So, Baldurs Gate

[Xor]

You know what, I feel awkward defending a bioware game as it is, and arguing with draq is just going to degenerate into a back-and-forth waste of time. I'm out.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

"Be it know to all of evil intent.." ? This doesnt make sense.

It does in Forgotten Realms where there are spells like Detect Alignment.

So its the norm in AD&D tabletop games ?

"Oh, come all over me!"

"I cant, miss, Im lawful-good"

I mean, characters actually think and talk like that in-game ?

It's just a silly "fantasy" way of referring to assassins, bandits and scoundrels in general, the kind of people that would like to collect bounties on a random kid's head. In a world where Evil and Good are actual things and not just philosophical concepts, no amount of justification will make these guys object to being called "evil".

 

[DraQ]

It's just a silly "fantasy" way of referring to assassins, bandits and scoundrels in general, the kind of people that would like to collect bounties on a random kid's head.

Key word being "silly".

 

[Delterius]

I'm also just trying to formalize what does "changing plot" mean, but I don't think there is a reason to narrow non-linearity of the whole game down to just its main plot.

Putting my argument aside... well, since we are concerning ourselves in what specific way the game differs each player's experience we are one step away from turning this into another genre discussion.

Nonetheless, I agree with the above sentiment. Case in point are the side quests and, most importantly, combat encounters. BG1's freedom of exploration allows the player to tackle on the game's combat from a number of different perspectives, each defined by party composition and the order in which you engage the game's content. One thing is taking Khalid and Jaheira, another entirely is taking Montaron and Xzar. Furthermore, fighting Sirens at certain given levels can lead to radically different experiences and so does encountering Basilisks with or without the knowledge of how to survive their stone gaze.

Lastly, depending on how one approaches Nashkel, be it from the Carnival or from the northern road, one encounters either Minsc or Edwin first. So there's that. The main plot isn't changed, but you do have some occasional freedom to deal with the side adventures -- even in BG1.

Sure, seeing how each piece of content interact with each other as you complete them, or make your choices within them, would be the ideal. But there's value in this basic exploration aspect of an open world game.

But I do think that when we put too much stock on scripted C&C (actual content change) we may end up devaluing the whole exploration aspect that the word 'linearity' implies. Such as how DA:O might be considered a less linear game than BG1 just because it has actual C&C, even though you can pretty much go bonkers when choosing where to go in BG1 versus the grand maximum of 4 places at DA:O's middle act.

 

[DraQ]

Level, party composition and stuff.

Keen observation, but do note that having game play differently depending on the level on which you do different things is pretty much the baseline - *every* game where you can level up and visit stuff in different order will have it, because you'll either have vastly different challenge or (if the game has profuse level scaling) encounter completely different stuff to keep the challenge level independent of level.

Similarly, different party compositions' effect is the baseline for any game using party mechanics.

It's just more practical to distinguish those games going an extra mile to be nonlinear and BG1 just isn't one of them.

one encounters either Minsc or Edwin first.

Seriously now.

 

[Newfag-er]

err, wow

I'll make this quick since I have something important I'm not doing right now

What's with your love for "deconstruction" anyway? Do you like Evangelion too?

If that was directed at me, never watched it. (reason begin too famous) However, when it comes to anime, I do have a higher tolerance

Oblivion was a "different" game then.

Some people liked it vanilla, best gaem evar

Which is why I'd rather use the concept of linearity in regards to quest structure and how it can be spread across a gameworld -- meaning in the sense of an open world -- without necessarily causing the player's experience to change -- which would lead into the next stage, that of a sandbox. After all, a sandbox allows us to play with it, to alter its nature, it is C&C incarnate, be it of a systemic (see CK2; Morrowind) or scripted (AoD) nature. Not every open world is choke full of C&C and not every RPG full of C&C is disposed as a open world. After all, I can be a small developer who wants to make a quasi CYOA with some combat situations, but can't really make a giant 3D world. And etc.

Very true, that and the fact that Baldur gate will need to have even more line of dialog

That begin said, though, I think there is something else to BG2 that makes Biowhore what they are today. It's that instead of trying to make more, they stick with doing it less but give you the illusion of having more that it actually has. In Dragon age, most of the dialog tree have really no effect other then just to let the player to said something different. (less so in bg2, but money on the fact that it's still the case still rests base on the hours I've spend with it)

As for the concept of linearity on it's own, I agree? There are more then one elements that decide, not one specific element (though if a game has both symmetric and scripted C&C, and both of them are relativity huge.... well)

O and btw, if you have the willpower, you can turn off Skyrim quest compass (not that it helps much, since the journal just tells you about it directly)

Personally, my preference of this game isn't really C&C/romance/plot. I just want to murder my enemies in stupidly overpowered ways with a 2nd edition ruleset. (Probably why sometimes I prefer it's "brother" better)

 

[Shadenuat]

No, sorry:

Well, yes, with no sorries. Following a set of cheesy 'dex statements full of "shit" with some minor verisimilitude stuff, and mixing it with AI issues for a game in engine written in fucking notepad, that's going a bit overboard. If the only redeeming feature for you in BG is that it introduced interparty banters and backstabbing then there's nothing to talk about.

 

[Morning Star]

You can always not care for what Gorion tells you to do

Well... yes but... After you're done discovering all the areas, what are you supposed to do? In this sense Skyrim is a more sandboxy game. If you ignore the main quest in BG, after a few hours there's nothing else left do to... turn off the compass in Skyrim and you can walk around to explore the same cave over and over, even if apparently the cave moves around somehow.

I tend to perceive distant objects as blurry - are they?

No, they're not. Perception can be fooled.

 

[Magellan]

Back in the day when I first played Baldur's Gate I thought it was pretty decent, but nothing special. I played it again a month ago, and I'm really enjoying it!

I think that speaks a lot to the times though. Compared to what came before it, it was merely OK/good. Compared to stuff nowadays it's fucking brilliant.

I hope that in 15 years, we're not longing for the days of crap games like Dragon Age.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I think the problem people are having is that certain retards are saying the entire game is linear, which is retarded. And other retards are talking as if the main quest is non-linear - which is almost as retarded.

Yes, the main quests in the Bauldur's Gate series are linear. However, their side quests may mostly be completed in any order and some have multiple entry/exit points. E.g., rescuing Haerdalis in BG2 may be accomplished at virtually any point in the game by receiving a quest from Quaile (spelling?) through Aerie, finding him and freeing him while exploring, or finding the troupe of actors and responding to their request. The quest may also be ended at several points: If you convince them to give you their deed beforehand, you need not rescue them to receive the playhouse as a bard, you may choose to abandoned them or not help in the summoning at all, you may choose not to take their quest or to take it and leave the actor enslaved etc. Similarly, the Ragefast nymph quest in BG1 may or may not be received at any point after the player enters the city either from Ragefast himself or from hearing rumors and investigating on your own (I think there may have been another way, but I don't remember), Again, the quest can have multiple endings and may be given up on should the player choose to do so.

Now, for examples of linear side quests in games, you can look to games like the Witcher, where side quests happen incidentally as the player progresses through each linear stage of gameplay. Also, though most of the quests in Skyrim may be taken at any point, in large part, they have a specific entry point and ending point. You cannot, for example, begin the mages guild quest by wandering into Saarthal (spelling, who cares?) and joining the college afterward or not at all and it always ends with you being declared the archmage.The same is not true of every quest in the game though.

So, again, the main quests in the Bauldur's Gate series are linear. However, the overall structure of the gameplay tends toward the non-linear due to their side quests, which can be discovered, completed or ignored in almost any order the player sees fit. The game as a whole therefore cannot be called completely linear or non-linear. However, again, the main quest of the games should be called linear, with the minor exceptions of mid-game in TOB where you can choose the order of which strongholds to attack and perhaps the beginning portion of BG2 where you choose what missions to undertake to make the 20,000 gold - as the line between side quest and main quest becomes somewhat blurred there.

 

[Silva]

Lambchop pretty much nailed it. I think we can settle the issue now.

 

[Abelian]

The main argument was against BG1, since even BG1's detractors had positive things to say about BG2.

As wiki points out on nonlinear gameplay, "a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode", so on those grounds BG1 cannot be called simply linear. Rather, the first and last chapters are tightly plot-driven and the middle allows for messing with side quests (does that make it quadratic gameplay?).

I think that for BG1, the developers were so preoccupied with developing and testing the Infinity Engine, that it resulted in less attention given to filling out areas with interesting content.

Edit: My bad, didn't mean to lengthen the discussion after silva's posted while I was tying this response.

 

[Storyfag]

Fixed.

To quote a classic :"Damn you're ugly."

Sapkowski is quite known for just taking all sorts of random shit when inventing his fantasy names.

True that.

 

[hoverdog]

In any case Morrowind trumps BG1 in every imaginable area short of gameplay

 

[DraQ]

words

1. I don't think we should conflate BG1 and BG2 because they are vastly different games in terms of overall structure and quality and I don't really have any problems with BG2.

2. For BG1 the tl;dr essentially is "BG1 is just as non-linear as Oblivion" - a shining recommendation if I've ever seen one.

In any case I consider babysitting a bunch of suicidal, lobotomized lemmings good gameplay for a cRPG

If the only redeeming feature for you in BG is that it introduced interparty banters and backstabbing then there's nothing to talk about.

Ok, what else did BG1 get right?
At least your group's internal conflicts were novel and interesting gameplay element - credit where credit is due.

Also, it's intraparty.

No, they're not. Perception can be fooled.

Precisely.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

words

1. I don't think we should conflate BG1 and BG2 because they are vastly different games in terms of overall structure and quality and I don't really have any problems with BG2.

The basic structure of BG1 is the same as BG2 in terms of how you approach quests. It just lacks as many cutscenes, scripted events and intraparty dialog.

2. For BG1 the tl;dr essentially is "BG1 is just as non-linear as Oblivion" - a shining recommendation if I've ever seen one.

Never even mentioned Oblivion. Tl;dr indeed. I am posting in a Draq thread. In a Draq thread, Draq quotes little bits of people's arguments and doesn't bother to read their posts.

 

[hoverdog]

I am very butthurt about people liking what I don't like more than my favourite wikipedia larping simulator

 

[NotAGolfer]

I think the problem people are having is that certain retards are saying the entire game is linear, which is retarded. And other retards are talking as if the main quest is non-linear - which is almost as retarded.

Yes, the main quests in the Bauldur's Gate series are linear. However, their side quests may mostly be completed in any order and some have multiple entry/exit points. E.g., rescuing Haerdalis in BG2 may be accomplished at virtually any point in the game by receiving a quest from Quaile (spelling?) through Aerie, finding him and freeing him while exploring, or finding the troupe of actors and responding to their request. The quest may also be ended at several points: If you convince them to give you their deed beforehand, you need not rescue them to receive the playhouse as a bard, you may choose to abandoned them or not help in the summoning at all, you may choose not to take their quest or to take it and leave the actor enslaved etc. Similarly, the Ragefast nymph quest in BG1 may or may not be received at any point after the player enters the city either from Ragefast himself or from hearing rumors and investigating on your own (I think there may have been another way, but I don't remember), Again, the quest can have multiple endings and may be given up on should the player choose to do so.

Now, for examples of linear side quests in games, you can look to games like the Witcher, where side quests happen incidentally as the player progresses through each linear stage of gameplay. Also, though most of the quests in Skyrim may be taken at any point, in large part, they have a specific entry point and ending point. You cannot, for example, begin the mages guild quest by wandering into Saarthal (spelling, who cares?) and joining the college afterward or not at all and it always ends with you being declared the archmage.The same is not true of every quest in the game though.

So, again, the main quests in the Bauldur's Gate series are linear. However, the overall structure of the gameplay tends toward the non-linear due to their side quests, which can be discovered, completed or ignored in almost any order the player sees fit. The game as a whole therefore cannot be called completely linear or non-linear. However, again, the main quest of the games should be called linear, with the minor exceptions of mid-game in TOB where you can choose the order of which strongholds to attack and perhaps the beginning portion of BG2 where you choose what missions to undertake to make the 20,000 gold - as the line between side quest and main quest becomes somewhat blurred there.

I really admire your patience, guys.
Except for DraQ, he creeps me out.

btw:

 

[Silva]

words

1. I don't think we should conflate BG1 and BG2 because they are vastly different games in terms of overall structure and quality and I don't really have any problems with BG2.

The basic structure of BG1 is the same as BG2 in terms of how you approach quests. It just lacks as many cutscenes, scripted events and intraparty dialog.

Except that differently from BG1, BG2 central quest is non-linear somewhat (with the player having to choose between the undead bitch and the thief faggot), which is one of the main points of DraQ in first place. And the difference between BG1 and BG2 is much bigger than just "more of everything" as your post suggests. From the the actual writing, to the non-generic plot and anthagonists, to the adition of new gameplay features like strongholds, to (infintely better) dialogues, etc. In other words: its a difference of quality, not mere quantity.

(Lambchop I was almost becoming your fan after that cool and totally coherent wall of text, but now you shot yourself in the foot)

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I need no fans.

You're right, though in part. BG2 had more choice, but the choices were made in a linear fashion. The main quest had nodes that always occurred in a certain order. Picking the thieves over the vampires affected things, yes - but ultimately you would still have go to the pirate island and you'd still have to fight the vampires near the end of the game. The only question was whether or not you'd fight the thieves too first. It had branching options, but they still occurred one after another and ended up at the same choke points. (edit: I believe that's also one of the main gripes against the game and Bioware in general...)

Again, I classify BG2's main quest as linear. I also classify BG1's main quest as linear. It is the side quests' capacity to be taken at almost any point - provided certain prerequisites are met, like discovering the area, or being allowed into the city in BG1 - that is what I was referring to as the same as to how you approach the vast majority of quests in the games.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It's never been so clear than with Shepard whose renegade behaviour is Bioware's take on the alpha male: they have a love/hate relationship with what they imagine makes tick the jock that humiliated them all through their high-school years that they still inhabit, despite the millions of dollars on their bank accounts. The Obsidian guys didn't have such a rough time through high school (they all look like hipsters on rampage and I imagine that they were the weird creative mavericks that didn't get girls neither in their teenage years but still, they were not as universally despised than the Bioware guys at the same age) so they did get a life and can write plots and characters that are not completely retarded.

I completely don't understand the high school bullying thing that goes on in 'Kwa. In normal countries high school is when bullying is over and it's one of the best periods in one's life.
By the way, most of bullies that I met were actually nerds. One of them was a type that wouldn't cease bullying even when he'd receive a beating practically every day.

 

[Lhynn]

uh? Baldurs Gate had generic plot? i thought it is the formula thats gotten old, but when it came out it was fresh.

 

[hexer]

I liked the Iron Crisis in BG's plot ( http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_crisis ). I thought it was fresh and more interesting than your usual TSR plot.

 

[Longshanks]

Yeah, it's generic. Orphaned farm boy, chosen one, takes on the big baddie Darth Vader wanna be. Travels with a girl who turns out to be his sister and also has the force "taint of Bhaal" and a Wookie "giant space hamster". Oh and that big baddie? Turns out he's your father sibling too.

If we consider BG as a storyfag game, it sucks terribly. It locks you into its plot, but it's fairly straight lined and really quite thin, especially for such a long game. Compared to Bioware's later games it barely has a story. Nor can we consider BG a viable sand-box type game in the vein of TES, there's just not enough of interest outside of the main quest. What it is, and why I consider it a decent game, is a solid, familiar D&D experience that really doesn't try to do anything out of the box. What it does inside that box is generally well enough realised and served up in generous enough quantity. It's an innocuous game that serves very well as Jimmy's first RPG (well it did - Jimmy probably needs something a little more brain dead these days) without any aspect really standing out as particularly good or bad.

 

[Storyfag]

Herp derp.

I'll have you know that it's a miniature giant space hamster, thankyouverymuch. And nobody forces you to tag its owner along. Neither does anyone force you to keep traveling with your sister. And you managed to pass over the actually interesting parts in your little summary. You know, the mercantile scheme which only gets hijacked by the wannabe God.