the hero? Can't get into that at all. Dont like it in Skyrim, hated it in DA2 where the most random bandits just had ridiculous hitpoints later in the game. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on. In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem. It blows my mind how this is what I have been talking about the whole time (margin of error) and so many people has been opposing it... turns out, it was fixed (in a way I find very reasonable) in later rulesets. Well, one thing's for sure, if they actually make a BG3, one would assume they use a later ruleset, so that would fix any issues I might have with the old ones ^^ (Not that it matters since you don't start as lvl 1 in BG2... still) ^^
Although I kind of agree with these changes I still believe spells and attacks should be able to kill you instantly as long as there are way to prevent that or lower the chance of that by a fair margin.
|
On March 09 2012 00:29 Stratos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:15 Tobberoth wrote:On March 09 2012 00:02 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
N0ise pretty much nailed it.
In relation to being underleveld in the cave: I like it when there are areas where the enemies are simply too strong for you and you have to choose wisely were you go. I just cant get into it if your hero can go anywhere and the enemies are always on his level. It takes away from really feeling like your getting stronger and more powerful.
Kill Dragons in an epic battle on lvl 1 and then later struggle with some bandits on lvl 20 because they scaled with the hero? Can't get into that at all. Dont like it in Skyrim, hated it in DA2 where the most random bandits just had ridiculous hitpoints later in the game. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on. In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem. It blows my mind how this is what I have been talking about the whole time (margin of error) and so many people has been opposing it... turns out, it was fixed (in a way I find very reasonable) in later rulesets. Well, one thing's for sure, if they actually make a BG3, one would assume they use a later ruleset, so that would fix any issues I might have with the old ones ^^ (Not that it matters since you don't start as lvl 1 in BG2... still) ^^ Seems like the whiners have been whining long enough for any possible excitement and difficulty of the starting levels to get dropped out of the system. I wouldn't be surprised if the same 12 yo kid would be sucessful with BG3 despite his wrong choices and misunderstanding of the system, as long as he stays behind the monitor. I don't say your reasoning is wrong but this is what it ultimately leads to. Now ask yourself. Do you want to play a game beatable by a 12 yo who ragequits because of a kobold he doesn't even have to engage? I hope this doesn't turn out that way.
I have a really cool game for you, take a die. Throw it. if it's anything but a six, you died. if it's 6, you leveled up! See how far you can get, it's really challenging.
Seriously, protecting games from being simplified is great, I do that too in franchises I like. Protecting games from being improved though? I mean, we are talking about a limited situation (being lvl 1 leads to luck having too much impact) which doesn't give anything to the game, but has the potential to be annoying. Just because a lot of RPGs lately have been simplified ad absurdum (dragon age, elder scrolls) doesn't mean everytime you want to update something in an RPG system, you're making it easier or worse.
How about this for example: I think it's pretty dumb that if you equip a character in BG1 with some nice gear and he leaves your team, you lose those items. Would it be "simplifying it for 12 year olds" to simply make the character drop the gear? Because that's probably what would happen in a modern game, and I don't see how it's a bad thing.
|
A character leaving you should have consequences.
Him taking his gear with himself is logical.
The answer to your question is:
You better don't make NPC unhappy if you want them to stick around or deal with the consequences.
|
On March 09 2012 00:35 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:29 Stratos wrote:On March 09 2012 00:15 Tobberoth wrote:On March 09 2012 00:02 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
N0ise pretty much nailed it.
In relation to being underleveld in the cave: I like it when there are areas where the enemies are simply too strong for you and you have to choose wisely were you go. I just cant get into it if your hero can go anywhere and the enemies are always on his level. It takes away from really feeling like your getting stronger and more powerful.
Kill Dragons in an epic battle on lvl 1 and then later struggle with some bandits on lvl 20 because they scaled with the hero? Can't get into that at all. Dont like it in Skyrim, hated it in DA2 where the most random bandits just had ridiculous hitpoints later in the game. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on. In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem. It blows my mind how this is what I have been talking about the whole time (margin of error) and so many people has been opposing it... turns out, it was fixed (in a way I find very reasonable) in later rulesets. Well, one thing's for sure, if they actually make a BG3, one would assume they use a later ruleset, so that would fix any issues I might have with the old ones ^^ (Not that it matters since you don't start as lvl 1 in BG2... still) ^^ Seems like the whiners have been whining long enough for any possible excitement and difficulty of the starting levels to get dropped out of the system. I wouldn't be surprised if the same 12 yo kid would be sucessful with BG3 despite his wrong choices and misunderstanding of the system, as long as he stays behind the monitor. I don't say your reasoning is wrong but this is what it ultimately leads to. Now ask yourself. Do you want to play a game beatable by a 12 yo who ragequits because of a kobold he doesn't even have to engage? I hope this doesn't turn out that way. I have a really cool game for you, take a die. Throw it. if it's anything but a six, you died. if it's 6, you leveled up! See how far you can get, it's really challenging. Seriously, protecting games from being simplified is great, I do that too in franchises I like. Protecting games from being improved though? I mean, we are talking about a limited situation (being lvl 1 leads to luck having too much impact) which doesn't give anything to the game, but has the potential to be annoying. Just because a lot of RPGs lately have been simplified ad absurdum (dragon age, elder scrolls) doesn't mean everytime you want to update something in an RPG system, you're making it easier or worse. How about this for example: I think it's pretty dumb that if you equip a character in BG1 with some nice gear and he leaves your team, you lose those items. Would it be "simplifying it for 12 year olds" to simply make the character drop the gear? Because that's probably what would happen in a modern game, and I don't see how it's a bad thing.
That's not really cool and it has nothing to do with BG either. As I have stated many times before, there are numerous way of adjusting these chances and that's what the playing is ultimately about. And since we're actually talking about BG here, stop making random stuff up and discuss the game itself.
This whole affair is pretty simple. You played the game carelessly and you got punished. Now you're finding ways to prevent this from happening in terms of adjusting the system rather than your own play. That's generaly not making the game better, that's making the game more WoW.
There's a ton of possible explanations for why you shouldn't be able to retrieve your comrad's equipment and since it can make the game more difficult in a lot of cases, I do perceive it as good, yes.
|
On March 09 2012 00:42 Velr wrote:
A character leaving you should have consequences.
Him taking his gear with himself is logical.
The answer to your question is:
You better don't make NPC unhappy if you want them to stick around or deal with the consequences.
Fair enough, but since when is it his gear? I'm the leader of the party and I lent it to him. Maybe I just had him pick up a bunch of bandit scalps to hold for me... then I decide I need to leave him because I want a bard I met in a town somewhere... if he's some form of chaotic evil character, fine, he steals the gear and leaves... but what if he's a paladin? What guy would seriously go "oh, if you need my help in the future, I'll be here! "Ok nice, now give me the bandit scalps, you didn't even help kill those bandits." "Screw you oh honorable previous leader."
The consequences are that you lost someone from your party, it makes no sense that they steal your gear while doing so. In the situation where you piss them off and they leave, that's one thing... but they steal your gear when you simply remove them from the party because you want another character, which IS a game flaw since you could just as well remove all their gear and then remove them from the party, this just adds an extra unneeded step to the process.
|
On March 09 2012 00:46 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:42 Velr wrote:
A character leaving you should have consequences.
Him taking his gear with himself is logical.
The answer to your question is:
You better don't make NPC unhappy if you want them to stick around or deal with the consequences. Fair enough, but since when is it his gear? I'm the leader of the party and I lent it to him. Maybe I just had him pick up a bunch of bandit scalps to hold for me... then I decide I need to leave him because I want a bard I met in a town somewhere... if he's some form of chaotic evil character, fine, he steals the gear and leaves... but what if he's a paladin? What guy would seriously go "oh, if you need my help in the future, I'll be here! "Ok nice, now give me the bandit scalps, you didn't even help kill those bandits." "Screw you oh honorable previous leader." The consequences are that you lost someone from your party, it makes no sense that they steal your gear while doing so. In the situation where you piss them off and they leave, that's one thing... but they steal your gear when you simply remove them from the party because you want another character, which IS a game flaw since you could just as well remove all their gear and then remove them from the party, this just adds an extra unneeded step to the process.
You can make rational or irrational explanations for whatever aspect of the game you chose. The design of the game doesn't and moreover SHOULDN'T stand upon anything like that. The game is not an imitation of reality, it should be designed to provide an enjoyable and valuable experience.
This is like saying a bishop should be able to shoot in whatever direction he choses in chess because it makes sense.. Nope, it doesn't.
|
They don't steal your stuff.
You did not take it from them for whatever reason and let them go with it. That means you did not want it anymore and the NPC is free to keep it... I mean.. You want to keep the stuff? Than well, take it?... Duh?.
|
On March 09 2012 00:52 Velr wrote:
They don't steal your stuff.
You did not take it from them for whatever reason and let them go with it. That means you did not want it anymore and the NPC is free to keep it... I mean.. You want to keep the stuff? Than well, take it?... Duh?.
Well, I don't have the option, the guy leaves and I can't tell him to give my frickin stuff back, if the intention was that they are leaving with your stuff, the game should at least give you the option of fighting them about it. Truth is, it's just a bad decision for the developers, thinking "If you forget to take your gear back from a character and remove them, let's annoy the shit out of players by having them reload, go into the inventory of the character, take everything back, then do it again... because... uh.. that's challenging?"
|
On March 09 2012 00:57 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:52 Velr wrote:
They don't steal your stuff.
You did not take it from them for whatever reason and let them go with it. That means you did not want it anymore and the NPC is free to keep it... I mean.. You want to keep the stuff? Than well, take it?... Duh?. Well, I don't have the option, the guy leaves and I can't tell him to give my frickin stuff back, if the intention was that they are leaving with your stuff, the game should at least give you the option of fighting them about it. Truth is, it's just a bad decision for the developers, thinking "If you forget to take your gear back from a character and remove them, let's annoy the shit out of players by having them reload, go into the inventory of the character, take everything back, then do it again... because... uh.. that's challenging?"
I doubt the developers even considered the player to be careless enough to leave something he badly desires within the backpack of a character he's kicking out of the party for whatever reason. Perhaps it is this mindset that allowed them to create a good game in the first place, although this example doesn't play any significant role. It only makes a couple of careless 12 yos mad for a minute or so.
Edit: Oh if it's because of a disagreement, then it's actually way better, yeah I like it.
=> How it works: You trust someone, add him to your party. You fuck up, you have a fight => You pay the price. If you don't have the game saved it might actually cost you some time or you give up the items.
=> How you would like it to work: You trust someone, add him to your party. You fuck up, you have a fight => Nothing happens.
And we're back to WoW.
|
I finished BG when I was around 15. It's not that difficult.
As for the NPC leaving argument. You make saves regularly, reload, and strip them off their equipment before they leave. Yeah, I powergame. So what? Yes, it's annoying when they leave because of plot related reasons and it's better if they just leave their items with you. However, you can always reload.
|
Listen boys, vanilla BG isn't really difficult. Actually any game with a save/reload feature is easy.
|
BG1 is also easier than 2. Monster summoning + ranged weapons is ridiculous. The only fight I had trouble with is the elite skeletons in chapter 7 with the small corridor.
|
On March 09 2012 00:57 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:52 Velr wrote:
They don't steal your stuff.
You did not take it from them for whatever reason and let them go with it. That means you did not want it anymore and the NPC is free to keep it... I mean.. You want to keep the stuff? Than well, take it?... Duh?. Well, I don't have the option, the guy leaves and I can't tell him to give my frickin stuff back, if the intention was that they are leaving with your stuff, the game should at least give you the option of fighting them about it. Truth is, it's just a bad decision for the developers, thinking "If you forget to take your gear back from a character and remove them, let's annoy the shit out of players by having them reload, go into the inventory of the character, take everything back, then do it again... because... uh.. that's challenging?"
If you don't like them leaving with your stuff (which by the way is not your stuff but the party stuff because the whole party fought the enemy to get it) and you don't want to load a save before they leave you can attack them as soon as they leave your party. They will turn red and try to fight back and when you kill them you can take it all back.
|
I remember playing BG2. I would wake up a half hour early every day so I could get my half hour in before school. I don't think I ever beat the game. My dad replaced the sound bytes and party pictures for my Lead with Pee-Wee Herman. Everytime I moved it would be "Telephone - There is a telephone call for Mr. Pee Wee Herman at the front desk." This game was amazing. I have since lost one of the discs and am greatly saddened. I think the number one thing I learned from this game was - SAVE SAVE SAVE! That guys weapon giving you a hard time? Lucky you saved just before so you can try another battle strategy!
I was super pissed tho when they took Imoen and she had all the awesome daggers and Leather Armours. But that made me even more emboldened to rescue her. Faced with the prospect of making money I headed to break a seige at a local castle. This is where the tale of Pee Wee Herman comes to an end tho as I have no recollection of the events that followed, nor indeed the Computing device which they were stored on. I don't know exactly how old I was when I played this game every day - but I was frustrated by some parts for sure. There were days when I spent my entire half hour rearranging inventory. Maybe it was just naivety - but I don't recall being upset by the "imba dice rolling."
If I ever got too frustrated though - it was just as easy to load up CURSE OF MONKEY ISLAND and remember how EVERY OTHER GAME PALES IN COMPARISON. Imean JESUS play that frickin game dude.
|
On March 09 2012 01:30 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:57 Tobberoth wrote:On March 09 2012 00:52 Velr wrote:
They don't steal your stuff.
You did not take it from them for whatever reason and let them go with it. That means you did not want it anymore and the NPC is free to keep it... I mean.. You want to keep the stuff? Than well, take it?... Duh?. Well, I don't have the option, the guy leaves and I can't tell him to give my frickin stuff back, if the intention was that they are leaving with your stuff, the game should at least give you the option of fighting them about it. Truth is, it's just a bad decision for the developers, thinking "If you forget to take your gear back from a character and remove them, let's annoy the shit out of players by having them reload, go into the inventory of the character, take everything back, then do it again... because... uh.. that's challenging?" If you don't like them leaving with your stuff (which by the way is not your stuff but the party stuff because the whole party fought the enemy to get it) and you don't want to load a save before they leave you can attack them as soon as they leave your party. They will turn red and try to fight back and when you kill them you can take it all back.
The party fought the enemy, not the character leaving with the stuff. So it should belong to the party and since I happen to be the party leader... yeah, I think it's pretty easy to make the case that wandering backpacks shouldn't walk away with your items unless they have a good reason, and that it's a waste of time since you'll just reload and get your things back. Doesn't add anything to the game, wastes time.
It's cool that you can fight them though, I didn't know that... too bad those evil bastards (the thief and the mage, first group you meet) walked into a house 1 meter from where I was standing and when I entered, they had disappeared. That mage sure had some cool magics he didn't show me when he was in my party, disappearing out of thin air by entering a house!
|
Don't worry you will meet them in BG2 again and you can have your revenge 
|
On March 09 2012 03:15 -Archangel- wrote:Don't worry you will meet them in BG2 again and you can have your revenge
Hah, now you gave me a good reason to continue playing the game :D
|
After all these years (over a decade i think now) the worse we can come up with is I have to loot the party members before I tell them to get lost?
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
