Development Info Dragon Age Community Update

[Lumpy]

how low are you falling?

At least I'm not the one who likes Baldur's Gate.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

how low are you falling?

At least I'm not the one who likes Baldur's Gate.

At least I'm not the one deluded into thinking Oblivion has any real choices and consequences of any merit.

Well...this little mudslinging session sure has been fun, but let's try to get back on topic. Why don't you provide some of those meaningful choices and consequences you spoke of in Oblivion? I'm just so curious. And don't even think about mentioning the one with the Cheydinhal Guard Captain.

 

[Lumpy]

how low are you falling?

At least I'm not the one who likes Baldur's Gate.

At least I'm not the one deluded into thinking Oblivion has any real choices and consequences of any merit

I'm not either.
Oblivion is shit, but shit is still better than diarrhea.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

how low are you falling?

At least I'm not the one who likes Baldur's Gate.

At least I'm not the one deluded into thinking Oblivion has any real choices and consequences of any merit

I'm not either.
Oblivion is shit, but shit is still better than diarrhea.

But you said Oblivion had greater choices and consequences than Baldur's Gate, did you not? And that would imply them having some merit, the amount depending upon who you speak.

 

[Lumpy]

But you said Oblivion had greater choices and consequences than Baldur's Gate, did you not? And that would imply them having some merit, the amount depending upon who you speak.

I didn't really say that, but yes, there are.
You can play one of four archetypes, as long as you impose certain limitations on yourself based on the archetype you've chosen. Is it awesome? No. But it's still better than BG, where you roleplay a generic adventurer who is a member of a party.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I didn't really say that, but yes, there are.
You can play one of four archetypes, as long as you impose certain limitations on yourself based on the archetype you've chosen. Is it awesome? No. But it's still better than BG, where you roleplay a generic adventurer who is a member of a party.

Virtua-LARPing. Game, set, and match, my friend.

 

[Lumpy]

I didn't really say that, but yes, there are.
You can play one of four archetypes, as long as you impose certain limitations on yourself based on the archetype you've chosen. Is it awesome? No. But it's still better than BG, where you roleplay a generic adventurer who is a member of a party.

Virtua-LARPing. Game, set, and match, my friend.

Are you trying hard to confirm my BG fanboy stereotype, retard?
"IS IT AWESOME? NO."
It's still better than the shit that Baldur's Gate offers.
And no, it's not Virtua-LARPing. You just see some threads on the subject, and start spewing shit around about it. Virtua-Larping is pretending you have a wife or you're a guard or shit like that. Things that aren't supported by the game.
Playing an assassin is fully supported by the game. So it's not Larping. Retard.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

It's still better than the shit that Baldur's Gate offers.

And here is my point of contention. You state that Oblivion is better at roleplaying than Baldur's Gate and proceed to blurt out such asinine remarks such as Oblivion having greater amounts of (at least slightly) meaningful choices and consequences. I think you are wrong, dead wrong. Oblivion has absolutely no consequences in it, and all the choices are cosmetic as their are no consequences to give them meaning. Hence, worse roleplaying than Baldur's Gate.

And no, it's not Virtua-LARPing. You just see some threads on the subject, and start spewing shit around about it. Virtua-Larping is pretending you have a wife or you're a guard or shit like that. Things that aren't supported by the game. Playing an assassin is fully supported by the game. So it's not Larping. Retard.

All right, you said sticking to one of the four archetypes and imposing certain restrictions on yourself. First off, by imposing certain restrictions on yourself, you are doing something the game doesn't really accomodate for. You are imagining in your own set of consequences that the game fails to provide. One could say your are technically doing something the game doesn't support. Hence, how I came to my conclusion of Virtua-LARPing. It seems to mesh with your definition well enough...

 

[Lumpy]

It's still better than the shit that Baldur's Gate offers.

And here is my point of contention. You state that Oblivion is better at roleplaying than Baldur's Gate and proceed to blurt out such asinine remarks such as Oblivion having greater amounts of (at least slightly) meaningful choices and consequences. I think you are wrong, dead wrong. Oblivion has absolutely no consequences in it, and all the choices are cosmetic as their are no consequences to give them meaning. Hence, worse roleplaying than Baldur's Gate.

Oh, fuck it. I dislike both games, why do I even bother? You know, just give me some examples of brilliant role-playing from your precious BG1.

And no, it's not Virtua-LARPing. You just see some threads on the subject, and start spewing shit around about it. Virtua-Larping is pretending you have a wife or you're a guard or shit like that. Things that aren't supported by the game. Playing an assassin is fully supported by the game. So it's not Larping. Retard.

All right, you said sticking to one of the four archetypes and imposing certain restrictions on yourself. First off, by imposing certain restrictions on yourself, you are doing something the game doesn't really accomodate for. You are imagining in your own set of consequences that the game fails to provide. One could say your are technically doing something the game doesn't support. Hence, how I came to my conclusion of Virtua-LARPing. It seems to mesh with your definition well enough...

What consequences am I imagining, retard?
Let's say I create an Assassin character. I join the Assassin's guild, because that's what my character would do. And I fulfill contract killings.
Sure, my assassin character could join the Mages Guild. Just like my Lawful Good TNO could choose evil or chaotic responses. They didn't because that's not in-character for them.
It's not an imaginary consequence, and it's better than BG which didn't even have that.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

You know, just give me some examples of brilliant role-playing from your precious BG1.

Well, to surpass Oblivion I really don't have to give much.

-You find a petrified person in the wilderness. You can...
1. Free them and let them go free. You get a reputation point and lose a flesh to stone scroll.
2. Free them and demand compensation and then believe their "offer". You lose a reutation point, a flesh to stone scroll, and gain nothing.
3. Free them, demand compensation, and call bullshit on their offer and attack them. You take a major reputation hit for killing an innocent, lose a flesh to stone scroll, and get some stuff.

-You come upon some tree hugger being bullied by two thugs who think (and are right in thinking so) that the tree has treasure in it. You can...
1. Be a radical environmentalist and take those bastards down. You get a reputation point, and their stuff, but lose out on the tree loot.
2. Take out the tree hugger and split the treasure. You lose a reputation point, and get some treasure.
3. Kill everybody. You get all the stuff, but take a major reputation hit.

In these sample scenarios there are some choices and consequences. Sure, they aren't great like Fallout's, Planescape's or Arcanum's, but they get the job done. And most of all, they exist in Baldur's Gate, something that can't be said of Oblivion.

What consequences am I imagining, retard?

The way I see things is this. Your assassin is perfectly capable of joining every guild under the sun after joining the assassin's guild. But since that isn't 'in character", you don't do it. There is nothing else holding you back. No trade-off of any sorts. Just a mental factor.

It's not an imaginary consequence,

Well...it isn't "real" in terms of game mechanics.

and it's better than BG which didn't even have that.

Just proved you wrong there.

 

[Spazmo]

Actually, the reputation consequences in BG were pointless, especially when taking a reputation hit would earn you money, because at any time, you could just go to a temple and donate enough money to improve your reputation. The worst that could happen was that your reputation would suddenly get low enough to cause the infinite spawning of Flaming Fist mercenaries who would try to kill you, which essentially broke the game. And yeah, okay, that's pretty bad, but still sloppy as hell.

 

[Avin]

On second thought, I'd almost rather you go back to the whole hater thing.

Nah, the pics are funnier

 

[Avin]

In these sample scenarios there are some choices and consequences. Sure, they aren't great like Fallout's, Planescape's or Arcanum's, but they get the job done.

This man speaks the truth. I could kill for a BG + TOSC revamp using Toee's engine.

 

[Volourn]

"which essentially broke the game"

No, it didn't. It's called consequences. You could still play the game; it just mad eit all much harde rto get something done. You kae a chocie, live with it.

I cna't much into the argumnet of Oblivion vs. BG RPing wise since I haven't played Oblivion; but Oblivion is a shitty ES game; it's kinda easy to figur e ut that pretty much any game has better role-playing than it - even the very limited BG in that regard.

Go figure.

 

[aboyd]

You know, just give me some examples of brilliant role-playing from your precious BG1.

I'm not the person you've been arguing with, but in addition to the examples that he provided, I'll chime in with the one I just enjoyed. Prism. He's the artist who steals the gems for his mini-Mount-Rushmore. The quest options had some good gray areas. I remember sitting back and thinking about what a lawful good person would do. Take the gems but have to fight the man to the death over it? Defend Prism, by killing mercenaries who were actually just trying to recover stolen items? There were a couple of other choices, but those two were the ones that stood out to me, and those two were both "good" in a way, but each involved killing someone over a stupid stolen rock.

Anyway, my advice Lumpy would be to not deal in absolutes. You made a blanket statement that is easily disproven. This doesn't help you make your point. If you had just said that you found the choices to be uninteresting, it would be hard to argue, as that would be your personal feeling about the game.

 

[Lumpy]

I never came across these things. Were they in the middle of the OH SO FUN TO EXPLORE wilderness areas?
Not deal in absolutes? We're at the Codex. Dealing in absolutes is what's done here. Or do you find many pro-Oblivion and anti-Fallout views around?

 

[Lumpy]

The way I see things is this. Your assassin is perfectly capable of joining every guild under the sun after joining the assassin's guild. But since that isn't 'in character", you don't do it. There is nothing else holding you back. No trade-off of any sorts. Just a mental factor.

True. And your point is?
There's nothing holding me back from joining the Anarchists in Planescape, even though I have a Lawful Good guy. Is it larping that I don't do it?
No, retard, it's not. Because that's what role-playing is. Inventing a personality for your character, and basing choices on that personality.
If you base all choices merely on the rewards, it becomes a strategy game, not an RPG.
And Baldur's Gate has some strategy elements. Go on and jerk off to it, but stop talking bullshit about its non-existant role-playing qualities.

 

[Spectacle]

I would just like to point out that "roleplaying" and "choices and consequences" are not the same. The persons arguing above give the impression of not being fully aware of this distinction.

 

[Lumpy]

I would just like to point out that "roleplaying" and "choices and consequences" are not the same. The persons arguing above give the impression of not being fully aware of this distinction.

I am aware. Roleplaying is done through choices. Consequences enhance role-playing.

 

[aboyd]

Not deal in absolutes? We're at the Codex. Dealing in absolutes is what's done here. Or do you find many pro-Oblivion and anti-Fallout views around?

Well, by all means, continue making indefensible statements and undermining your own credibility. No skin off my back.

 

[Sarvis]

Well, to surpass Oblivion I really don't have to give much.

-You find a petrified person in the wilderness. You can...
1. Free them and let them go free. You get a reputation point and lose a flesh to stone scroll.
2. Free them and demand compensation and then believe their "offer". You lose a reutation point, a flesh to stone scroll, and gain nothing.
3. Free them, demand compensation, and call bullshit on their offer and attack them. You take a major reputation hit for killing an innocent, lose a flesh to stone scroll, and get some stuff.

Why does your reputation change when there are no witnesses? That's just silly.

-You come upon some tree hugger being bullied by two thugs who think (and are right in thinking so) that the tree has treasure in it. You can...
1. Be a radical environmentalist and take those bastards down. You get a reputation point, and their stuff, but lose out on the tree loot.
2. Take out the tree hugger and split the treasure. You lose a reputation point, and get some treasure.
3. Kill everybody. You get all the stuff, but take a major reputation hit.

Not enough choices. Where's

4) Offer some of your own treasure to satisfy the thugs and save the tree without violence.
5) Watch the ensuing fight and then make a deal with whoever is left.
6) Convince the druid to use his Warp Wood spell to eject the treasure from the tree without harming it, or use your own druid to do so.

But yeah, it's "roleplaying" because you get a couple options... even if you can only "roleplay" the specific characters designers have already laid out paths for.

 

[Stupid Man]

Why does your reputation change when there are no witnesses? That's just silly.

And why "good" actions make you automatically more popular (and bad ones, unpopular)? You should be able to make a morally honest choice and become unpopular because of it or be able to (knowingly or not) commit an apparently popular act with really bad consequences on the long term.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I never came across these things. Were they in the middle of the OH SO FUN TO EXPLORE wilderness areas?

Yeah. Those, the Cloakwood, and the city itself were the main places where there was good content. Too bad most of that stuff was later in the game. And some of the wilderness was pretty dull too, especially the stuff near the bandit camp.

There's nothing holding me back from joining the Anarchists in Planescape, even though I have a Lawful Good guy.

Actually, there's plenty. First off, your alignment may shift, as actions in Torment do cause shifts, and it is far easier to go from Lawful to Chaotic than the other way around. Second, you lose membership in any other faction you might be a part of and all the benefits that came with it. So there are things holding you back, unlike in Oblivion.

I would just like to point out that "roleplaying" and "choices and consequences" are not the same. The persons arguing above give the impression of not being fully aware of this distinction.

I'm just trying to argue that one can't have meaningful role-playing without choices and consequences, unless one considers "make-pretend" meaningful roleplaying.

Why does your reputation change when there are no witnesses? That's just silly.

Reputation was like a smashup of both your reputation, and your virtue. I guess being bad made your Bhaal blood smell or something. I don't know. Pretty lame if you ask me, but I can live with it. It doesn't break the game, at least to me.

Not enough choices. Where's

I totally agree, it isn't enough. Baldur's Gate is by no means a shining beacon of CRPGdom, but it's leagues better than Oblivion and most of the trash out there, which is what I'm trying to argue.

And those were some nifty ideas as well.

 

[Koby]

Why does your reputation change when there are no witnesses? That's just silly.

Because it is a world with teh magic.

Every time you do something (including masterbating) there are at least 10 mages, their apprentices, some psionics, a few half-god beings and an assortment of people with divination capability/magic items that are looking at you every single moment.

And you know what they say, word gets around...

Isn't it grand?

 

[aries202]

You know, just give me some examples of brilliant role-playing from your precious BG1.

I'm not the person you've been arguing with, but in addition to the examples that he provided, I'll chime in with the one I just enjoyed. Prism. He's the artist who steals the gems for his mini-Mount-Rushmore. The quest options had some good gray areas. I remember sitting back and thinking about what a lawful good person would do. Take the gems but have to fight the man to the death over it? Defend Prism, by killing mercenaries who were actually just trying to recover stolen items? There were a couple of other choices, but those two were the ones that stood out to me, and those two were both "good" in a way, but each involved killing someone over a stupid stolen rock.

Anyway, my advice Lumpy would be to not deal in absolutes. You made a blanket statement that is easily disproven. This doesn't help you make your point. If you had just said that you found the choices to be uninteresting, it would be hard to argue, as that would be your personal feeling about the game.

I think some of the quests in BG1 could be solved without resorting to violence, if you had a high enough CHAR or INT (or possibly both : ). The options in the quest with Prism were fine, I think. But maybe they just needed an option where you could convince Prism to give the stolen rocks back : if you had a high enough INT or CHAR
or a combination of these two stats (or abilities : ). Or if you cast a FRIEND spell on him...

edit:
And yes, the choices in BG1 did seem a little to hastily done, and didn't near focus enough on choosing the 'not-to-fight' option. But yes, the choices in BG1 is, in my mind, way better than the choices in Oblivion.