On July 01 2015 03:57 Andre wrote: Optimization in general is much more interesting in 3.5. It suits the PC platform better than 2e because of this. There were many possible character builds for a fighter in NWN2 for example, mainly just because of the multiclassing difference between 3.5 and 2e. You also weren't bound to the 'main' fighter attributes when designing some of the builds. In BG you didn't really have any choice. Multiclassingi was there but some of the limitations didn't make any sense. Like fighter/clerics being limited to the cleric's weapons because of dogma, uhh.
Optimization goes hand-in-hand with encounter design and tactical gameplay. More complex optimization components are not automatically better. If optimization serves to trivialize the difficulty of the game, it's a net loss. If strong optimization gameplay exists in a game with shit encounter design that cannot take advantage of strong optimization over poor optimization (hi ToEE), it's not doing anything to enhance the game. If it's in a system where optimization is partially a product of poor system design and weak tactical gameplay options (i.e. my example of most tactical combat actions being useless outside optimized cases), it's not doing anything to enhance the game.
As much as I love to spreadsheet out characters and spend hours planning what I'll take at each level, it's a pointless endeavor unless the gameplay is difficult or deep enough to actually take advantage of this.
BG2 had acceptable optimization gameplay, it's just that it was entirely centered in mostly non-permanent character decisions for a specific subset of the classes (spell selection and spell usage). And yes, spell selection counts as optimization gameplay--character decisions do not have to be permanent and irreversible to be optimization elements. When optimized to an extreme, it has degenerate combos that can trivialize the game (especially an unmodded one), but in general, BG2 mage combat is considered to be so good for a reason.
Any game can be made trivial by abusing the engine no need to have properly optimized characters. When PoE came out first thing I noticed was how bad the AI is. Mob leashing was abusable, aggro was very abusable, proper positioning itself marginalized many fights even on the highest difficulty etc.
You basically need Tactics to get around most of BG2's engine 'limitations' for the game to be challenging.
I guess this comes down to personal preferences, I don't think any specific direction of game design is the best. I'm not sure what the real reason is BG2's combat was so very good. DOS had challenging content for me personally for most of the game but it still doesn't hold up to BG2. In any case game designers will never be able to make content suited for powergamers, it's not even in their interest to do so. Because of this you'll never have games where optimized characters can be challenged. That's what mods are for I guess.
The discussion about powergaming is getting away from my original point, which is that more complex systems and gameplay mechanics don't automatically lead to better gameplay. Optimization is one aspect the gameplay afforded by a more complex system but the system has to be fully utilized by the designer to fully realize this.
BG2 honestly had the right amount of optimization gameplay, and I'm really hard-pressed to believe that a designer could meaningfully create something more complex and meaningfully take advantage of the whole system. Certainly, I don't think any 3e/d20 adaptation has successfully done so. The depth of combat was almost entirely driven by spellcaster interactions in BG2, so it was very logical for that to be the primary optimization space.
On July 01 2015 03:57 Andre wrote: Also in tabletop games when you have an OP character which is often the case with some players, even if the DM tries to address this you have issues when other party members suck in comparison and not necessarily even combat wise. Skill monkeys can be as annoying as some combat centric powerbuilds. Just my personal experience, but it's of course dependant on what kind of players you have playing DnD.
In general the implementation of skills is going to be an issue just because of how games are inherently limited. Storm of Zehir probably had the best implementation of the 3.5 skill system. It still sucked compared to the real deal but there was some potential.
edit: to add, I think skills suck anyway. 3.5e has too many of them, it's not even an issue only on PC. Even when playing a 3.5e game you rarely even use half the skills that a character can possess. This is why I assume a lot of people like 2e because you can actually roleplay instead of rolling for every arbitrary action.
In my opinion, for someone who actually enjoys the roleplaying part of roleplaying as opposed to the tactical combat, there are many, many systems that are just leagues better than DnD at that in the modern Indie games. FATE for example just blows DnD out of the water when it comes to systems that support and actually enhance roleplaying. One can very clearly see how DnD evolved out of tactical combat games, and got the roleplaying just attached to it kinda awkwardly, while the more modern games really focus on the roleplaying and storytelling parts, and have systems in place to enhance those instead.
On June 30 2015 02:39 JazVM wrote: My real concern is, if they use the same D&D ruleset that was used in BG 2. I am no expert but I don't see a reason why Hasbro would grant them a licence for a out of date system. I don't think they would want any kind of promotion for for such an old system.
Because they managed to earn Hasbro money with BG1EE, BG2EE and IWDEE. Hasbro likes money
I think that's more or less universally agreed upon, but "roleplaying" in a tabletop game and "roleplaying" in a cRPG require such vastly different rules to govern them, that the comparison is a little pointless.
The freeform nature of a tabletop game means that you have the ability to do anything--the limitation is in the need for rules to govern your character actually taking those actions that are simple enough for a GM to keep track of, but which still accurately represent the abilities of your character.
In a cRPG, there aren't any complexity restrictions on HOW your character performs actions because a computer can track them all. The limitations are on WHAT you can do, because a game designer can only present you a finite number of options, so the challenge is providing you a sufficient number of meaningful choices.
The two have such vastly different needs that I don't think porting a tabletop system to a game does you any good, except to promote either the game or the system via the brand association (which is admittedly what all D&D games really use the system for).
I highly doubt this new game is going to be one of the most recent D&D editions. Beamdog is a small team and they already have a track record of bug ridden releases so I really don't see them taking the risk of implementing an entire new ruleset to their engine. IWD:EE kinda was an exception but as far as I know, their work on it was limited (most was already done by the guy who created SCS). Most likely 2.0, maybe 3.5 is my guess.
On July 01 2015 19:37 Merany wrote: I highly doubt this new game is going to be one of the most recent D&D editions. Beamdog is a small team and they already have a track record of bug ridden releases so I really don't see them taking the risk of implementing an entire new ruleset to their engine. IWD:EE kinda was an exception but as far as I know, their work on it was limited (most was already done by the guy who created SCS). Most likely 2.0, maybe 3.5 is my guess.
It is already known it is same as BG1 and BG2. The game they are doing after Adventure Y (code name for this new IE engine game) is not known much about except they said it will be in a 3d engine.
Hmm, I read the FAQ and I am not hyped at all. I think it will be a rather short game/expansion and given the quality of the additional stuff in BG:EE, the writing likely will be sub-par. That combined with a price tag of 15$+ let's me doubt that I will buy the game.
On July 02 2015 00:10 JazVM wrote: Hmm, I read the FAQ and I am not hyped at all. I think it will be a rather short game/expansion and given the quality of the additional stuff in BG:EE, the writing likely will be sub-par. That combined with a price tag of 15$+ let's me doubt that I will buy the game.
yeah well... let's wait for the release and see how good or bad it turns out to be.
story tidbit: "
Though Sarevok is dead and his plan for war averted, peace eludes the citizens of Baldur's Gate. A crusade marches from the north, seizing supplies, forcing locals into military service, and disrupting trade along the Sword Coast. A charismatic warrior known as the Shining Lady leads this army, her background shrouded in mystery. Can the rumors be true—is she, like you, the child of a god?
The closer you get to the Shining Lady, the more you realize your father, the dead Lord of Murder still casts a long shadow upon your path. Baldur's Gate has put its faith in you, but you must determine whose interests you truly serve before you face the Shining Lady among the ruins of Dragonspear Castle...
On July 10 2015 20:30 dismiss wrote: Woooo BG hype, it really can't be THAT bad. Is there any info on whether this is a stand alone or proper BG1 addon yet?
EPT
