Lilura's Blog: An Ongoing Codexian Obsession

[thesecret1]

I'm the most hated RPG commentator on the 'Dex, reddit, GoG, Watch and Beamdog forums. I'm even hated on neverwintervault.org. I've been banned from everywhere but here.

proofs?

 

[Lilura]

proofs?

After that, I insulted the BeamBlog and was banned.

neverwintervault.org got butthurt over the interview I conducted with the Beamdog CEO. They charged me with elitism and some of their butthurt members still send me hatemail on a weekly basis.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You should accuse them of discriminating against a person with disabilities

 

[Lilura]

Here's a solicitation I received on reddit:

I never responded to it.

After a few other controversies, I took over that reddit, brought it to its knees, and was banned.

 

[Storyfag]

I'm the most hated RPG commentator on the 'Dex

N. We're just pointing out that you're too full of yourself. But you are not worthy of our hate.

 

[Roguey]

3. You wrote a retrospective based on a modded version of the game (pointless)

The Codex already has reviews of completely-unmodded IWD2 and ToEE (https://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10 and https://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=76). This was another element to make my articles distinct.

Additionally, I'm not going to suffer through these things without any available convenience tweaks/fixes (of course I'm against fan fiction and subjective balance changes), and I'm going to be transparent about it.

4. You quoted the devs too much. What devs say about their games is irrelevant

Strong disagreement. I believe comparing and contrasting what they say and what they do and drawing attention to their justifications for what they did is important.

 

[Lilura]

Additionally, I'm not going to suffer through these things without any available convenience tweaks/fixes (of course I'm against fan fiction and subjective balance changes), and I'm going to be transparent about it.

That's fine, but a "retrospective" is not a retrospective unless it is based on the authoritative original, bugs and all.

Strong disagreement. I believe comparing and contrasting what they say and what they do and drawing attention to their justifications for what they did is important.

I don't care about a dev's reasons, excuses and justifications. All that matters is the game itself. The 'Dex seems to be more interested in devs than they are about their games. That's decline.

 

[smaug]

But mods and patches should be mentioned if game is broken no?

 

[Efe]

lilura pathfinder retrospective when?

 

[Lilura]

But mods and patches should be mentioned if game is broken no?

I recommend against installing mods in my retrospectives. I always encourage people to play the authoritative original first. It's the only way to get the authentic experience. Moreover, it's only by playing the original first that one can appreciate the efforts of the modders. Or slam them for imbalancing the game. The latter is far more common than the former, and so I devalue mods, as a rule.

I've criticized some of the most highly regarded mods out there, from 1.13 to SCS. This is another reason why I'm hated. Because I write off entire communities in one stroke. Temple+ is the only mod I haven't criticized.

 

[Roguey]

That's fine, but a "retrospective" is not a retrospective unless it is based on the authoritative original, bugs and all.

This is a personal decision.

There are rarely write-ups of games enhanced with mods, and that's something I'm interested in reading about since it's sensible to alter a game to your tastes but without uncritically installing what other people simply tell you to do.

 

[smaug]

But mods and patches should be mentioned if game is broken no?

I recommend against installing mods in my retrospectives. I always encourage people to play the authoritative original first. It's the only way to get the authentic experience. Moreover, it's only by playing the original first that one can appreciate the efforts of the modders. Or slam them for imbalancing the game. The latter is far more common, and so I devalue mods, as a rule.

Aren’t ToEE and VTMB nearly unplayable in there vanilla state like save-corruption and game breaking bugs?

 

[Lilura]

There are rarely write-ups of games enhanced with mods, and that's something I'm interested in reading about since it's sensible to alter a game to your tastes but without uncritically installing what other people simply tell you to do.

Well, I've written more about modding than most. I've posted the best BG, BG2, NWN, NWN2, ToEE, Diablo 2 and DA:O modding write-ups available online, but I don't mix them in with my retrospectives.

Check this write-up out. As you can see, I have my reservations even in regard to the greatest mods out there.

 

[Neanderthal]

A review is different from an enjoyable playthrough and shouldn't inoculate the game with mods that have done the devs jobs for em, on that I totally agree.

 

[smaug]

From a retrospective, yes, however, a personal review, I don’t think it matters.

 

[Lilura]

From a retrospective, yes, however, a personal review, I don’t think it matters.

It matters for both reviews and retrospectives. If it's a personal review or retrospective, don't publish it. Keep it to yourself because no one cares.

 

[smaug]

Retrospectives and reviews are different no?

 

[Roguey]

A review is different from an enjoyable playthrough and shouldn't inoculate the game with mods that have done the devs jobs for em, on that I totally agree.

If someone wants to read about the game as it was originally conceived, they're free to check out the back catalogues of on-release reviews.

 

[Lilura]

A retrospective is "a looking back" at something. You are not looking back at something if you are basing your write-ups on current mods and EEs. Thus, it's not a retrospective.

Thus, the recent PC Gamer "retrospective" on Baldur's Gate is not a retrospective: it's an advertisement for the EEs.

 

[smaug]

I agree.

However, a review is open to anything (mods/EE). That’s what differentiates reviews and retrospectives no?

 

[Neanderthal]

There's too much apologism and excuses for devs as is, shouldn't further shill for em by letting mods cushion them from criticism of what they've done, which is what the customer is paying for.

 

[thesecret1]

proofs?

After that, I insulted the BeamBlog and was banned.

neverwintervault.org got butthurt over the interview I conducted with the Beamdog CEO. They charged me with elitism and some of their butthurt members still send me hatemail on a weekly basis.

this is actually pretty funny Got any more of those?

 

[smaug]

There's too much apologism and excuses for devs as is, shouldn't further shill for em by letting mods cushion them from criticism of what they've done, which is what the customer is paying for.

I’m not shilling for them. But writing off mods/patches/fixes just because the devs should have had them is silly. I can’t stand RTWP, however, someone made a mod for Kingmaker which turned that around. If I tell the creators about it and they ignore, so be it.

 

[Roguey]

A retrospective is "a looking back" at something. You are not looking back at something if you are basing your write-ups on current mods and EEs. Thus, it's not a retrospective.

Thus, the recent PC Gamer "retrospective" on Baldur's Gate is not a retrospective: it's an advertisement for the EEs.

All the mods I used were years-old at the time. I'd rather not get hung up on minutiae like "reviews" and "retrospectives." I wrote a series of assessments about old games.

For the tl;dr crowd, this is what Lilura's mad about:

I used a mod to make inventory management less cumbersome by removing the arbitrary stack limits and bag of holding restrictions. Some purists may be outraged, but I've already played with these annoyances; getting rid of them only improved the experience.

the inventory has another row for items (though I still recommend using a mod to remove stack and container limits)

Part of ToEE's claim to fame is its faithful adaptation of 3.5 edition D&D rules. It makes a few concessions for the sake of gameplay, but not enough. An example of a problem they created for themselves: all potions you find start out as unidentified. There is no knowledge skill that lets you identify them, and you can't taste a drop and recognize a familiar potion like you can in P&P. The only way you can find out what they are is to cast an identify spell or go to a shop keeper to identify them one by one, and both options cost 100 gp each time (individual potions cost significantly less of course). The Circle of Eight mod alleviates the cost by allowing characters to use the read magic spell instead, but it doesn't remove the sheer tedium of having to cast it so many times.

I know Troika did what it could with their budget, but there's a combat track that only plays if you rest and get an encounter while outside or on the top floor of the temple, and a moathouse combat track that doesn't play at all; an utter waste. I understand the later Circle of Eight mods do address this to some extent.

For this playthrough I used the 3.0.4 co8 patch because the later patches add too many subjective non-Troika aspects.*

When I got to the fights that made a certain notorious Codex poster cry like a baby and beat them on my first attempt, I realized that one of the later co8 patches gave those enemies the ability to wake each other up. In my playthrough, sleep was the equivalent of an instant death spell.

 

[Lilura]

Part of ToEE's claim to fame is its faithful adaptation of 3.5 edition D&D rules. It makes a few concessions for the sake of gameplay, but not enough. An example of a problem they created for themselves: all potions you find start out as unidentified. There is no knowledge skill that lets you identify them, and you can't taste a drop and recognize a familiar potion like you can in P&P. The only way you can find out what they are is to cast an identify spell or go to a shop keeper to identify them one by one, and both options cost 100 gp each time (individual potions cost significantly less of course). The Circle of Eight mod alleviates the cost by allowing characters to use the read magic spell instead, but it doesn't remove the sheer tedium of having to cast it so many times.

The bolded part is incorrect: the authoritative version of ToEE (patch 2) allows for the no-charge ID'ing of potions and scrolls through the orison, Read Magic. You can also easily craft a wand for ID'ing purposes.