Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Lacrymas]

Give me an example of meaningful gameplay implication due to reactivity in an RPG. And no, you don't hate me.

 

[Lilura]

Last critic : you missed the opportunity to outline the best interaction in the game, Edwin and Alora.

Lilura Do you want feedback or not ?

I want criticism of factual errors and blatant omissions. You haven't found fault in five write-ups and Edwin/Alora isn't a blatant omission; it's repetitive fluff that amounts to zero.

 

[MajorMace]

This exchange between Edwin and Alora is adorable, 10/10

Give me an example of meaningful gameplay implication due to reactivity in an RPG.

Ever heard of New Vegas ? Or the Fallout franchise for that matter ?

And no, you don't hate me.

Spoiler

I want criticism of factual errors

Then re-read all the elements from my posts that you either eluded or right out ignored.
In short, and to summarize :
- the bandit camp is an exception, which actually ends by a bloodbath anyway.
- Your chapters 2, 4 & 5 could have been tackled in a single one : Companions scripts.
- What you call "gameplay reactivity" is barely reactivity, and isn't related to gameplay. Whether you build this party or another : you end up playing exactly the same way, since the things that could actually impact gameplay through reactivity (quest design, systems...) don't allow it.
Reactivity entails some player's input and/or agenda. In this case, the player's input is putting some people in his party. That's it. And the gameplay consequences are that you need to change your party formation.
The player agenda would be to try and make harpers get along with the zhents. So it's either out of pure curiosity, and will end up in a party reformation, or out of pure ignorance, and will end up in grasping surprise... and party reformation. There's nothing here.
Who - the fuck - cares. You'll still send your fighter onwards while your wizard cast haste and your rogue tries to be relevant. That's how combat works in BG, whatever the companions you bring with you. Whatever their stats or unique items/magic resistance etc.

ps : to make things clear, I do find this bit between alora and edwin immensely more interesting than harper/zhent feud. Because yeah, harpers and zhents don't get along. Who would have thought ?
I prefer the funny tidbits that reveal stuff about characters, like this one, the garrick/eldoth/skie one that you rightfully talked about or the safana/whoever she actually likes one.
The fact you insist on pretending the ones who end in combat have "gameplay consequences" is ridiculous. Maybe... even factually incorrect... :thinking:

 

[Lacrymas]

Ever heard of New Vegas ? Or the Fallout franchise for that matter ?

Yes, but give me specific examples of reactivity that meaningfully affects gameplay.

 

[MajorMace]

You side with a faction, it determines your whole last bunch of objectives, which depend on the faction, and determines who's gonna be your buddy and who's gonna shot you on sight. Briefly.
Your build also determines the way you tackle these tasks, which themselves depend on the path you took.

Specifically, although it's been years since I played it, Mr House requires you to blow up the brotherhood vault, which might alienate the bos companion who has a badass gauntlet.
Or siding with Caesar opens the option to sacrifice Arcade in order to complete a quest.

It's pretty well done, try it out.

Wherever I have Viconia or Brandwen in my party, they'll cast blessing and heal while I play through the game in the exact same fashion I do in every playthrough.

 

[Lilura]

It seems to me that you didn't read the write-ups. It seems to me that you want special attention, you want me to do a write-up on the 'Dex especially for you, because you're too lazy to read what is already written. This is typical of obnoxious shitposters who are lost in the shuffle of public threads. They want everything repeated back to them, in their own dumbed down language.

A criticism of BG's perceived lack of reactivity is not a criticism of my write-ups, which accurately cover BG's reactivity. Saying Fallout reactivity > BG reactivity is not a criticism of my write-ups because my write-up does not set out to be a comparison of BG/Fallout reactivity, let alone declare BG's greater. I have also covered some of Fallout's reactivity, btw. Which is more than I can say for any other commentator.

You are one of the dumbest fucks I've ever seen on the 'Dex.

 

[MajorMace]

It seems to me that you didn't read the write-ups.

Indeed. I read some stupid shit, and I am 100% certain any sort of context wouldn't alleviate their stupidity. Like calling these little gimmicks in BG1 "gameplay reactivity". You still haven't addressed this, and I'm - again - 100% certain it isn't addressed in any of your blog article as well.
Nice try to catch someone's audience though, appreciate the effort. Here's a clap. Clap.

It seems to me that you want special attention

I do

But what does it have to do with your nonsense ?

you want me to do a write-up on the 'Dex especially for you, because you're too lazy to read what is already written.

I really don't, and will never read any of your wankery bullshit ever again.
Don't take it the wrong way, your writing is good smiley-face.

This is typical of obnoxious shitposters who are lost in the shuffle of public threads. They want everything repeated back to them, in their own dumbed down language.

I don't want anything from you, you goddam spastic. Put me on ignore and move on already, if you're that upset and convinced of the absolute pointlessness of this conversation.
How the fuck do you react irl, you follow people around to tell them that they're not worthy of your time ?
Jesus.
Put me on ignore. Now. You goddamn attention whore.

A criticism of BG's perceived lack of reactivity is not a criticism of my write-ups, which accurately cover BG's reactivity. Saying Fallout reactivity > BG reactivity is not a criticism of my write-ups because my write-up does not set out to be a comparison of BG/Fallout reactivity. I have also covered Fallout's reactivity, btw. Which is more than I can say for any other commentator.

I wasn't talking to you, at all, when I mentioned Fallout. I was answering Lacrymas' question.
You're not the sun of the codex cosmos. Not everything revolves around you, even if a discussion was sparkled by your autistic writings.
Put me on ignore.

You are one of the dumbest fucks I've ever seen on the 'Dex.

That one, you got right

Too bad we can't have an actual conversation, because everything's already up there, on your blog of the most dubious quality.
Put me on ignore. Cut the shit and make a coherent move for once.

 

[Lilura]

Stupid guy who thinks Alora/Edwin is the best interaction in Baldur's Gate.

 

[Theldaran]

Well, building a party beforehand when the game was out in 1998 could be next to hard, because there was no Gamebanshee and barely no internet. In fact it was normal people missed a lot of NPCs. To avoid this, you had to talk to everyone with a distinct name, sometimes with an anti-erotic result.

Still, it was obvious to anyone who played D&D and then some, that you shouldn't mix Good with Evil. Even Neutrals are some kind of low-caffeine Goodies.

 

[Lacrymas]

You side with a faction, it determines your whole last bunch of objectives, which depend on the faction, and determines who's gonna be your buddy and who's gonna shot you on sight. Briefly.
Your build also determines the way you tackle these tasks, which themselves depend on the path you took.

Specifically, although it's been years since I played it, Mr House requires you to blow up the brotherhood vault, which might alienate the bos companion who has a badass gauntlet.
Or siding with Caesar opens the option to sacrifice Arcade in order to complete a quest.

These are all narrative reactivity and branching, which BG doesn't have, true, but we aren't talking about that. You are specifically criticizing the game for not changing the gameplay based on reactivity, yet it does, by giving you different Bhaalspawn abilities that are used differently *in gameplay*. Having Edwin instead of Dynaheir also changes how you play the arcane caster in your group, as Edwin is a Conjurer, while Dynaheir is an Invoker, making them have different spells. The most trivial example being Edwin doesn't have access to Identify. Having Shar-Teel in the party, who is the *only one* of the companions who can be dualed to a Thief is another major example.

 

[MajorMace]

What you're talking about doesn't exist imho. Specifically because BG doesn't have an ounce of reactivity, you're making up some nonsensical differenciation between "narrative reactivity" and "gameplay reactivity".
Every fps which features the choice between weilding a shotgun, a sniper or an automatic rifle is supposed to have gameplay reactivity now ?

I mean seriously : reactivity, ok. To what ? To some scripts that set in stone that you either go with Edwin or Minsc/Dynahéir ? To your choice of companions, with the consequence of being able to cast Identify or having to use a scroll ? What ?
It reads like you're saying, basically : BG has "gameplay reactivity" because depending on who you pick up in your party, you have a different party. What ?
Why not take into consideration the proficiencies and items these companions have with them when you pick them up ? Why not also take into consideration the fact that their level depends on the PC's level when they meet ?
Aren't these amazing examples of "gameplay reactivity" as well ? Isn't this an outstanding example of good design, which gives the player a sense of urgency because if he doesn't go straight to the NPCs he wants to play with, they'll have subpar proficiencies distribution ?
Come on.

There's reactivity, or there's none. And reactivity impacts gameplay or it doesn't (and then is just flavour). There's no such thing as "gameplay reactivity", this is just called gameplay.
When there's reactivity, there's reactivitiy to the player agenda : how he built his character, his choices and his approach to the different situations. Setting in stone that the player can either go with Xzar and Montaro or Khalid and Jaheira does constitue a choice, but the consequence doesn't go beyond the fact that you'll - indeed - end up with either Xzar and Montaro, or Khalid and Jaheira. There's nothing else, you'll play through the game the exact same way.
The only choice that matters is your party composition. In other words : there's no place for the player agenda here, besides flavour : harpers or zhents in the party. Meeeh.
How many times have I read that Xan si subpar because he can't access magic missile (and the evocation school altogether). Who cares ? All you need on your wizard is Haste in BG1...

So yeah, there's no point discussing further : I just don't see - at all - what you mean by "gameplay reactivity". I'll just put that in the "good for what it is" category.
The latter being a manoeuver to pull out the word "good" without meaning it, the former allows you to talk about "reactivity" in a game that barely has any.

And again, I can't stress that enough : you get the same type of flavour, lazy ass "reactivity" in modern rpgs, yet people have no trouble seeing through the crap and identifying this absence.
Why keep pretending BG has any meaningful reactivity ? People have played this game, they know it doesn't. It's a linear-structured game, linear quests, linear story, linear experience. Gameplay barely changes from a playthrough to the other. You get to choose the order by which you'll tackle the content, which usually boils down to grinding (unless there are people out there who really liked BG's low level quests and dungeons, why not).

The sequel, for instance, has much more reactivity, if only because of the class-specific stuff, the very - very cool Anomen/Keldorn reactive relationship, etc. This is actual reactivity, you do have an input on that which goes beyond some beforehand planification (or a save/reload process) and it does affect gameplay. Why consider it "narrative reactivity" if it impacts the gameplay much more that this so-called "gameplay reactivity". Which again, sounds like a concept you could apply to literally any video game of any genre, and find tons of examples in tons of games.

Hasn't Hitman an insane amount of "gameplay reactivity" ?

 

[Lacrymas]

The reactivity in this context is the infighting if you choose to mix different aligned parties. Which means that, yes, you change your party composition based on that reactivity. Having a different party changes the gameplay. It really isn't that complicated. No other game can boast such a thing. What, you want the game to switch genres on you if you take the Harpers instead of the Zhents? That's not going to happen, it's still a party-based RPG and it plays like it plays.

 

[MajorMace]

No, I want you to quit praising something as mundane as this like it's some pinnacle of reactivity.
It makes for a cool surprise at first, yes - and as I said I like these little details for the fluff - but it barely counts afterwards unless you actually push for it to happen.
Its actual implications are nonexistant past the first playthrough - besides the fact it generates a virtual framework of party composition : what works and what doesn't.
And what are the implications in your first playthrough ? Reform the party, pick up the eventual dead's gear ? How exciting.
Every npc is easily replaceable by another - which I'm very much fine with - so why pretend it makes a big deal to get Edwin and his extra spells, or Xzar and his... huh... shit stats ?

I don't want the game to switch genres : if the Nashkel quest - and only this quest, mind you, just so you realise how reasonable I am - would have a little bit of variance - and only a little bit of variance, mind you, just so you realise how reasonable I am - depending on who you side with (the fate of Mulahey, for instance), then I'd consider it reactivity to boast about.

BG2 is also a party-based rpg which plays like it plays, yet there's day and night between Anomen-passed-his-test and Anomen-got-kicked-out - resulting in different party situations (Aerie/Keldorn). You have a say in this, your input is entirely relevant to this result. And again, it goes beyond the "choice" of picking him up in your party...
It's not a script which says good dwarf + bad dwarf = no, delivered with a ridiculous piece of dialog that boils down to "you dumb you greedy fuck - you dumb you candid fuck". OK.
You have no say in this, there's no place for the player's input. You merely put these clowns together - and they inevitably proceed to interpret their little play in front of you like a random street theatre group.

I've already said all that in a previous post though, we're going circle.

No other game can boast such a thing.

Nor should they. BG is a very particular game with a million of companions, whose very point is to serve as replacement for the others in case of death and/or *gameplay reactivity*.
These little occurences are purely narrative actually - despite what you keep pretending. The point of zhents & harpers fighting each other is to show that zhents & harpers fight each other. Their gameplay consequences are almost non-existent (besides, party reformation obv).

Having a different party changes the gameplay.

It's just not true, unless you mean different classes in the party.
But that's not what you mean.

PS : maybe I just played this game too many times now and have become hermetic to its charm.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yes, I mean different classes, but not only. Like I said before, Shar-teel is the only one who can be dualed to Thief. Xzar can more easily (than Dynaheir) be dualed to Cleric when given a tome. Edwin is the most powerful mage in the game, including a PC mage. Coran is the most powerful archer. You see, the game makes you react to the reactivity as well, it doesn't matter that Yeslick and Kagain boil down to "you greedy fuck, no u", that's a consequence of the writing. Oh, and when I say BG I mean both 1 and 2, but I have more experience with 1, so that's why I'm giving examples from it. The matter of fact is, the game has actual consequences that can't be forgotten in 2 minutes, you will constantly be reminded these people don't get along, and this will affect your party choices; this is actually a pretty good fundamental for more complicated relationships. Too bad we didn't get these more complicated relationships, only degenerate fish-people and tsundere swamp sorceresses.

What you seem to want is branching and narrative consequences, which is fine, everyone wants that, but BG simply doesn't have this, it has other strengths.

 

[Lilura]

My 97th Baldur's Gate post: Maximum ranged weapon damage.

 

[Fenix]

What BG had it right it's magical equipment that just above mundane, all these +1 weaponry, that crossbow ARmy Scythe lol, that mean that even +1 weapon was good enough to be called like that.
Second part flushet all that down the drain.

 

[MajorMace]

What you seem to want is branching and narrative consequences, which is fine, everyone wants that, but BG simply doesn't have this, it has other strengths.

No. I like when the player has some input in these type of events. It's really all...
Anomen's quest consequences go beyond a simple narrative. It affects the available party composition, it affects his alignment etc.
It's not much, but it's something.

. You see, the game makes you react to the reactivity as well

Video games tend to be interactive, yes...

I'm sorry to point this out, but by your definition, deadfire has amazing companion gameplay and/or narrative (both, really) reactivity.
Unique subclasses, unique items with unique enchancements, relations which depend on the first game's choices (to the point that they can not be there at all, I mean you barely get more impactful than that), companions who depart as a consequence of your choices and take their gear with them in the process, whose skills directly impact the efficiency of your attempts at sneaking, identifying shrines and whatnot. You can recruit a high level sailor because Maia orders him to, or benefit from unique auras of Xoti's lantern which also works as a buckler and enlightens the area. You even get unique options with the sole presence of a specific companion, like being able to manoeuver the cannon in Hasongo even without the necessary skill level. Npcs acknowledge their presence, they react to your actions and can even unlock quest options by their presence.

I can be as petty as you, you know. Here, I portrayed deadfire as a parangon of companion reactivity. Cheers.

ps : If you can shrug it off by "deadfire's writing sucks", allow me to do the same - as I already did - with Baldur's Gate.
Jesus you're so biased.

 

[Theldaran]

Are you a Braindeadfire fan, mate?

 

[MajorMace]

Yes I have posters on my wall.
It's just the only crpg I played this year, I'm sure I could apply the same biased demonstration to pathfinder - whenever I get to play it.
The whole point is to display the difference in treatment games get depending on personal bias and/or nostalgia (or street cred consequences).

ps : A blatant example would be your inquisitory question, for instance. I also talked about Fallout, you ain't interested in knowing what I think of it ?

 

[Fairfax]

My 97th Baldur's Gate post: Maximum ranged weapon damage.

Minor issue with this post:

[1] Actual AD&D 2nd Edition offers 24 first, 28 second, 30 third, 25 forth and 20 fifth circle divine spells.

That's just from the PHB. The Priest's Spell Compendium has around 1300 spells, and these levels have ~140-250 spells each.

 

[Lilura]

Yeah, was referring to core rulebooks but didn't make that clear. Edited line and fixed typo.

 

[Cael]

Yes, I mean different classes, but not only. Like I said before, Shar-teel is the only one who can be dualed to Thief. Xzar can more easily (than Dynaheir) be dualed to Cleric when given a tome. Edwin is the most powerful mage in the game, including a PC mage. Coran is the most powerful archer. You see, the game makes you react to the reactivity as well, it doesn't matter that Yeslick and Kagain boil down to "you greedy fuck, no u", that's a consequence of the writing. Oh, and when I say BG I mean both 1 and 2, but I have more experience with 1, so that's why I'm giving examples from it. The matter of fact is, the game has actual consequences that can't be forgotten in 2 minutes, you will constantly be reminded these people don't get along, and this will affect your party choices; this is actually a pretty good fundamental for more complicated relationships. Too bad we didn't get these more complicated relationships, only degenerate fish-people and tsundere swamp sorceresses.

What you seem to want is branching and narrative consequences, which is fine, everyone wants that, but BG simply doesn't have this, it has other strengths.

Seriously, though, that the original companions were not updated with kits is a missed opportunity in EE. Kivan should really have been made into an Archer, and Minsc into a real Berserker or Barbarian.

 

[Raghar]

Let's say first positive about BG series. Developers played PnP games and wanted to move theirs experience into PC game.
That girl that said you should not hunt more than n animals that wanted to kill you was funny. (They didn't provide you with catch and release option.)
These early encounters were not "save before fight in case of one crit would obliterate whole party" encounters from Kingmaker, and I didn't see situation where environmental effect caused enemies to slow down, and script didn't though about it and fired trap too soon.

Of course there is also negative. Evil playtrough was lackluster. And they forgot that nobody would do life endangering fights as part of party they don't trust. Party might be poorer, party might be called by other people morons, but it would keep itself together solve problems somehow, and go together for some crazy shit again.
There is also the silly idea of not treating normal people as unaligned, typical greedy selfish folk. Evil hero that selflessly become king rule and conquer surrounding countries is completely plausible. It doesn't matter on alignment if ruler is able to make just rich kingdom. Even evil characters hate tax collectors that are stealing government money.

Troika did nicely lawful evil party in ToEE. Priest wanted that sword, so they went for adventure for that sword. CE starting point kinda sucked, it should be that theirs leader heard about that sword and it would be amazing for his own use.

Yes BG 2 should have very nice interaction between LG and LE party members. And party would follow a goal of murdering Irenicus because he's a bastard. Finished in a fight when one member snaps mauls Ireniculs, the second member snaps maul Irenicus from other side, and after obliteration of Irenicus were able to get over grievances caused by theirs different personality/alignment and be able to live with each other.

 

[Cael]

Yes BG 2 should have very nice interaction between LG and LE party members. And party would follow a goal of murdering Irenicus because he's a bastard. Finished in a fight when one member snaps mauls Ireniculs, the second member snaps maul Irenicus from other side, and after obliteration of Irenicus were able to get over grievances caused by theirs different personality/alignment and be able to live with each other.

Ah yes. The bond building face-stomping. It would make the Jews and the Arabs hug each other :D

 

[Lacrymas]

Seriously, though, that the original companions were not updated with kits is a missed opportunity in EE. Kivan should really have been made into an Archer, and Minsc into a real Berserker or Barbarian.

Pretty sure they weren't given permission to change anything, just add stuff and fix bugs (lol).