Need help with a Baldur's Gate fanboy!

[Ulfsark]

Gnidrologist: yes, yes, bash the fellow latvians

And I was mostly complaining about F2, fartface, because that's what Goldleader's jumping about all the time screaming incoherently.

F1 is ok, but too short (same as Torment).

 

[Gnidrologist]

Well, inferior to the original as Fallout 2 may be in terms of well fleshed out setting and coherent story, it is even a better game than Fallout 1 from the role playing aspect.
So, if only complain you have against Fallout and Torment is shortness, which makes BG2 look superiour, then you're a fuckwit really, as I couldn't find any other elements that are done better in BG series than ir Fallouts if my life would depend on that.
Story and setting is boring ass generic fantasy bullshit that only 12 year olds would evaluate as strong, RP possibilities are close to non existant, combat is horrendously tedious (and there are lots of it). Well, okay, playing as a wizard is kinda fun, but that's it.

Anyway, I still insist on sodomy (whyle being forced to stare at BG2 box cover art). It's good for ya.

 

[Elwro]

It's also fun how in BG2 you're told "OMG! We have to rescue Imoen FAST because she might be tentacle raped every hour!" but the game encourages you to spend years on doing sidequests before actually trying to rescue your sister. No notion of consequence at all.
I also dig the abundance of dialogue options leading to the same node.

BG2 is a good game, some parts of it were well-done, like PC's dwellings. It's a big, quite interesting, enjoyable bit of 3rd rate fantasy. There are also rare occasions on which combat with high-level mages / vampires might require you to use your brain. But as a role-playing game Fallout is so much better.

 

[Imbecile]

Without wishing to put you on the spot, what exactly is it that you like so much about BG2?

 

[Romanian_Dude2005]

It's also fun how in BG2 you're told "OMG! We have to rescue Imoen FAST because she might be tentacle raped every hour!" but the game encourages you to spend years on doing sidequests before actually trying to rescue your sister.

and Fallout 2 doesn't? Or am I the only one who was constantly getting PMs from the village elder in my dreams, telling me to hurry up.

 

[Elwro]

I said "Fallout", not "Fallout 2". Besides, Fallout 2 does have a time limit.

R00fles!

 

[LlamaGod]

Thats the main thing that I thought was total dogshit about BG2, was how horrible the dialog was.

The options leading to the same response, no dialog skills or stats to use, etc.

It all ends up as a shitty hack and slash with a boring plot

 

[Lumpy]

His opinions are not surprising.
And Fallout 2 has a time limit? Which is that?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Tell him you are on a mission from GOD and all SINNERS will REPENT, or die in the cleansing FLAMES!

Well to be honest, I think while Fallout did some remarkable things and showed a way into the future by showing that nonlinera game design can actually work, I did not find it a particularly enjoyable or fun game. Very cool, but short and somehow unsatisfying. Much like Daggerfall in that respect. It should have been a model to build on, but that has never really happened.

 

[Elwro]

His opinions are not surprising.
And Fallout 2 has a time limit? Which is that?

FAQ says: "Is there a time limit?
There is a hard coded time limit in the engine for 13 years, but other than that, you don't need to complete the main plot within a certain time period."

You can find the appropriate info screen in the data files.

 

[Drakron]

The options leading to the same response, no dialog skills or stats to use, etc.

AD&D 2nd edition ruleset lacks "skills", you can hardly blame BG2 lacking then when the ruleset did not had then in the first place.

And yes, I know about PS:T but they really raped enough of the ruleset for it to no longer be a AD&D product.

 

[Gnidrologist]

The options leading to the same response, no dialog skills or stats to use, etc.

And yes, I know about PS:T but they really raped enough of the ruleset for it to no longer be a AD&D product.

''Raped''? I would rather call it ''divine intervention''.

 

[LlamaGod]

AD&D 2nd edition ruleset lacks "skills", you can hardly blame BG2 lacking then when the ruleset did not had then in the first place.

That doesn't make it excusable or forgivable.

It still hurts the gameplay.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

AD&D 2nd edition ruleset lacks "skills", you can hardly blame BG2 lacking then when the ruleset did not had then in the first place.

Even the First Edition had rules about how smart each point of INT made a character with references to real world type things. Yet in BG/BG2, an INT 3 Fighter and an INT 18 Mage have the same dialogue, can do the same thinking quests, and so forth. Furthermore, AD&D has always had rules about how CHR affects leadership, yet you can have a party of 5 followers with a Charisma of 3 or 18.

 

[Drakron]

Do I really need to address that?

There were no skills in the 2nd ed ruleset and that was my point, there is no much of a indication on the rulebooks to use stats in dialogue (or I would remenber) since the game is not supposed to be played that way, only 3rd Ed. created mechanics around social interaction.

And dont bring the followers rule because BG joinable NPCs are NOT followers ... they are serve as replacement players since D&D is a party based system, that is beyond the grapsing at straws that LlamaGod is doing to downright lying ... you sould be ashamed.

I am not going to defend BG series since it does not really need it, BG and FO are RPGs but very diferent.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Do I really need to address that?

There were no skills in the 2nd ed ruleset and that was my point, there is no much of a indication on the rulebooks to use stats in dialogue (or I would remenber) since the game is not supposed to be played that way, only 3rd Ed. created mechanics around social interaction.

Saying there weren't skills in no way justifies not having dialogue based around INT. An INT 3 Fighter certainly isn't going to be as eloquent as an INT 18 Wizard, nor will people talk to them the same way or expect the same things from them.

And dont bring the followers rule because BG joinable NPCs are NOT followers ... they are serve as replacement players since D&D is a party based system, that is beyond the grapsing at straws that LlamaGod is doing to downright lying ... you sould be ashamed.

And how many tabletop players let the CHR 3 character be the leader of the party?

 

[bryce777]

A better question is does it even matter in the least whether skills affect dialog options or not?

I don't think that's what makes fallout good in the least.

You could also just as easily have stats do the same job, anyhow.

I think its strength is that the world reacts to your actions (and inactions) very realistically, and the choices you make, but I don't see how dialog skills improve that at all, especially since there is only one actual speech skill.

I do like that the ancillary skills affect your options and dialog, such as doctor or whatever, but the speech skill itself doesn't seem that important to me.

I liked BG II a lot, but it was mostly just the story and the NPC interaction that I liked. When I say story, i suppose what I should say is the background stuff and sidequests. Theya re welldone and really flesh out the main character, the game setting, and the NPCs nicely. Compare that to some other leading brand games and you'll see that the quests are not only boring and stupid, but they exist ina nd of themselves and do nothing to flush out the history of the world or character.

 

[Gnidrologist]

I think its strength is that the world reacts to your actions (and inactions) very realistically, and the choices you make, but I don't see how dialog skills improve that at all, especially since there is only one actual speech skill.

As far as I remember, it was enough to have high INT to get all the dialog choices and high CH to be persuasive. Thus I never developed speech for any of my chars as they were usually extreme theme chars e.g. smooth talking, charming wimp, agile sniper or stupid melee muscleman.

As for dialog skills not being needed. Why is that? It's fun to have different builds of chars that have advantage in one area and disadvantages in other. Are you implying that BG like NPC interaction is actually better? Being able to get all conversaton choices at once and manage to inteligently persuade or trick and NPC, even if your char is an ugly axe wielding barbarian dumbfuck with a damaged brain.

Social skills are as important/unimportant as any other skills, or even more. If dialog skills are needless abundance then what makes diversification of various weapon skills so necessary? Lets have one ''waponz'' skill for all the axes, swords etc.

 

[bryce777]

There's only one skill for dialog in fallout. If there were various skills and if you didn't see the answers beforehand it would make actual gameplay, but as it stands it's just like unveiling easter eggs.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Various dialog skills like in Bloodlines is a nice feature, but not a necessity imo. All it does is give you additional lines for working your way out in conversation. Degree of INT and CH influence virtualy the same.
And what's the good alternative to not being able to see my chars precise response? A smiley face emoticon which indicates what kind of reply I'm giving? Topic based dialog? Especially in Fallout, how does making VD's responses visible is bad? We would be never able to ''chew gum and kick ass'' without written down answers and that would suck.

 

[Drakron]

Vampire:Bloodlines used the V:tM system (I think its a d6 varient) and so those skills are in the ruleset and from some recollections of the V:tM system they have its use outside dialogue.

 

[bryce777]

Various dialog skills like in Bloodlines is a nice feature, but not a necessity imo. All it does is give you additional lines for working your way out in conversation. Degree of INT and CH influence virtualy the same.
And what's the good alternative to not being able to see my chars precise response? A smiley face emoticon which indicates what kind of reply I'm giving? Topic based dialog? Especially in Fallout, how does making VD's responses visible is bad? We would be never able to ''chew gum and kick ass'' without written down answers and that would suck.

Why have a dialog skill at all? It makes no sense and adds nothing.

The only thing it does is fill in the gap so a stupid, churlish character can still talk like shakespeare.

I just don't think it adds anything to the game, and in fact it's kind of stupid. Why? Because you do get better at fighting the more you fight, but why would you get better at talking? I know many disagree, but you talk your entire life through and you are not going to be massively better at it through the 17 conversations you have during a game.

Someone is also not going to be 105 times harder to convince because they have a double plasma rifle and are level 15 than someone who isn't. To me, it should be based on stats with some random factors thrown in. You should never know for sure that you can just don a robe and magically convince everyone you are on their team! Otherwise, you kill suspense and it becomes like a movie, which is a lot of my complaint about some of the solutions in fallout - the dialog is not *gameplay* at all. It is simply having a high enough speech skill and maybe science skill to get the right dialog options.

The problem with BG dialog that people are complaining about really is that it does not affect anything. That is a totally separate issue from having dialogue skills, and as I pointed out a speech skill has no effect on what options someone has, which to me means it is pointless.