BG2 a cRPG?

[Sander]

Hello everyone! I am a big fan of the Fallout and of the CRPG's in general, prefering them to the whining of the munchkins and roll players around the proverbial table. Can't wait for Fallout 3 but am fearing it will be a different game. Arcanum waa disappointment since the design team fell all overi itself not to repeat anything that TSR/D&D may have metioned previously in BG/BG2. Loved the combat mechanics in fallout tactics. Kinda wish for a CRPG with BG2 roleplaying and the FT/Tactics conflict resolution.

BG2 'roleplaying'? What the hell?

 

[Wooz]

FT/Tactics 'conflict resolution'?

Enlighten me with a new light on my Fallout Tactics vistas, because all I can remember about resolving conflicts was "kill everyone in the area".

 

[Akudin]

Sender - Fallout storyline is simpler than in BG2, I really had little idea of what was going on until the very end, and BG2 had some awesome characters and storylines (i.e. Bodhi, the love of my life) the thieves guild was realistically done and a lot of BG2 reflected on the modern world. The way WMDs found their way into IWD1.
Wooz - riddle with bullets everybody in sight IS conflict resolution. I mean there is ***NO*** conflict in the area after BOS is done with it. They COULD have made BOS F/T Tactics with dialogue options, but they didn't choosing to capitalize on the real time strategy game market instead, which was a waste. I treated it as an RPG and played it in the turn based mode, which really hobbled the AI,, then again, the AI was programmed to take advantage of the glitches in the software animating the player's people in the continuous whatever mode...

 

[Milo]

Sender - Fallout storyline is simpler than in BG2, I really had little idea of what was going on until the very end, and BG2 had some awesome characters and storylines (i.e. Bodhi, the love of my life) the thieves guild was realistically done and a lot of BG2 reflected on the modern world. The way WMDs found their way into IWD1.
Wooz - riddle with bullets everybody in sight IS conflict resolution. I mean there is ***NO*** conflict in the area after BOS is done with it. They COULD have made BOS F/T Tactics with dialogue options, but they didn't choosing to capitalize on the real time strategy game market instead, which was a waste. I treated it as an RPG and played it in the turn based mode, which really hobbled the AI,, then again, the AI was programmed to take advantage of the glitches in the software animating the player's people in the continuous whatever mode...

prepare to be flamed

 

[Sarcastro]

Sender (...)

Oh shit! Hit the 'Edit' button man! Hit it now! Before Sander wakes up!

 

[Angrim]

Sender (...)

Oh shit! Hit the 'Edit' button man! Hit it now! Before Sander wakes up!

And maybe he should also edit and remove all the other bullcrap from his post...

Akudin, you really can't seriously claim that BG2's linear storyline is more complex than Fallout's? How?

The characters are really maybe a matter of taste, but I have to disagree with you with that. I myself rarely find fantasy computer games' characters interesting.

 

[Sander]

Sender - Fallout storyline is simpler than in BG2,

No, Ekudin, it isn't. Because Fallout's storyline, *gasp* isn't linear and you can actually influence it, as opposed to BG2's extremely linear storyline. Other than that, Fallout also isn't really story-driven, but much more about the role you are playing and giving you meaningful choices

I really had little idea of what was going on until the very end,

...
You did? I thought it was rather obvious from the beginning. Heh.
Also, twists do not a good storyline make, they make a storyline with twists.

and BG2 had some awesome characters and storylines (i.e. Bodhi, the love of my life)

*Bodhi* was interesting? She was a manipulative vampire, who you killed no matter what you did (see where the consequences don't come in?). How's that 'awesome'? That's just cliche.

the thieves guild was realistically done

Ehm, sure pal, that must be why you could join it *as a paladin* but *not fall or be able to report it*.

and a lot of BG2 reflected on the modern world. The way WMDs found their way into IWD1.

...
Are you seriously suggesting that Baldur's Gate 2 reflected *more* of the real world than Fallout? Have you gone entirely nuts?

Wooz - riddle with bullets everybody in sight IS conflict resolution. I mean there is ***NO*** conflict in the area after BOS is done with it. They COULD have made BOS F/T Tactics with dialogue options, but they didn't choosing to capitalize on the real time strategy game market instead, which was a waste. I treated it as an RPG and played it in the turn based mode, which really hobbled the AI,, then again, the AI was programmed to take advantage of the glitches in the software animating the player's people in the continuous whatever mode...

Again: what conflict resolution. There was *just* combat. No choices ('cept 'Do I go after this goal yes/no', and those didn't have any consequences anyway). So: what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Akudin]

Sender, I am talking about the quality of the ride., and I was NOT comparing BG to the Fallout. As it is, I enjoyed Fallout ONE more than Fallout TWO and Fallout Tactics more than Fallout TWO. You know why? Becuase there was no conflict and there was no push in the Fallout two. You explored at your leisure. Nobody was chasing you in the way of the waterchip. Another dimension that lacked in Fallout TWO, but was present as part of the story in Tactics, was the hatreds. You could not solve the problems in the middle east or in the Balkans just by running a bunch of quests when people are dead set on killing each other. That dimension was lacking in the Fallout TWO, but it was still a great game.

Fallout ONE was more complex in the way the real world was reflected in it. BG2 was more explorable even though linear and side quests did not affect the major outcomes. As far as artistic depth, Fallout Tactics was more on par with BG2 than F2. For all its non-linearity, there was no Campaign Push in F2, and there was more of modern reality folded in to BG2 than people realize.

 

[Angrim]

Fallout storyline is simpler than in BG2

Sender, I am talking about the quality of the ride., and I was NOT comparing BG to the Fallout

Huh? You apparently can't or don't bother to read other posts, because you keep mistyping Sander's nickname, even though you were corrected about that. Furthermore you can't even remember what you have typed in your past post.

And what comes to this on-going converstation, it's getting a pretty pointless.


*Edited, a typo.

 

[Sander]

Sender,

Yes, Ekudin?

I am talking about the quality of the ride., and I was NOT comparing BG to the Fallout.

Oh, really? Then what do you call this:
"Fallout storyline is simpler than in BG2,"

Also, it's not about comparing Fallout to BG2, it's about the principles of roleplaying, with which BG2 has little to *absolutely nothing* to do. So explain, again, how exactly BG2 is a good *RPG*, of which Fallout is a good example.

As it is, I enjoyed Fallout ONE more than Fallout TWO and Fallout Tactics more than Fallout TWO. You know why? Becuase there was no conflict and there was no push in the Fallout two. You explored at your leisure. Nobody was chasing you in the way of the waterchip. Another dimension that lacked in Fallout TWO, but was present as part of the story in Tactics, was the hatreds. You could not solve the problems in the middle east or in the Balkans just by running a bunch of quests when people are dead set on killing each other. That dimension was lacking in the Fallout TWO, but it was still a great game.

Ehm, did you even play that game? Gecko, Vault City, the Enclave wanting to wipe out every human except themselves? What 'lacking hatred'?
Fallout 2 did not feature a really pushy storyline, no, so it lost its sense of urgency. That was a design decision, though, and has jack shit to with its qualities as a roleplaying game.

Fallout ONE was more complex in the way the real world was reflected in it. BG2 was more explorable

Are you fucking retarded?
BG2 more explorable? What the fuck is wrong with you? There was *no* possibility to roam freely. It was one big city, with a bunch of locations you get to explore linearly afterwards. There was no exploration whatsoever.

even though linear and side quests did not affect the major outcomes.

Or anything, for that matter. Unless you want to call 'Oh noes, there's guards everywhere!!! Guess I'll pay the church now.' "something".

As far as artistic depth, Fallout Tactics was more on par with BG2 than F2. For all its non-linearity, there was no Campaign Push in F2, and there was more of modern reality folded in to BG2 than people realize.

No, there wasn't. In fact, it had really, really little to do with the real world. Unless you want to show me how.
But again: how does this reflect on it being a good *RPG*?

Also, I'm splitting this to a thread in General Gaming.

 

[Sorrow]

Baldur's Gate 2 was not only linear, but also it ignored everything the character imported from BG1 did in BG1, including his/her choice of companions. So much for actions and consequences.
Also, they completely changed the <CHARNAME>'s biography, because they forgotten what they wrote about it in BG1.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

BG and BG2 were the absolute epitome of meh.

 

[Wooz]

Wooz - riddle with bullets everybody in sight IS conflict resolution. I mean there is ***NO*** conflict in the area after BOS is done with it. They COULD have made BOS F/T Tactics with dialogue options, but they didn't choosing to capitalize on the real time strategy game market instead, which was a waste. I treated it as an RPG and played it in the turn based mode

Following that train of thought, Wolfenstein 3D would be an RPG.

Sigh. Do try to make sense, you're starting to sound like Lich, in a less funny way.

 

[zioburosky13]

1. BG series has character class which I think it's pretty lame.
2. There's not much choice and consequence gameplay in both game.
3. Fallout series (POS eh Brotherhood of Steel) has better map navigating and the sense of free-roaming instead of point and click in BG.
4. You need to learn how to read people's name.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

I hate to do this but as I like both of these game( serie)s I have to say a few things.

Following that train of thought, Wolfenstein 3D would be an RPG.

Well from what I understand from W3D is that the rules are set on stone and aren't influenced by any kind of random input influencing all the players. I might be wrong, but you'll have to prove it.

So explain, again, how exactly BG2 is a good *RPG*, of which Fallout is a good example.

Well at the beginning of the game you have to make a certain decision that influence the whole of the game(the class, the stats) which you can't go and make again without starting a new game, with in the rules.

Baldur's Gate 2 was not only linear, but also it ignored everything the character imported from BG1 did in BG1, including his/her choice of companions. So much for actions and consequences. Also, they completely changed the <CHARNAME>'s biography, because they forgotten what they wrote about it in BG1.

Sorrow the constant guardian of the post apocalyptic copy/paste generation. Though, the import feature is totally form the shitters in BG2, or what happened to my 105hps Paladin when I imported him to BG2, well he had only 80hps.

2. There's not much choice and consequence game play in both game.

Both of the games have consequences in game play;
-In BG2 the change is more immediate, if you kill the dragon, you'll get the sword, the title, the NPC or what ever.
-In Fallout(and in F2), if you kill the raider boss, you'll see the movie what happened after, in the end of the game. Though you can play it even after the movie has played, but what ever you did or shall do after, it has no influence to the coming world, and not much has changed in the time you have been gone. So the same chars are still there after, so you can go on a killing spree.

 

[Sander]

Well from what I understand from W3D is that the rules are set on stone and aren't influenced by any kind of random input influencing all the players. I might be wrong, but you'll have to prove it.

Ehm, random input is hardly a hallmark of RPGs.

Well at the beginning of the game you have to make a certain decision that influence the whole of the game(the class, the stats) which you can't go and make again without starting a new game, with in the rules.

Actually, that class choice doesn't influence anything at all. Except for the rather minor influence of what stronghold you get. Whoop-di-doo ('though the mage stronghold had some decent quests). It doesn't actually have any important consequences at all.
Also, if the only choices of importance you make are made at character creation, that's pretty goddamn poor for a roleplaying game. Because that means it says 'choose now, we'll streamline you through the rest of the game!!'

Both of the games have consequences in game play;
-In BG2 the change is more immediate, if you kill the dragon, you'll get the sword, the title, the NPC or what ever.

That's a consequence as much as choosing to roam around for random encounters is. It's meaningless, unless you play the game in the role of 'I must collect all I can!!!' which is hardly a role at all.
There are no consequences (or choices for the most part) to the stuff that defines the role you play.
The best evidence of this is that there is almost nothing that you can't do, regardless of your previous actions (with a few, limited, exceptions).

-In Fallout(and in F2), if you kill the raider boss, you'll see the movie what happened after, in the end of the game. Though you can play it even after the movie has played, but what ever you did or shall do after, it has no influence to the coming world, and not much has changed in the time you have been gone. So the same chars are still there after, so you can go on a killing spree.

Bullshit. Killing the raiders nets you the effect of saving Shady Sands. However, it also influences your reputation and the reaction of other characters. Likewise, killing either Killian or Gizmo has the effect of being known as an assassin to Decker. Deciding to help or obstruct the Razors directly affects the help you can get afterwards from the townspeople. Talking to Morpheus either gets you a very hostile Cathedral, or you get to speak to the Master. etc. etc. etc.
Consequences that influence the story and the gameplay abound, as well as allowing you to properly portray the role you are playing.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Ehm, random input is hardly a hallmark of RPGs.

But it has a certain effect on the next subject.

Which is the rules of the game:

Actually, that class choice doesn't influence anything at all. Except for the rather minor influence of what stronghold you get. Whoop-di-doo ('though the mage stronghold had some decent quests). It doesn't actually have any important consequences at all.

So the the fighter is as bad fighter as mage but can cast all the same spells that mages and priests.

However, it also influences your reputation and the reaction of other characters. Likewise, ...

Darn, I haven't played the game enough to notes, but then again I was always the goody two shoes, that went berserk after the game was (nearly)over.

 

[Sander]

So the the fighter is as bad fighter as mage but can cast all the same spells that mages and priests.

That choice is *only* relevant in combat. Outside of it it is completely irrelevant, which was my point. It's like choosing a role in Counter Strike, and you'd be hard-pressed to call that a role-playing game.

 

[Per]

BG2 is actually much closer in nature to Arcanum and Torment than either of those is to Fallout.

 

[Sander]

BG2 is actually much closer in nature to Arcanum and Torment than either of those is to Fallout.

...
Explain, please. Because I don't see that (other than setting). Torment perhaps, since Torment has a relatively streamlined storyline (great mid-story choices and consequences, though, but rather poor ending).
Arcanum I can kind of see it, since the ending decision can be made at the last moment. Still, again, many decisions and consequences in between, many more important and consequential choices than in BG2.