User was nabbed fit
Guest
So I got BG2 + its expansion. Didn't read the whole thread, but I was reminded of the game by it. It better be good! I'll deliver a sitrep soon...
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Baldurs Gate 2: Capstone to the Golden Era of crpg's?
- Thread starter Andhaira
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Wow, that's some golden advice right here, solo the game after just installing it and never having played it before, awesome! What next, aim for a Super Metroid 100% run in 80 minutes on your first time playing the game? Playing through Kaizo World without savestates? Iron-man Wizardry 7? Any other bright ideas?
Ratty
Scholar
What, you mean now? Man, I don't feel like it. Maybe in a couple of days or so, and there's no way I'll be going into detail.Jasede said:
I'll try to explain this one as well, though note that I'm heavily biased against RTwP (NN *does* have deductive skills, imagine that) and am utterly unable to find a single redeeming feature for that asinine combat system. In addition to that, I hate AD&D.
Iron-man Fallout with a diplomat?
Have you even play through that quest? It has two different endings and several different paths. Off the top of my head:NN said:
1. Accept the mayor's offer and wipe out the Blades.
2. Accept the Blades' offer.
If you chose 2, you have the following options:
a. Wipe out the Regulators.
b. Try to recruit mayor Zimmerman to your cause, then wipe out the Regulators when they kill him.
c. Try to recruit mayor Zimmerman to your cause, then flee and go to the Gunrunners. Wipe out the Deathclaws for them.
d. Go to the Gunrunners. Wipe out the Deathclaws for them.
If you chose 2.d. or 2.c.:
i. Decline the Blades' offer to join the assault on Adytum.
ii. Accept the Blades' offer to join the assault on Adytum. Help them wipe out the Regulators.
In addition, if you chose 2.d.:
iii. Try to recruit mayor Zimmerman to your cause. Blades will show up. Help them wipe out the Regulators when they kill him.
Such a simplistic, poorly crafted quest! A true testament to Fallout's inferior design!
Sounds like a bug to me. I always get that option with a diplomat character.
This discussion is rapidly becoming pointless, as you obviously haven't played Fallout for any substantial length of time and therefore have no idea what you are talking about. I could tell you now that Intelligence 3 means your character is unable to speak properly, which in effect means that every single conversation in the game gets drastically changed and many quests become inaccessible or impossible to complete in a normal fashion, or that Luck of 1 results in frequent and hilarious critical failures, so it isn't uncommon for your character to die when his own gun malfunctions and blows up in his hand, but I know you'll just ignore it and keep spouting your uninformed garbage, so what would be the point?
You made a character that is adequate or even better than necessary for a diplomatic game, so I can only surmise that you are lying about not encountering any diplomatic options.
Disconnected
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 609
Heh, I was actually gonna post an entry in the Iron Man thread, showing how that fight doesn't depend on you making the first save or metagaming, but I installed the SCS upgrades, so alas... Tarnesh the Assassin wiped the floor with me, without ever casting that spell.Section8 said:
Anyway, if you ever decide to replay the game unmodded, you'll find a potion that'll even the odds sitting in the Candlekeep inn, and if you go straight to the Friendly Arms, Tarnesh will be your first opportunity to use it. Metagaming & luck aren't required. Exploring the game & using your resources is all you need.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 11,137
So the fact that Fallout doesn't have characters tied to the main plot is good? Anyway it's all a matter of what anybody wants... to me a good story with characters tied to the story is one of the most important things in a game along with the gameplay. FO wasn't about the story , it's good points were the atmosphere of the world and the fact that you could do a lot of stuff with many different ways. They are both great games IMO , what amazes me is that the are people that fanatically bash one or the other, declaring that THEIR game is the Holy Grail of CRPGS or something...
doctor_kaz said:
Same thing really. I grew up playing both console and PC games in the early 80s so I'm not particularly biased towards either. That being said I can totally understand why some PC RPG "purists" put down console games/gamers for being a bit on the shallow side if only because the focus is more on story than gameplay or stats.
And with the 32 bit systems and FF7 in particular, JRPGs became more like interactive movies long on flashy intros and constant cut-scenes and shorter on actual gameplay or at least compelling and challenging gameplay. More like fight the prerequisite random battles to level in between talking to 1-liner NPCs to gather useless-but-necessary-to-trigger-the-next-cut-scene info.
PC RPGs are on the same track in many respects, favoring technology and simplistic gameplay.
Oblivion's popularity is a testament to this but you also have every Bioware after BG2 being guilty of this with NWN being more a showcase for the DM/construction systems, KoTor having a good story/voice acting but ridiculously non-challenging gameplay and a linear structure and well, I guess everything else after this following the same formula.
That leaves me with unfinished NWN, NWN2, KOTOR2, Oblivion, Vampires B:TM (terrific writing but the 1st person "action game" combat sucked as did the mostly empty locales and "decorative" doors) to name a few and replaying PS:T, Arcanum.
And catching up on my console RPGs where I at least know what to expect (and keep my expectations somewhat lower). Actually been having a blast with FFXII - has a more serious tone that previous games and way more mature writing (and excellent voice acting) and on top of that has real icing with difficult combat - haven't had my party go down as much as when I first played Wiz 8.
Raapys
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,989
I don't think we'll see true progress in terms of story/writing until computer technology reaches such a level that graphics come close to perfection. When all games look 'perfect' they'll have to start focusing on other areas to catch the customers' attention. 15~ more years, perhaps?
ViolentOpposition said:
Play as an evil thief-type -- either a multi-class fighter/thief, a kensai dualed to thief at level 9 or 13, or a straight bounty hunter. (But if you're going to go with a bounty hunter, you probably ought to read the thief FAQ available various places . . . it's one of the most powerful classes in the game, but one of the most confusing and it's almost totally undocumented in the manual. Special traps kick ass.)
Why a thief-type? Because it's nice to have a thief, cleric, mage, and tank in your party on your first run through the game, and the three evil NPCs are the best cleric, the best mage-type, and the best fighter in the game by a good margin. This lets you play with only 4 characters, which is a lot more fun than with 6.
Jasede may criticize me, but I honestly suggest playing no-reloads your first time through, or at least trying to minimize your reloads. With this in mind, BG2 is a challenging and tactical game that can be quite a bit of fun. With reloads freely allowed, though, I think the combat is too frequent, too boring, and too easy to be much fun. Your mileage may vary.
User was nabbed fit
Guest
Thanks, I'll try all that.
ghostdog said:
Rock on. You are my new hero, ghostdog.
I like FO, but its narrative is not a compelling reason to play the game. Its *premise* is killer, but it's too open to have any level of drama. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just that the game was designed with the focus on other things.
Xi
Arcane
afewhours said:
This is begging for the question of whether story is even unique or important to the definition of Role-Playing. The founding idea was that stories would be created by decisions that the player makes and the game(or game master) can respond to. It's essentially an on-the-fly story created as you play, not a predefined narrative. This was the original idea. So, when it comes down to superiority, a strong linear narrative appears to have less potential. This makes a stronger case for Fallout then it does for BG.
Still, I think we can all agree that both are attractive and finding a delicate balance between the concepts of non-linear/linear stories would be a great way to harness the original concept for video game media. Creating non-linear(or branching dialog systems) is difficult and can lack the epic story feeling, but according to the founding concept the player was never supposed to experience a predefined narrative, but rather create one based on decision making in terms of character capabilities, affiliations, stats, gear, and present conditions.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the argument has merit and is more then just a matter of taste. I consider Role-playing a game of choices where the player is really just deciding what to do, but has no direct influential control over the course of action until their next turn or choice. This is why character stats, gear, loot, affiliation, and on-the-fly stories are so important. If the player influences the outcome of a choice then the character's abilities lose value, like wise if the player has no control over the direction of the story then the game-play loses value. It's a matter of philosophical role-play principle, and I believe creating a game that captures a branching story system with a highly enhanced player choice system, call it what you will, in terms of the story is highly desirable.
Fallout is given merit because it found a closer balance then most other games. Whether it was as good of an overall game is certainly debatable as our opinions are only a matter of taste in most cases. Still, when defining the definition of cRPG and what it means to create role-play choice for the player, it is important to differentiate between the over-all game and the actual role-playing.
A linear story is merely a part of the game, devoid of role-play choice, while a branching, non-linear story is a direct element of role-play choice and promotes the concept of role-play choice. In my mind, one is clearly better in terms of Role-playing, even if the immersive, book-esq quality of narrative isn't captured. You're playing a tactical game of choice, it's time to understand that.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I think BG2 offered a much better balance of this then we see in modern games. It's not to the level of Fallout, but it's not a half-bad attempt in certain regards.
Andhaira
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,869,069
Ratty you dumb, dumb shit. You keep missing the point. Either you really are that stupid or you are just trolling.
Fact is, you need prior knowledge of the game either through a walkthrough, or having played it before in order to have amodicum of success as a diplomat.
And even then you better watch out for the rats.
Fact is, you need prior knowledge of the game either through a walkthrough, or having played it before in order to have amodicum of success as a diplomat.
And even then you better watch out for the rats.
Xi
Arcane
Andhaira said:
Your argument is dangling from a breaking thread. Seriously, it's possible whether it was for you or not.
MetalCraze
Arcane
Viconia is the least emo from them all. Some relief.
which doesn't make BG2 better because I still can't play neutral character.
which doesn't make BG2 better because I still can't play neutral character.
Naked Ninja
Arbiter
I'm overwhelmed at the number of diplomatic options. You win good sir.
Seriously though, did you think I didn't realise that you can side with Group A and kill Group B or vice-versa?
Wait, what? You know that was my justification to elander for NOT taking luck 1 right? He was asking why I didn't choose a luck of 1. Gun exploding in face and killing me sounds like enough motivation eh? How is that uninformed garbage?
Or : I mostly encountered combat situations because thats the way Fallout was designed? Mostly around combat? Just a thought.
Fallout's narrative and story is so weak EXACTLY because the characters aren't tied strongly to the plot. That is one of the foundations of good storytelling. You weave storylines around characters, not the other way around. Check out any guide to writing good stories for elaboration.
Without engrossing context the choices are meaningless. I'm not interested in a choice simulator, I'm interested in a form of cooperative storytelling. A story that goes "I went there, then I went to the store and stocked up on stimpacks, then I heard that there used to be another vault up north so I went there, when I got there the place was deserted but I had a look around..." is simply not compelling enough. Without great characters to interact with or storyline to get involved in the experience is flat. Maybe it engrossed you, thats great. But BG engrossed me with it's plethora of characters to interact with and encompassing storyline. Yes, it could have been less linear. MoTB was much better in this regard. But Fallout could have done MUCH better on the narrative side.
No, that isn't the founding idea. The decisions would create branch points in the story, yes, but not be the story in entirety. The idea was that the DM would create a narrative path and the decisions of the players would affect it's flow and outcome. Your conclusion that "story is thus not even important" is false.
Have you ever been a DM? There is a lot of predefinion. You simply define "if the player does X, this happens, if the player does Y, that happens". That is simply on the fly swapping of branches. And yes, thanks to the marvelously adaptive human brain you can branch off into paths that the DM hasn't mapped out. It's great. But computers aren't that flexible. Your proposition that we should thus throw away strong narrative to try achieve this flexibility is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" thinking. You lose too much of the experience doing that.
Also, P&P generally has the other main characters in the game played by humans (your friends), so the DM has a cast of characters who will create on the fly interaction without his predefining them. No such option is open in single player crpgs. Doing away with that character interaction significantly weakens the experience however. Thus, precreated narrative and dialogue is important.
Section8
Cipher
We're a long way off it yet, but ideally an RPG should have no predefined story, it should have the dynamics to interact and create compelling narrative situations, and then be able to present them as an effective narrative. Fallout is a step in the right direction. Baldur's Gate isn't.
It would be very difficult to tie most of the settlements and characters in Fallout directly into the Master's plan without sweeping changes to the setting. It also depends on where you draw the line on "irrelevant". For some players, the trivial character Irwin in the Hub may be of major significance as the guy who gave the Vault Dweller the gun that eventually killed the Master. Doc Morbid might be the guy who tended the Vault Dweller's broken leg - without his help, the Vault Dweller would never have defeated the Master.
Although none of these people are tied into the Master's story, they're critical to the Vault Dweller's and Fallout's story is the culmination of the two characters. There are an awful lot of characters in Baldur's Gate that are "relevant" to the Bhaalspawn's tale, but not a whole lot connected directly to Seviroth, or whoever that campy end boss guy was. Just because one game spams lengthy chunks of text and splits the game into chapters doesn't suddenly wave a magic wand of relevance over everyone the player touches.
Xi
Arcane
Naked Ninja said:
Well, you're playing a choice simulator when you role-play. That was my point. I do not believe you can have both a linear narrative, even if it's engrossing and captivating, and also role-play choice within it. That's why I argued that a balance between linear/non-linear, which is often coined branching - as it is a means to recreate that impossible PnP experience, is desirable. I'm not completely throwing out strong narrative, but I am saying that choice is what defines "Role-play" so having meaningful choice in a story, which is not achievable with a fully linear story, is more desirable as it offers more potential for role-play.
Naked Ninja said:
That is not what I implied, I did however imply that story without choice is not meaningful in terms of role-playing. It sounds like you're arguing that a "game" is better with a strong narrative, which I whole heartedly agree, but when we're discussing role-playing on an RPG web-site, I am interested in what promotes the most role-play potential, not what creates the best gaming experience. I believe them to be different interrelated issues.
Naked Ninja said:
You're again taking what I said out of context. I was arguing that a balance is most important because role-playing games need to encompass the all important choice paradigm to actually allow a player to role-play. Following a linear story on rails is not role-playing. It's merely reading/watching an interesting narrative. Do you also believe that you are role-playing when you read a book?
Edit:
In terms of "branching" the idea is to create a powerful narrative which has many different beginnings and many different ends. Shall we give up before we ever try because it's seemingly too difficult and impossible? I believe it's a philosophical adaptation to this medium and it provides more potential than a strong linear narrative. Even if a branching narrative is weaker it can still be good, and it offers more choice which is what this genre is all about.
Your example implies that a developer doesn't create a story but rather the player just does random things that become the story. If we could create a compelling experience with that, it would be very close to PnP, but like you said it lacks other intelligent minds. This is why a powerful narrative that has different branching outcomes is what I believe is desirable. It is also a tie in between the interrelatedness of "a good game" and "good role-playing." It connects the narrative to the role-play choice.
Anyway, hopefully that is making more sense. I'm not sure if I was clear enough before. /shrug You're arguing purely quality while I'm arguing a balance between quality and quantity. Something like that. ;P
Gladi
Educated
Xi said:
I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but... Some of the best examples of role-playing I seen were within context of a strong narrative as it provided players and characters with option to participate in it.
Xi said:
I understand the point you're driving at. If I can be reeeeaaalllyy pretentious, I can link it to Roland Barthes and "The Death of the Author". (w00t! cRPGs informing literary theory etc.) The effect of the player on the gameworld should take precedence over the effect of the gameworld of the player, correct? Obviously, feel free to whack me if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly.
The problem I see here, is that the story is *not* created on-the-fly. Even with the most open gameplay, you're essentialy choosing one of many predefined paths that the developers have already laid down. If none of these paths are engaging, then you fail no matter how well you balance things. Something that looks good on paper can be completely bungled in the execution. It's the main reason I try and keep out of theoretical discussions on ideal RPG definitions and the like. Ideas are nothing. Execution is everything.
Personally, I don't believe large numbers of predefined narratives and strong narratives have to be mutually exclusive. Obviously, time and development constrainsts make achieving *both* goals very difficult. You offer too many choices? You milk your environment down to the point of inanity. You concentrate too much on one narrative? Player feels railroaded and gets pissed off.
Xi said:
My advocacy of RPGs revolves around the combination of the two ideas you present. I love them because they have the capacity of being both a tactical series of choices *and* an immersive narrative. After all, if I wanted *just* a series of tactical choices without care of context, I would play chess. (Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy chess, even though I'm rubbish at it!) The blend of player empowerment and immersion is what makes the genre so unique and powerful.
Edit:
Xi said:
Yep. I'll accept that as an accurate description of my position as well as NN's. Your points are great, and should obviously be taken into account when designing a game, but high concepts alone cannot be used to justify one RPG as being more ideal than another. If I may get nostalgic about my Uni days, part of my dissertation was advocating well executed pulp fiction above (what I considered) weak fiction with literary pretense. Execution is everything, no matter how lucid and reasonable your theory and guidelines.
Xi
Arcane
Gladi said:
Well, a strong narrative is too vague. When we break it down into a linear narrative, that is extremely captivating and compelling, then it doesn't do what you've described beause you're not actually role-playing you're just reading/watching it.(This is why Final Fantasy gets so much flack! I believe Final Fantasy are RPG's though.)
So my point is that role-playing is the choices we make. So having choices in the narrative allows us to role-play. Without a choice, you're not role-playing, or at least not within the context of the story. Certainly an RPG can have certain aspects which are purely role-play and others that are not role-play but are tact on to make the game "better", but I believe that an RPG should try to encompass role-play potential in all of its features. This makes a branching story, or however you want to achieve this effect, desirable in terms of "role-play."
afewhours said:
Something like that, but not exactly.
afewhours said:
Ideas are everything and execution of those ideas are what is lacking. Failing to properly execute an idea doesn't make an idea bad, it makes the execution bad.(Unless a flawless execution of an idea is just bad, but how would we know until we try?
) I was differentiating between creating a "good game" and creating "role-play within a game." Many games sacrifice the role-play choice to subjectively make a game "better." This is what people of the strong linear narrative argument might say for instance. What I'm saying is that Strong narrative has nothing to do with role-play because it lacks choice. This is where the Branching idea comes from, and I'm sure we can think up a better way to do this, which offers a system of predefined paths as you've put it. Still, these are choices that a linear story does not have. That's the difference, and sense I consider role-playing a matter of player choice, one is clearly better than the other to me, in terms of role-playing not in terms of making a great game.To make a good game, or to make a good role-playing game, that's the question.
Naked Ninja
Arbiter
@ afewhours : Well said.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.