| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
 I agree that BG had a relatively good inventory management system though. Not because the system is amazing in any way, but because console ports has completely screwed PC over. Skyrim? Horrible. Kingdom of Amalur? Terrible. Mass Effect 1? Catastrophic. BG had an inventory system which was made for the mouse, and that alone makes it own pretty much any new RPG in inventory management, which is ridiculous considering how old it is. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
I don't see anyone screeming SC2 sucks, I am going back to play C&C or Dune2. I don't see anyone screeming Battlefield 3 sucks, I am going to play Doom or Dune Nukem 3d. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3429 Posts
On March 09 2012 17:59 Tobberoth wrote: Pretty funny how fanboys react to statements like "Something I didn't like in BG was X" and everyone goes "Oh, so you're saying X is the ONLY THING wrong with BG? That's what you said right? LOL, this game is terrible </sarcasm>". Just because you mention a fault with a game doesn't mean you consider it the only fault, no one here has tried to list all the problems in BG, no need to react as if someone had I agree that BG had a relatively good inventory management system though. Not because the system is amazing in any way, but because console ports has completely screwed PC over. Skyrim? Horrible. Kingdom of Amalur? Terrible. Mass Effect 1? Catastrophic. BG had an inventory system which was made for the mouse, and that alone makes it own pretty much any new RPG in inventory management, which is ridiculous considering how old it is. You need to understand that people get really defensive when it comes to their most memorable IPs. There is obviously a lot of wrong with Baldur's Gate (both in terms of today's gaming world and that of the past), but the general consensus is that these minor faults are heavily outweighted by what the game did good (and, in *my opinion*, most crucial elements of a RPG experience are done better than in any other game of that genre before or after Baldur's Gate 2). Obviously, the game won't suit everyone's tastes, but the incredible longevity and the immense popularity of the series speaks for itself. That said, I do find it unfair that people are nitpicking the series for any faults when today's AAA titles get away with *so much* more. You can literally pick any game apart in a smiliar fashion and in the end it would turn out that there was not a single good game made, ever. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 09 2012 18:12 -Archangel- wrote: Even being able to compare such an old game to new games in same gendre says volumes to its quality. I don't see anyone screeming SC2 sucks, I am going back to play C&C or Dune2. I don't see anyone screeming Battlefield 3 sucks, I am going to play Doom or Dune Nukem 3d. I agree. However, it's quite common to hear SC2 sucks, I'm going back to BW Pretty cool to think that baldurs gate and starcraft 1 came out the same year. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3429 Posts
On March 09 2012 18:15 Tobberoth wrote: I agree. However, it's quite common to hear SC2 sucks, I'm going back to BW Pretty cool to think that baldurs gate and starcraft 1 came out the same year. Starcraft is regarded as the best RTS in the history of gaming, akin to Baldur's Gate and the western cRPG. I do agree that these statements are a testament to how godlike these games are. I cannot comprehend how today's developers fail again and again to make as successful of a game with so many more resources at their disposal than back in the late 90's. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On March 09 2012 18:15 Tobberoth wrote: I agree. However, it's quite common to hear SC2 sucks, I'm going back to BW Pretty cool to think that baldurs gate and starcraft 1 came out the same year. No, you cannot compare BG1 to Starcraft. Starcraft didn't start era of RTS games. Before BG1 there was nothing like it out there. Before SC1 there were many good RTS games that made the RTS genre popular | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 09 2012 18:51 -Archangel- wrote: No, you cannot compare BG1 to Starcraft. Starcraft didn't start era of RTS games. Before BG1 there was nothing like it out there. Before SC1 there were many good RTS games that made the RTS genre popular Well, yes and no. Fallout came out before Baldurs Gate. Most certainly not the same game and baldurs gate was groundbreaking in a lot of ways, but I woudn't say Baldurs Gate started something completely from scratch, there were tons of cRPGs before (though not even close in quality, i would say) and, well, fallout. And in the same vein, Starcraft was pretty groundbreaking as well, first RTS where the different teams were significantly different. | ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
On March 09 2012 17:59 Tobberoth wrote: Pretty funny how fanboys react to statements like "Something I didn't like in BG was X" and everyone goes "Oh, so you're saying X is the ONLY THING wrong with BG? That's what you said right? LOL, this game is terrible </sarcasm>". Just because you mention a fault with a game doesn't mean you consider it the only fault, no one here has tried to list all the problems in BG, no need to react as if someone had I agree that BG had a relatively good inventory management system though. Not because the system is amazing in any way, but because console ports has completely screwed PC over. Skyrim? Horrible. Kingdom of Amalur? Terrible. Mass Effect 1? Catastrophic. BG had an inventory system which was made for the mouse, and that alone makes it own pretty much any new RPG in inventory management, which is ridiculous considering how old it is. Problem is, your nitpicking about things that isn't really a flaw or bad design. It's something that's intrinsically a part of the design of the game (and the rulesystem) and something that a lot of people like. I'm sure it can be slightly tweaked and improved, there's very few (if any) perfect rulesets, but your suggestions for improvement seems to be cater you your personal taste, which is probably shared by a lot of people who like a slightly easier approach. But then it'd be too watered down for my taste, and I'm not alone in this sentiment, as can be seen from this thread. Also, using 'fanboys' as a derogatory term on a SC:BW/SC2 site (although mostly a gaming website now  ) while you're studying CDG is sweet sweet irony.... | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 09 2012 19:28 Reivax wrote: Problem is, your nitpicking about things that isn't really a flaw or bad design. It's something that's intrinsically a part of the design of the game (and the rulesystem) and something that a lot of people like. I'm sure it can be slightly tweaked and improved, there's very few (if any) perfect rulesets, but your suggestions for improvement seems to be cater you your personal taste, which is probably shared by a lot of people who like a slightly easier approach. But then it'd be too watered down for my taste, and I'm not alone in this sentiment, as can be seen from this thread. Also, using 'fanboys' as a derogatory term on a SC:BW/SC2 site (although mostly a gaming website now ) while you're studying CDG is sweet sweet irony....I wasn't talking about my earlier discussion, I was talking about, for example, when someone mentioned the path finding being annoying in BG and suddenly, it had been proved that the only bad part of BG was its path-finding. I personally don't see how a minor fix which only affects lvl 1 characters could possibly "water down" a ruleset, but I'll leave people to their opinion on that since we left that discussion. I also don't know what you mean about CDG, I suppose you refer to game design? I'm not studying game design, I'm working as a software developer, I did take courses in game design though. I only brought it up because it gives you a slightly different perspective when analysing game componets, attempting to get the point accross that I'm not just whining because games are hard (dark souls is awesome), I actually think that there's a weakness with the system. Agree or not, the creators at least did. | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
On March 09 2012 19:43 Tobberoth wrote: I wasn't talking about my earlier discussion, I was talking about, for example, when someone mentioned the path finding being annoying in BG and suddenly, it had been proved that the only bad part of BG was its path-finding. I personally don't see how a minor fix which only affects lvl 1 characters could possibly "water down" a ruleset, but I'll leave people to their opinion on that since we left that discussion. I also don't know what you mean about CDG, I suppose you refer to game design? I'm not studying game design, I'm working as a software developer, I did take courses in game design though. I only brought it up because it gives you a slightly different perspective when analysing game componets, attempting to get the point accross that I'm not just whining because games are hard (dark souls is awesome), I actually think that there's a weakness with the system. Agree or not, the creators at least did. I still believe a 5hp lvl 1 character has it's magic. The fear of getting hit by a goblin's club in the head and die, makes the game that much more rewarding when at some point you can eliminate goblins with a have of your hand. In 4th ed DnD chars get correspondent hit dice (less than in previous versions) but they start out with an hp bonus equal to their constitution stat. That would fix the issue bothering you, since a lvl 1 fighter would start at around 20hp. However, for ages people have been wondering why our lvl 20 fighter has 250 hp and not let's say... 30. In the end fighters bleed like any other human being if hit. How would you like that in BG? | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 09 2012 19:57 SF-Fork wrote: I still believe a 5hp lvl 1 character has it's magic. The fear of getting hit by a goblin's club in the head and die, makes the game that much more rewarding when at some point you can eliminate goblins with a have of your hand. In 4th ed DnD chars get correspondent hit dice (less than in previous versions) but they start out with an hp bonus equal to their constitution stat. That would fix the issue bothering you, since a lvl 1 fighter would start at around 20hp. However, for ages people have been wondering why our lvl 20 fighter has 250 hp and not let's say... 30. In the end fighters bleed like any other human being if hit. How would you like that in BG? I think that would work fine, but it wouldn't really make it into an RPG, right? D&D as a system is already pretty "weak" in scaling (not weak in a negative way) in that there's not THAT much happening when you level. You get extra hp, you get more options... but your sword still does more or less the same damage, you still have the same strength etc. This is something I think a lot of people enjoy with the D&D ruleset, it allows good tactics to trumph level, I personally enjoy it as well. But if you take away any HP bonus, you're slowly going towards the point where leveling won't really matter at all anymore. Would it make a bad game? I have no idea, but I think it would make a very different game. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On March 09 2012 19:09 Tobberoth wrote: Well, yes and no. Fallout came out before Baldurs Gate. Most certainly not the same game and baldurs gate was groundbreaking in a lot of ways, but I woudn't say Baldurs Gate started something completely from scratch, there were tons of cRPGs before (though not even close in quality, i would say) and, well, fallout. And in the same vein, Starcraft was pretty groundbreaking as well, first RTS where the different teams were significantly different. Fallout was a fairly different game at the time and it didn't start the genre. BG1 did. Although Starcraft was and still is an awesome game games like C&C, Red Alert and Warcraft 1 were the groundbreaking RTS games that made the genre popular. | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
In Planescape Torment for example the fights are so easy, meaningless and avoidable that having a 30hp Nameless One would not make any difference, since the game is so centered on dialogue and story. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On March 09 2012 20:06 SF-Fork wrote: I believe it would make a game more for role playing purposes than mindless grinding. Which is what all good RPG players want. In Planescape Torment for example the fights are so easy, meaningless and avoidable that having a 30hp Nameless One would not make any difference, since the game is so centered on dialogue and story. What you propose would not work for a game like BG2. It can work in PnP because you got a DM "taking care" of players. cRPG couldn't unless it made combat easy or really linear. Planescape although an awesome game in its own right is still considered worse then BG2 by most fans just because it put much more focus into storytelling while BG2 was more balanced (with games like Diablo on the other side of the spectrum). | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
On March 09 2012 20:24 -Archangel- wrote: What you propose would not work for a game like BG2. It can work in PnP because you got a DM "taking care" of players. cRPG couldn't unless it made combat easy or really linear. Planescape although an awesome game in its own right is still considered worse then BG2 by most fans just because it put much more focus into storytelling while BG2 was more balanced (with games like Diablo on the other side of the spectrum). While what you say is generally true, many fans also consider PST better than BG2 by the same argument you just made. It is a matter of taste. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On March 09 2012 20:42 SF-Fork wrote: While what you say is generally true, many fans also consider PST better than BG2 by the same argument you just made. It is a matter of taste. Indeed I'm playing BG/BG2 for the first time atm, and I honestly think that PS:T dialogues/story/choices blow away by far BG2, while BG's combat is far better. I put more emphasize on story it seems because I really liked PS:T better, even if BG is a very good experience. On the flaws of the game : I also think the variance is kinda annoying, even though it also allowed me to pull off some pretty lulzy victories after a dozen resets (fuck yeah waiting for opponent to fail at sawing throws on entangle, at level 1 in bg1 against a guy that kills my minsc in one hit 90% of the time...). After that, pathfinding is worse than dragoons in bw, and it even feels worse in bg2 than bg1 (probably because there are more close quarters). Some of the difficulty scaling is pretty strange too, the beginning of BG2 (after the first dungeon) felt horribly hard for a long time, had to juggle with three quests because I couldn't beat some fights without better weapons/better spells, but since I've had some +3 weapons and Breach my life is a lot easier. Well anyway those are still among the best game I've ever played, 10 years after they're out, so I get the "fanboys" and the hype =) | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On March 09 2012 21:02 corumjhaelen wrote: On the flaws of the game : I also think the variance is kinda annoying, even though it also allowed me to pull off some pretty lulzy victories after a dozen resets (fuck yeah waiting for opponent to fail at sawing throws on entangle, at level 1 in bg1 against a guy that kills my minsc in one hit 90% of the time...). Wasn't exactly lv 1, but I remember very clearly the armored guy in the bandit camp. If he got close he could slaughter you whole party. So yeah, entangle/wait for a fail save/bows. | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
On March 09 2012 21:22 Sbrubbles wrote: Wasn't exactly lv 1, but I remember very clearly the armored guy in the bandit camp. If he got close he could slaughter you whole party. So yeah, entangle/wait for a fail save/bows. or the use of numerous wands, potions and other spells you have at your disposal by the time you reach the bandit camp :D The point is a good strategy does not have to rely so much on dice rolls. You can significantly reduce risks depending on the approach you take. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On March 09 2012 21:27 SF-Fork wrote: or the use of numerous wands, potions and other spells you have at your disposal by the time you reach the bandit camp :D The point is a good strategy does not have to rely so much on dice rolls. You can significantly reduce risks depending on the approach you take. A good strategy is almost impossible to have on your first run with your characters during the first 3 levels. It's much easier to addapt you strategies in later levels (and, of course, in BG2) because you have more equipment and spells. I think at that point in the game only wand I had was a crappy wand of magic missles. | ||
|
Stratos
Czech Republic6104 Posts
Is it something that doesn't seem natural to you? Like the goon AI? So what if they're just retarded... or perma drunk? You can find a logical explanation for basically anything in the game, that is called cosmetics. Or is it anything that makes the game more demanding to control? Is 1.5's flaw that you have to master the recoil? Is the BW interface a flaw of the game? Is it any sort of randomness that's present? Or just a randomness that cannot be overcome by adjusting your play? Would you say it is okay to adjust a game design because of the cosmetics, disregarding the mechanisms underlying the issue? If you were to remove all these little 'flaws' out of BW, what would you end up with? SC2, where it's 99% decision making? Is this the ultimate goal of video gaming? That's subjective for sure, although one could ask the question - Why does it have to be a video game then? So that it looks good? Why couldn't you just obtain the available data and decide what your next move is, just like in chess - no need for all the special effects, right? It's not like there can go anything wrong while giving out orders in a 'flawless' game. Either way, a lot of people I know play these 'flawed' games because of the 'flaws', not despite them. Maybe it wouldn't be a total waste of time to take a moment and think about why that is the case. I'm not attacking chess or SC2 here, I'm just curious why a lot of people seem to want to strip video games of all the new aspects that video gaming brought into the scene in the first place, besides special effects. Do you only want a simple chessboard where the pieces look like aliens and it's 3D and there are explosions and shit? Or do you want a true video game? It's just a matter of preference, but you should be aware of what you're fighting for here. Here's the obligatory Day[9] musing on a very similar topic. + Show Spoiler + | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  22874Calm  3398ggaemo 241Dewaltoss 164firebathero  134Soulkey 121Rock 28SilentControl 12League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv1313 FrodaN792 B2W.Neo617 ceh9482 Mlord343 ArmadaUGS164 Trikslyr152 C9.Mang0118 RotterdaM97 Mew2King56 QueenE36 |
|
Replay Cast
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
MaNa vs goblin
Scarlett vs Spirit
Serral vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
IPSL
WolFix vs nOmaD
dxtr13 vs Razz
BSL
UltrA vs KwarK
Gosudark vs cavapoo
dxtr13 vs HBO
Doodle vs Razz
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
