Game News Dragon Age 2 Announced

[Der_Unbekannte]

Fomorian, stop argumenting. You lost. Face it.

Now stop with your stupid arguments. Everytime you build one, DA gets better and FO gets worse.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Especially when used as an argument to attack another game?

How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.

Sure looks like the Fallout devs intended for every quest to have multiple solutions to me.

"I'd say the "Radiant AI" system, and the NPC life [best Oblivion features]. It's something no one has ever tried on this scale, and we're just starting to see how powerful it is, and how we can translate those NPC behaviors into meaningful gameplay. " Todd Howard.

Best RPG evar.

 

[chzr]

Well, it certainly is the best feature, or at least the most hilarious, but probably not in the way bethesda wanted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAYY5LHhv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXog7kUa ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfTts4LA ... re=related

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think this is what Formorian is trying to describe by using the phrase "multiple quest solutions." Not that there are simply multiple solutions of completing each quest, but that each solution uses different methods of gameplay.

Everyone can see that, but instead of saying "I prefer multiple solutions that require different gameplay styles" and at the same time admitting that Fallout isn't really a game that can be praised for its stealth path, no matter how much we all love Fallout here, he blindly argues that his definition is the only definition and that all other solutions aren't solutions but endings (wtf?), and that approaching Jain and dropping a bomb in her pocket is a very different experience from approaching Jain and shooting her in the face.

Can you expound on why you believe C&C providing gameplay variation is important? I've been thinking about this for a while, and I thought of two possibilities:


1) It gives more meaning to your character's development of stats, as the most concrete representation of your character and his development is his stats. So in the end C&C makes your character himself more meaningful, and that's what's important in an RPG.

2) It makes the world seem more "realistic," or at least more lively. The intention of an RPG is not for the player to roleplay a character in a world full of paper mache NPCs, but to be a character in a world full of fellow characters.

Because that's the only way to make RPGs replayable. If every playthrough is nearly identical (minus the build, choice of equipment, companions, and optional quests), then the game is stale and replaying it isn't much fun or not fun at all. Like KOTOR where everything is the same, including the biggest missed opportunity - playing Dark Revan on Korriban.

Take Gothic, for example. A simple choice of which camp you want to join adds a lot to the game, even though the rest is as linear as it gets, but this trademark choice in all Gothic games and Risen ensures that if you replay, you'll be playing a slightly different game (since you'd have to make different decisions leading up to the big choice).

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Because that's the only way to make RPGs replayable.

That's not true. A game can be almost identical in every playthru and still be replayable due to fun gameplay. Good recent example for that phenomenon is KotC. On the other hand a game like Alpha Protocol could have *drastic and huge* game altering choices and still have zero replayability because actually playing that game is pure pain.

So while C&C can - possibly - add to the replayability, it is not the prime cause of it.

 

[Silellak]

Because that's the only way to make RPGs replayable.

That's not true. A game can be almost identical in every playthru and still be replayable due to fun gameplay. Good recent example for that phenomenon is KotC. On the other hand a game like Alpha Protocol could have *drastic and huge* game altering choices and still have zero replayability because actually playing that game is pure pain.

Except Alpha Protocol does not have drastic and huge game altering choices. The C&C in AP is no better than DA, if not actually worse.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ VoD:

But it is.

KotC is a party-based, tactical game, much like Silent Storm, ToEE, and Jagged Alliance. Gameplay variations come from using different tactics and variety of combat options. Even the AoD demo is a good example of that, judging by the feedback.

A pure RPG needs choices & consequences, even if the combat engine is as good as that of KotC, because it would have at least as much non-combat content and if it's static, it would bring the overall quality and enjoyment down.

As for AP, I don't think so, but it would be futile to argue whether or not drastic design changes would make the game better or not.

 

[Darth Roxor]

A pure RPG needs choices and consequences?

Sorry, I don't see any of these in my Wizardry 8 and Betrayal At Krondor

Well okay Wiz8 has a substantial amount of it. But it's still substantial.

 

[Volourn]

"A pure RPG needs choices & consequences,"

No. POR2 is a pure RPG and it's C&C is well... L0LZ

TOEE is a pure RPG as well. Not a good but one but eh.. whatevs.

Fo is a pure RPG and is awesome.

The ES series are pure RPGs but are shitty.

Imagine that.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

A pure RPG needs choices & consequences, even if the combat engine is as good as that of KotC, because it would have at least as much non-combat content and if it's static, it would bring the overall quality and enjoyment down.

Well I'm not convinced that a RPG absolutely needs it, it adds to the replayability, I don't dispute that, but good gameplay/character system etc comes first.

As for AP, I don't think so, but it would be futile to argue whether or not drastic design changes would make the game better or not.

You might have a point with a game that has a substantial amount of non-combat gameplay. But Alpha Protocol is 95% combat. Even if the quality of the C&C, which are worse than DA's according to Sillelak, would have been way better, the 95% suckitude still remains. Personally I don't mind the amount or quality of C&C in AP at all, it would be OK if said 95% were better.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ DR:

Wiz 8 is a giant dungeon crawler. You play it for the combat (as much as you can fucking handle and then some), not for quests, dialogues, and multiple ways to do shit, although, like you said, the game does have some choices and consequences to spice up the non-combat gameplay.

As for Betrayal at Krondor, let's see what some loveable fag who thinks that someone cares what he thinks wrote about it:

"The storyline is linear, there are no choices for you to make, but the game offers a very neatly made illusion of freedom, mainly thanks to the free-roaming and exploration – the goal is always the same, but often there are various paths to it. The plot is also a giant political intrigue, with many twists that make it particularly enjoyable. Side quests will often give you a better insight on what is going on in the world, and it's amazing how almost everything is connected to the main plot in some way. It's also a good idea to get a pencil and a sheet of paper while playing, and note everything you find, because there is no journal, and sometimes you might have a lot of things to do and just forget what had to be done somewhere.

Unfortunately though, some chapters are very low on side quests, however I think it's done on purpose to simulate that 'you have a lot of very important things to do and time is running out, no time for pointless running around, lad'."

It's a well written (duh!) game that's often being referred to as an adventure RPG. The strength of the game (and the reason to replay it) is the writing. However, since games featuring writing of this quality and scope are very, very rare and we have no reasons to expect to ever play a similar game again, we can safely ignore it while we're discussing what the must features are.

 

[Silellak]

Even if the quality of the C&C, which are worse than DA's according to Sillelak, would have been way better, the 95% suckitude still remains. Personally I don't mind the amount or quality of C&C in AP at all, it would be OK if said 95% were better.

Let me explain. Or, more accurately, let me copy/paste my post from the AP LP:

Having played through AP twice, I'm trying to figure out where this vaunted "C&C" comes from. It doesn't seem to go any deeper than DA, to be honest.

Here are a few examples from my playthroughs. For reference:

1. Playthrough #1: Stealth build, making friends with as many people as possible, killing as few people as possible. Referred to as Saint Thorson.
2. Playthrough #2: Action build, pissing off as many people as possible and murdering anyone when I have the chance. Referred to as Douche Thorton.

Spoiler

Example 1: Approach to Madison St. James
Saint Thorson made super happy friends with Madison and boned her. Found our who her daddy was. Then she dies because he chose the bombs over her.

Douche Thorton did everything he could to piss her off. Eventually she decides "enough is enough", knocks him out using SUPER PLOT POWER, and escapes his safehouse. Despite this drastically different relationship between Thorton and St. James, Marburg still kidnaps her and uses her for leverage over Thorton during the bomb plot because...uh...lazy writing? I guess?

Example 2: Mudering SIE
Saint Thorson was friendly with SIE. This didn't change much besides making her a possible handler on the last mission.

Douche Thorton murdered her in cold blood after Brayko kidnapped her. This resulted in her...not being a possible handler on the last mission. Oh, and losing access to her items. The story was for the most part completely unaffected by this character's death.

Example 3: Approach to Albratross
Saint Thorton was super bro-y with Albatross and Sis. This resulted in...Albatross being a possible handler for the last mission. And not being a dick while talking to Thorton.

Douche Thorton did everything he could to piss off Albatross. Murder Sis? Fuck yeah. Remove the bug from his servers? Fuck no. Result? Not available as a possible handler for the last mission. That's it. There was even some implication right before the last mission that Albatross might attack the Grey Box just to get to Thorton because he pisses him off that much. However, nothing came of it. A shame, because that actually would've been sort of cool.

Example 4: Mina
Saint Thorton loved Mina, and Mina loved Saint Thorton. They were tight, got their sex on, and saved the world together.

Douche Thorton hated Mina, and Mina hated Douche Thorton. It's hard to blame her, considering her randomly gunned down CIA agents, NSA agents, local cops, civilians - anyone who got in front of his gun. And yet, other than some dialogs at the end, nothing changed, despite the fact she's your handler for a good 75% of the game, if not more. She doesn't even have added snarky VO up until the last couple of dialogs with her, to the point where it really felt forced when she calls you a "monster" at the end of the game, despite helping you on every single mission before this one and never trying to talk sense into you. Lots of missed opportunities here.

Example 5: The End Game
Saint Thorton snuck his way through the adventure, befriending everyone, then ended up taking down Alpha Protocol and riding off into the sunset with Mina, followed by the ridiculously half-assed "radio broadcast" ending that made me long for DA's ending slides.

Douche Thorton murdered the fuck out of everyone, then ended up taking down Alpha Protocol and riding off into the sunset with Heck, followed by the ridiculously half-assed "radio broadcast" ending that made me long for DA's ending slides.

These were some of the most notable things, for me. I could obviously analyze all the tiny differences between the playthroughs, but what it boils down to is this - the largest differences were what Thorton learned about the plot. Saint Thorton never learned about Mina being the reason he had to go rogue, and Douche Thorton never learned that Scarlet was an assassin. Beyond that, some changes in e-mail text, and the availability of certain items in the store and certain allies in missions...nothing really changed.

The best part of the game, I thought, is how characters outside of missions responded to your actions during the missions...but I don't think Obsidian took that far enough. For instance, Saint Thorton started off tranquing his way trough the Saudi Missions, so when he got to Nasri, he hadn't actually killed any of his men - but Nasri still accused him of doing so. A big deal? Not really, but gave me a glimpse behind the thin curtain that is the game's C&C.

Another example? How about the fact that at the end, no one seemed to care Douche Thorton had murdered his way around the world, except in a few pieces of dialog here or there. You'd think Westridge of all people would want a piece of him, but oddly enough only Saint Thorton fought him. This is despite the fact that the mission briefing for the last mission specifically says to watch out for traps set by Westridge and Darcy because they're all pissy about the murder-spree.

Overall, let's look at DA and AP when it comes to the ending and how much it changes based on player action:

AP: Thorton either joins with Halbech or doesn't. Either way, he has to take down AP. After that it's just a matter of whether or not Thorton is working with Halbech, and whether or not Halbech's role in everything was revealed. Really not much variation, and it all comes down to a single choice that you might not even be able to make unless you got buddy-buddy with Leland. The story is in more or less the same shape when it comes time for the hypothetical sequel-that-will-never-be.

DA: By comparison, this game varies a lot toward the end. Two of the most long-loyal companions can abandon you, or die, based on your choices. This isn't including other companions that can leave or even die before you ever get a chance to meet them earlier in the game. Based on other choices, the game ends with either the Warden heroically sacrificing himself, or Loghain redeeming himself by sacrificing himself, or Alistair sacrificing himself, or no one dies because a God-child was born instead. The Kingdom is then ruled by a cocky, heart-over-head young Warden, or an intelligent and perhaps a bit devious Queen, or the Warden himself, depending on other choices. In all these various endings, the story being told is subtantially different. In fact, I would (and have) argued that depending on how you play, the game can very-much play out as a tragic stroy about Loghain's fall and redemption. If you play another way, Loghain is just a whiny little cunt that gets his head cut off by an even-whinier cunt-who-would-be-King. I don't think there's anything nearly as drastic, story-change-wise, in AP.

Obviously I did not hate the game, because I was willing to play it more than once, though the second playthrough was mostly out of curiosity, to see how the game reacts to a vastly different approach. The result? Pretty unimpressive, honestly. I'd consider the overall experience of AP to be about on-par with the average Bioware offerings like ME1 or Jade Empire.

Here's the deal: I am not a C&C whore. C&C is secondary for me; I can enjoy a linear game, as long as the gameplay is still enjoyable. I also don't mind if the C&C that exists is shallow and plot-oriented, as it is in almost every other game. However, when the core gameplay is as frustrating and sub-par as AP's, then I expect the rest to be exceptional to compensate. The game simply promised far more than it was able to deliver. Your "weapon" is supposed to be choice, yet Obsidian gladly makes most of those "choices" for you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't dispute that, but good gameplay/character system etc comes first.

No arguing here.

But Alpha Protocol is 95% combat. Even if the quality of the C&C, which are worse than DA's according to Sillelak, would have been way better, the 95% suckitude still remains. Personally I don't mind the amount or quality of C&C in AP at all, it would be OK if said 95% were better.

The problem is that AP's choices and consequences affect the narrative and the inconsequential between-the-missions chats. Everything else remains the same. The consequences affect only the proverbial shirt color.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Obviously I did not hate the game, because I was willing to play it more than once, though the second playthrough was mostly out of curiosity, to see how the game reacts to a vastly different approach. The result? Pretty unimpressive, honestly. I'd consider the overall experience of AP to be about on-par with the average Bioware offerings like ME1 or Jade Empire.

But I read on the Codex that AP C&C is huge and drastic. But wait... I also read on the Codex that the AP minigames are cool and do fit the setting incredibly well. Who knows, I might have read a load of bullshit.
Seriously, I had the same impression as you. I even wondered about the same things, like why does Shaheed whine that I *sob* killed his brethren? Bro, look at my character sheet, my kill count is still zero.

I don't hate the game though, I have better things to do than to have intense emotions for vidya games. My opinion can be better described with "lingering sense of disappointment mixed with a fear of minigames".

 

[Darth Roxor]

However, since games featuring writing of this quality and scope are very, very rare and we have no reasons to expect to ever play a similar game again, we can safely ignore it while we're discussing what the must features are.

Pfff, filthy copout

Wiz 8 is a giant dungeon crawler. You play it for the combat (as much as you can fucking handle and then some), not for quests, dialogues, and multiple ways to do shit.

Perhaps I do play it for the combat. However, exploration also takes a real damn lot of time in it and is important for me. Going through the locations, investigating every nook and tcranny, searching everywhere and figuring out what could this funny lever out there do.

Krondor is the same. Same can be said for Might and Magics (or at least the ones I played, that is, 3-5). It was also a huge appeal of Morrowind and Baldur's Gate 2 for me, not to mention the whole Gothic series (but that's an A-Rpg, not a 'true' one, I guess). Fuck, I even actually liked Dungeon Siege because it had tons of stuff to go through, some of it even well-hidden. And even once explored, I enjoy going back to various places on subsequent playthroughs, and finding out that I actually missed a secret door somewhere is a great load of fun.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Perhaps I do play it for the combat. However, exploration also takes a real damn lot of time in it and is important for me. Going through the locations, investigating every nook and tcranny, searching everywhere and figuring out what could this funny lever out there do.

Keep in mind that we are discussing why "C&C providing gameplay variation is important" not what the most fun aspect is.

Yes, exploration is an important and fun aspect, but once the game is explored and you know where everything is, replaying this game again won't be nearly as much fun.

Take Risen, for example. Exploring the island for the first time - awesome. Replaying it with a different character and exploring again, this time knowing where everything is, isn't fun period. You're no longer exploring. You go where you know you need to go.

The only thing that makes replaying Risen fun is making different choices. Coincidentally, that's the only part of the game that's actually worth replaying, because the moment your choices come to an end, the game turns into shit.

As for BG2, it was an enjoyable game the first time around, but my two attempts to replay it has failed because the game flow is set in stones and relies on the ZOMG! design too much. This guy will betray me. This guy is a dragon. I will be ambushed here, here, and there. Nope, can't kill this guy yet. Stay away from the circus. You do NOT want to go there. These monsters are actually knights. I will kill them and get into serious troubles that actually aren't serious but let's pretend that they are.

From memory: The first time you leave the city, you run into a wounded guy (or was it a fight?). You take him back to the Harpers secret hideout back in the city, then see the BG1 cameo dude who wants you to infiltrate the Harpers, you agree, go inside, run around pointlessly collecting loot (what else is there to do?), catch a bird, take it to the cameo dude, the bird transforms into a ninja assassin, kills the cameo dude, which completes the quest - - and gives you an insane amount of XP, a +2 item, and spell scrolls. Every fucking time. Your options are to accept the quest and get a shitload of XP, spells, and +2 items for nothing or refuse.

Fuck, I even actually liked Dungeon Siege...

Hey, what's the fuck is it? Guilty Pleasures thread? Cut this shit out.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yes, exploration is an important and fun aspect, but once the game is explored and you know where everything is, replaying this game again won't be nearly as much fun.

Yes and no. Unless you're using a walkthrough each time you're about to leave an area to see whether you haven't missed something (or you're Laser Jesus level of awesome), you're bound to miss something. For instance, I think I played through Gothic 2 like 5 times. But it was only the last time I played when I stood at the harbour of Khorinis, checked those small islands in the distance and thought 'heck, let's swim over there'. IIRC, I found two or three caves filled with stuff that I never found before. It's the same for all the other games with gigantic worlds - Morrowind, Krondor, Wizardry, other Gothics - nearly each playthrough uncovers new stuff to do. Be it small or big quests, dungeons, secrets, whatever.

Take Risen, for example. Exploring the island for the first time - awesome. Replaying it with a different character and exploring again, this time knowing where everything is, isn't fun period. You're no longer exploring. You go where you know you need to go.

Perhaps. But, for example, I think it wasn't before my third playthrough when I managed to find the best weapon in the game - the Titan Wing - which was cleverly buried in one of the major lizardman temples.

The only thing that makes replaying Risen fun is making different choices. Coincidentally, that's the only part of the game that's actually worth replaying, because the moment your choices come to an end, the game turns into shit.

Again, yes and no. 'No' if you loathe the combat. 'Yes' if you love it. Personally, going through the lizardmen hordes in three different ways - pure staff fighter, bowman and mage - was a different experience every time, and every time it was satisfying (but honestly speaking, I probably wouldn't finish the third playthrough with the mage, and I'd stop somewhere around the start or middle of the fourth chapter if I didn't need it for review purposes)

BG2 snip

Well, yeah, but that's mostly due to sloppy design. But even still, I don't think I've managed to get into the planar sphere on my first playthrough.


What I'd generally love to see, though, is more instances of character statistics influencing places you can/can't visit. Like, for example, in SoZ there was the undead-infested tower on the 'high-level' part of Samarach. I couldn't even get into it on my first playthrough because I didn't bother giving anyone any points in Spellcraft 'cause I thought 'why the hell would I need this skill, it's useless anyway, I know all the flashy effects of spells and shit'.

Hey, what's the fuck is it? Guilty Pleasures thread? Cut this shit out.

Well, it's a thread about Dragon Age, after all

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes and no. Unless you're using a walkthrough each time you're about to leave an area to see whether you haven't missed something (or you're Laser Jesus level of awesome), you're bound to miss something. For instance, I think I played through Gothic 2 like 5 times. But it was only the last time I played when I stood at the harbour of Khorinis, checked those small islands in the distance and thought 'heck, let's swim over there'.

I can miss something, but I guess I'm more thorough than you. For example, if I see some islands I would immediately go there and investigate (they must exist for a reason - i.e. developers wasted their time placing them there for a reason - surely there is something worth my time there) or make a note to return later if I'm in the middle of something or already overloaded with loot.

Perhaps. But, for example, I think it wasn't before my third playthrough when I managed to find the best weapon in the game - the Titan Wing - which was cleverly buried in one of the major lizardman temples.

Got it on my first playthrough. It was cleverly buried though. It was a pleasant surprise, but at that point the balance was lost and the sword was kind of pointless.

Again, yes and no. 'No' if you loathe the combat.

If you can't stand the combat, I doubt you'd be able to finish the game.

Well, yeah, but that's mostly due to sloppy design. But even still, I don't think I've managed to get into the planar sphere on my first playthrough.

Why not? I think that when it appears you get a quest to find Valigar (?) and you're told that he's connected to the sphere. So, basically, if you want to get inside, you go look for Valigar who isn't hard to find. If you kill him, his body becomes an inventory item, indicating that it's useful for something, and then you can use it to enter the sphere.

What I'd generally love to see, though, is more instances of character statistics influencing places you can/can't visit. Like, for example, in SoZ there was the undead-infested tower on the 'high-level' part of Samarach. I couldn't even get into it on my first playthrough because I didn't bother giving anyone any points in Spellcraft 'cause I thought 'why the hell would I need this skill, it's useless anyway, I know all the flashy effects of spells and shit'.

Yep, that was cool, and it would be very nice to see this design in other games.

 

[Mangoose]

@ VoD:

But it is.

KotC is a party-based, tactical game, much like Silent Storm, ToEE, and Jagged Alliance. Gameplay variations come from using different tactics and variety of combat options. Even the AoD demo is a good example of that, judging by the feedback.

A pure RPG needs choices & consequences, even if the combat engine is as good as that of KotC, because it would have at least as much non-combat content and if it's static, it would bring the overall quality and enjoyment down.

As for AP, I don't think so, but it would be futile to argue whether or not drastic design changes would make the game better or not.

VD, I guess the necessary question is: What is your definition of a pure RPG?

Don't worry, I'm way too lazy to argue the topic. It just would help me understand your ideas better.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A "pure" or "classic" or "really fucking good" RPG is a game that lets you make decisions fitting your character based on your character's skills and abilities.

For more info:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/in ... 186.0.html
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/in ... 198.0.html

 

[GarfunkeL]

Yup, Codex has for sure declined horribly. No good discussion happening, ever.

darkpatriot,

while you are true about the law of diminishing returns, that is exactly why I wrote about dividing devs into teams to work on different segments. Just like in big kitchens they have few chefs working on entree's, few working on desserts and few more working on the main courses, game companies could divide their devs. They already do that, to an extent - from all the interviews we always get the glimpse of "I wrote this character and I wrote that location". Now just increase the amount of teams, instead of increasing the size of the teams - vóila, you have more of the good stuff without everyone getting tangled up with everyone else.

And I never claimed that every decision, act, plot piece or character should interact with everything else in the game, just that there should be and could be MORE interaction that what there is currently. And that Bioware didn't actually improve with DA:O over their older games. Or if they did, the improvement was so small as not to cause occasion for champaign.

 

[Jaesun]

"A Plague! On both your Houses. They have made worm's meat of me! A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!!"

Why hasn't this story been made into a RPG? Apparently The Ancient Evil™ is easier to write.

Drunk post... sorry. Carry on.

 

[Volourn]

"A "pure" or "classic" or "really fucking good" RPG is a game that lets you make decisions fitting your character based on your character's skills and abilities."

NO. First off, those aren't neccessarily the same thing.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I can miss something, but I guess I'm more thorough than you. For example, if I see some islands I would immediately go there and investigate

I also have this, but I got it 'recently', so to speak that playthrough of G2 was after a longer pause from the game, and I remember each time before when I was looking at them I thought 'maybe I should hike there...? Ah, nah, they're probably just art-deco or something'. Nowadays I usually go through everything I see, but it was not always the case.

If you can't stand the combat, I doubt you'd be able to finish the game.

Yes, and that's why, for me, the last two chapters didn't necessarily 'turn to shit'. I was disappointed by the lack of many new quests in said chapters, but I loved the dungeon crawling and raping the lizardmen, mainly because I liked the combat so much, and I understand that this is the "storyfags' " main gripe with Risen, as even if they don't mind/like the combat, there's not enough narrative in the second half of the game.

Why not? I think that when it appears you get a quest to find Valigar (?) and you're told that he's connected to the sphere. So, basically, if you want to get inside, you go look for Valigar who isn't hard to find. If you kill him, his body becomes an inventory item, indicating that it's useful for something, and then you can use it to enter the sphere.

I admit that it was mainly due to my 'incompetence'. That is, the first time I played bg2 was fairly long ago and I was young and foolish then. I knew Valygar is the key to accessing the sphere, but I remember finding him, taking him into the party, checking his character sheet and thinking 'Eewww, this guy sucks, give me my Korgan back'

 

[Fomorian]

That every quest in Fallout was intended to have multiple solutions with the three primary supported paths being speech, stealth, or combat. Not a hard sentence to follow.

Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Especially when used as an argument to attack another game?

How do you know it was "not the case" that every quest was intended to have multiple solutions?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.

Sure looks like the Fallout devs intended for every quest to have multiple solutions to me.

"I'd say the "Radiant AI" system, and the NPC life [best Oblivion features]. It's something no one has ever tried on this scale, and we're just starting to see how powerful it is, and how we can translate those NPC behaviors into meaningful gameplay. " Todd Howard.

Best RPG evar.

Yeah because I totally claimed that the intentions of Fallout's designers are what it made a great game or a great RPG. Oh wait I never did. I claimed Fallout was a glowing example of multiple quest solutions and that every quest in Fallout was intended to be completed in multiple ways.

Nice job at throwing up the strawmen though. Lesser man would've quite ages ago.