|
On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great.  isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg.
Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills.
|
On March 18 2012 23:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great. isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg. Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills.
Agreed - Also, when actually playing DnD (With the dice, irl) 2nd edition has so much more depth in the non-combat aspects, abillities - There are actual rules for what your character can do with a skill such as Blacksmithing, Fletching or Engineering. The later editions dumbed it down, and just laid it over on the Dungeon Master to decide what you could or could not do, which can be abit frustrating
|
On March 18 2012 23:57 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 23:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great. isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg. Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills. Agreed - Also, when actually playing DnD (With the dice, irl) 2nd edition has so much more depth in the non-combat aspects, abillities - There are actual rules for what your character can do with a skill such as Blacksmithing, Fletching or Engineering. The later editions dumbed it down, and just laid it over on the Dungeon Master to decide what you could or could not do, which can be abit frustrating
Lol! Not. 3e and 3.5e did dumb anything down, it actually put all that you are talking about into hard numbers (how much, how hard and how long). 2e was known in PnP circles as D&D where DM need to decided many things as nothing is written down. Maybe what you remember is what your DM already put down into numbers.
And 4e didn't dumb things down as much as change radically large parts of the game which made many players quit D&D and move to other similar games like Pathfinder, fantasy craft and so on.
|
On March 19 2012 00:13 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 23:57 ELA wrote:On March 18 2012 23:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great. isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg. Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills. Agreed - Also, when actually playing DnD (With the dice, irl) 2nd edition has so much more depth in the non-combat aspects, abillities - There are actual rules for what your character can do with a skill such as Blacksmithing, Fletching or Engineering. The later editions dumbed it down, and just laid it over on the Dungeon Master to decide what you could or could not do, which can be abit frustrating Lol! Not. 3e and 3.5e did dumb anything down, it actually put all that you are talking about into hard numbers (how much, how hard and how long). 2e was known in PnP circles as D&D where DM need to decided many things as nothing is written down. Maybe what you remember is what your DM already put down into numbers. And 4e didn't dumb things down as much as change radically large parts of the game which made many players quit D&D and move to other similar games like Pathfinder, fantasy craft and so on.
LOLNO!
3rd edition already DID dumb down the non-combat - The hard numbers you are talking about is basicly: Everyone can do anything, with your stats as modifier vs. an arbitrary DC set by the DM.
Not dumbing it down? I THINK SO!
|
On March 19 2012 04:24 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 00:13 -Archangel- wrote:On March 18 2012 23:57 ELA wrote:On March 18 2012 23:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great. isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg. Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills. Agreed - Also, when actually playing DnD (With the dice, irl) 2nd edition has so much more depth in the non-combat aspects, abillities - There are actual rules for what your character can do with a skill such as Blacksmithing, Fletching or Engineering. The later editions dumbed it down, and just laid it over on the Dungeon Master to decide what you could or could not do, which can be abit frustrating Lol! Not. 3e and 3.5e did dumb anything down, it actually put all that you are talking about into hard numbers (how much, how hard and how long). 2e was known in PnP circles as D&D where DM need to decided many things as nothing is written down. Maybe what you remember is what your DM already put down into numbers. And 4e didn't dumb things down as much as change radically large parts of the game which made many players quit D&D and move to other similar games like Pathfinder, fantasy craft and so on. LOLNO! 3rd edition already DID dumb down the non-combat - The hard numbers you are talking about is basicly: Everyone can do anything, with your stats as modifier vs. an arbitrary DC set by the DM. Not dumbing it down? I THINK SO!
You make that sound like a bad thing. As someone who actively plays PnP, i enjoy more simplistic systems far more then overly specific ones. Having the DM decide on the difficulty of a task on the spot, maybe giving modifiers he thinks make sense is so much more fluid then having to search for the exact rule amongst a dozen different rulebooks. I play PnP for the roleplaying, which is not hurt in the slightest by giving the DM more power, as long as the DM is competent. A good PnP system in my opinion plays as fluidly as possible while allowing your characters to be reasonably unique. Of course this is an act of balance, but whenever i played with overly complex systems we usually tended to ignore about 3/4 of the rules because we did not want to search them in each specific case, and having the DM set a difficulty instead of searching through 3 different tables with modifiers is faster and still gives reasonable results.
However, in PC RPGs i tend to powergame a lot, and for powergaming a complex system is infinitely more fun then a simple one, simply because powergaming is all about the rules and maximising efficiency, and the more rules there are, the better you feel after optimising something.
|
On March 18 2012 20:36 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface). There are already easy to use fan mods that achieve just this (except for the interface, I guess). Fixed bugs, widescreen support and a seamless transition from BG1 to part two.
I don't care about mods. I don't think they will be working well on all systems.
A title needs one true developing team.
I almost bought these titles. Now I'll wait for the rehash. Many more titles need that.
|
On March 19 2012 04:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 04:24 ELA wrote:On March 19 2012 00:13 -Archangel- wrote:On March 18 2012 23:57 ELA wrote:On March 18 2012 23:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 18 2012 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 18 2012 22:48 Talin wrote:On March 18 2012 22:41 Skilledblob wrote:On March 18 2012 22:39 Talin wrote:
It just occurred to me that might actually want to change the ruleset to 4E -_-
I mean, it's logical for WoTC to want this rather than going back to AD&D. Nobody is going to buy their AD&D products any more (they're probably out of print by now), and they want to promote their new stuff. they allready said that they will stick with the 2nd edition rules Ah. That's great then. Weird, but great. isnt 4th edition like very simple? i have no clue about d&d in the end but i listened to the penny arcade d&d series and it seemed very... basic compared to what knew from bg. Yes. 4E took a lot of variety, customization, and uniqueness out of the classes and made the game focus on a more generic, dice-rolling, combat-focused experience. It also simplified defenses and skills. Agreed - Also, when actually playing DnD (With the dice, irl) 2nd edition has so much more depth in the non-combat aspects, abillities - There are actual rules for what your character can do with a skill such as Blacksmithing, Fletching or Engineering. The later editions dumbed it down, and just laid it over on the Dungeon Master to decide what you could or could not do, which can be abit frustrating Lol! Not. 3e and 3.5e did dumb anything down, it actually put all that you are talking about into hard numbers (how much, how hard and how long). 2e was known in PnP circles as D&D where DM need to decided many things as nothing is written down. Maybe what you remember is what your DM already put down into numbers. And 4e didn't dumb things down as much as change radically large parts of the game which made many players quit D&D and move to other similar games like Pathfinder, fantasy craft and so on. LOLNO! 3rd edition already DID dumb down the non-combat - The hard numbers you are talking about is basicly: Everyone can do anything, with your stats as modifier vs. an arbitrary DC set by the DM. Not dumbing it down? I THINK SO! You make that sound like a bad thing. As someone who actively plays PnP, i enjoy more simplistic systems far more then overly specific ones. Having the DM decide on the difficulty of a task on the spot, maybe giving modifiers he thinks make sense is so much more fluid then having to search for the exact rule amongst a dozen different rulebooks. I play PnP for the roleplaying, which is not hurt in the slightest by giving the DM more power, as long as the DM is competent. A good PnP system in my opinion plays as fluidly as possible while allowing your characters to be reasonably unique. Of course this is an act of balance, but whenever i played with overly complex systems we usually tended to ignore about 3/4 of the rules because we did not want to search them in each specific case, and having the DM set a difficulty instead of searching through 3 different tables with modifiers is faster and still gives reasonable results. However, in PC RPGs i tend to powergame a lot, and for powergaming a complex system is infinitely more fun then a simple one, simply because powergaming is all about the rules and maximising efficiency, and the more rules there are, the better you feel after optimising something.
I think DD3+ is better for actual PnP.
But i never tought it worked good in CRPG's because it just was "to big".
The simple system of AD&D with picking your class early and may be switching later and thats it, felt better to me (i can deal fine with DD3+, i just don't like it).
|
2e is fine for BG.
It might suck to look up tables if your playing PnP but BG is not PnP.
The rules of 2e are quite awesome for a computer game where thac0 and ac, and class generation are handled for you. It also makes the character classes very different, unlike 4e. I for one hate games where all the characters feel real generic.
That might be good in PnP, but kinda blows in a video games.
But anyway, besides this a company would be so damn dumb to use 4e with the License you are forced to put up with..
Baldurs Gate 1/2 producers must have landed a awesome license in the first place that allows them to create remakes and avoid that shit 12 years later.
Everyone can forget about a BG 3 release.
|
I haven't played fourth but I feel 3rd edition is a much better ruleset generally... but for a computer game I'm more than happy with 2e. On a computer it doesn't have the paper upkeep with the keeping track of minutiae and the fact that you don't have to understand it at all to have fun, uh, makes it work.
|
A 4th edition review from an old school gamer i read when 4th came out went like this: When i play with my friends, we play AD&D or 3.5. When i want play with my kids and their friends around 9-10 years old 4th is fine. Sums it up quite well imo. They just sacrified too much trying it to be more accessible to new players.
Considering the AD&D rules, I don't like the multiclassing. It just doesn't make sense, you cannot use most abilities of your old class until your new class matches up. I never had as much fun as in the AD&D times though.
I loved 3.5 and DDO e.g. made a good translation of the rules to a computer game imo. However i'm more than happy with the 2nd edition rules being used for BG again, when i think it could have been 4th.
|
On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine
People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it?
Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs.
Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok
|
So if anyone wants to help...
Hi everyone, I'm looking for a few volunteers to help me set up the community site. This is where we can suggest, vote, and discuss fixes and updates that will go into Enhanced. If you have some time to spare and some ideas please contact me at baldursgate@beamdog.com .
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/05VWo.png)
just putting two and two together, this could be a good or bad thing, as long as they dont treat it as a DA spinoff because the first one was a welcomed, but not great if im honest, attempt at remaking the franchise, and the 2nd game, well enough's been said about that.
|
Bg 1 and 2 best games _Ever_ (sry starcraft). Looking forward to this
|
On March 20 2012 05:25 UdderChaos wrote:just putting two and two together, this could be a good or bad thing, as long as they dont treat it as a DA spinoff because the first one was a welcomed, but not great if im honest, attempt at remaking the franchise, and the 2nd game, well enough's been said about that.
this is totally unrelated.
bioware has nothing to do with baldurs gate anymore. if bg3 was made it would be done by the guys that now make the BG1/2 EE which the news there is about.
the only question is if dragon age 3 will be decent. i mean da2 was a obvious money grab move and can be pretty much ignored.also the huge shitstorm sure as fuck didnt go unnoticed, bought out reviews (lol at pcgamer) didnt help much. not that im the biggest fan of DA:O , but i doubt da3 it will be as terrible as da2.
|
That just means no more DLCs for DA2. What a shame, I need to throw more money at them for items....
|
On March 19 2012 08:50 UniversalSnip wrote:
I haven't played fourth but I feel 3rd edition is a much better ruleset generally... but for a computer game I'm more than happy with 2e. On a computer it doesn't have the paper upkeep with the keeping track of minutiae and the fact that you don't have to understand it at all to have fun, uh, makes it work.
I would definitely agree with this. AD&D was great and all, but it was a little too complicated and not very user-friendly to be a P&P game. It had a lot of great strengths, but was simply too cluttered and complicated for that kind of experience. It really shines in a video game though, mostly because you don't have to deal with the annoying tiny details that can get really confusing and frustrating.
I'd say that they really hit the mark with 3.5 for a P&P game. Yea, some stuff got a little ridiculous (some things got overpowered and whatnot and there were a bagajazillion supplements by the end of its run), but the rules were simple enough to welcome newcomers while at the same time being detailed enough to allow a lot of variety, customization, and a good balance between roleplaying and combat.
|
On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok
Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now?
|
Pretty sure they'll not deviate from the EEs when they work on BG3... but lets see what they are about to do with 1 and 2 first; might well be they find a way to ruin that already. Hope for the best, be prepared for the worst, as with all games today.
|
On March 20 2012 19:06 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:49 GhostOwl wrote:On March 18 2012 20:33 Sadistx wrote:
Thank god they didn't decide to ruin the Saga of Baldur's Gate by doing BG 3 or some other equally retarded shit.
Enhanced edition is all the games needed. What would be really great is the ability to play through the entire saga in 1 game, seamlessly, on a modernized infinity engine (widescreen, less bugs, better interface).
Come to think of it, BG was the perfect example of how you could tell a complete story from start to finish in exactly the right amount of gameplay, it was only hindered by class imbalances (which isn't important, since its not a player vs player game) and the bugginess of the infinity engine People like this are annoying...how would you know they would ruin it? Ex-bioware staff is leading the project, and they have much better technology, with more funding since BG3 is an investment that has an established name-value. And it's 2012. They are capable of making a game with great gameplay...it's just the story & characters that has been lost from modern RPGs. Better technology + More money + Ex-bioware to make BG3 = ruined saga? ok Just because I'm right, I'm annoying? Ok. To make it a commercially viable project, they would have to make it for consoles and for the level of comprehension of audience that plays consoles, thus ruining it. Understand now?
Having an opinion is not "being right". You're entitled to predict what YOU THINK will happen, it still won't matter the outcome. You're annoying. They can get it right, ever heard of kickstarter or successful indie projects? But they can still fail. You're just trying to guess what's going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
