What do you think about BG2?

[Qwinn]

Okay, I'm gonna have to assume that you aren't aware that I've spent about as much time fixing and modding PS:T as probably any individual original designer spent in making the game, excepting MCA himself (he is a legendary workhorse).

http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?showforum=551

Again: To act as if I don't appreciate PS:T's virtues is absurd. YES, I think the writing for PS:T is better than that of BG2, or pretty much any other game. It is my -favorite- game. Bloody obviously.

But when I want to prove that something is "shitty", I don't compare it to the absolute best thing evar. That proves that it's second best, and that's about it. Frankly, if you -have- to go to PS:T to find a comparison where BG2 looks lame, I think you're making my argument for me.

And let me bring up what I did in my very first point: As I said, every game that did something "the best", like PS:T's writing, suffered in several other areas. PS:T's writing was phenomenal, but the combat is unimpressive at best (I'm actually often told that combat isn't even meant to be part of the game, that's how broken it is, despite the designers making it -very- clear that yes, it was supposed to matter and be a quality part of the game). BG2 wasn't the -best- at anything (except their implementation of strongholds), but it was second or third best at almost everything.

Qwinn

 

[Liberal]

But when I want to say that something is "shitty", I don't compare it to he absolute best thing evar.

Yes, but YOU think BG is excellent.

I think it's an excellent game.

That's your opinion of BG2.

But the thing is, the characters in -other- games that get praised for great writing and deep characters really aren't any deeper

That's your opinion of other games compared to BG2.

How can it be excellent or second best, if there's no way you can compare it to the actual - best - RPG ever? Just because PST is best doesn't mean it has some kind of divine status. It's just a game. And were BG2 a good game, you could compare it to PST without feeling like taking candy from a baby.

 

[Qwinn]

Oh, ffs. Your reply was totally unresponsive. It doesn't address even one single point I made, and everything you're suggesting is inconsistent in my position, isn't. At this point, if you can't do better than that, I'll just have to assume you're trolling on purpose.

EDIT: By the way, I made an edit to my previous post, adding the last paragraph. See that, in case you missed it, which you can consider my reply to your last post.

Qwinn

 

[Qwinn]

And let me also add - I didn't mean to bash Arcanum. It has some huge things going for it. The character creation and development system is phenomenal. I love the whole idea of schematics and such. The mechanics for distributing character points and all that was really well done (only competition I can think of is Fallout 1/2's SPECIAL system). The setting is detailed and of good quality. I would even say that that aspect of Arcanum may qualify as the "best" I've seen implemented.

But the -roleplay- aspect, the options in dialogue to actually have a different personality, and party NPC interaction, sucked (at least up until around the Wheel Clan, which is as far as I got). Even BG was better than Arcanum in that regard (and I think BG2 was way better in that regard than BG). Hell, even Fallout 3 was arguably better in that regard.

So that's another example where a game got one thing very very very right, like PS:T did with writing, but really suffered in other areas. BG2 was excellent overall because it was at least good in almost all aspects, which made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Qwinn

 

[Liberal]

defensive blablabla

And the last paragraph is stunning to say the least. I fail to see how combat relates to this discussion, considering that I've been exclusively talking about quality of writing and character development all along...

Perhaps you are finally admitting to your percieved lack of taste? It is not the first time you do this, actually. The first time was when you said that no other game had characters deeper than BG2 characters.

 

[Darth Roxor]

the options in dialogue to actually have a different personality, and party NPC interaction, sucked

I must agree with that. I'm currently playing it for the first time, and am about to go out to Qintarra, but I noticed that almost all the dialogues look like this:

1. The reasonable guy option that you must choose in order to go anywhere
2. The rude guy option that makes people attack you in, like, 75% of situations
3. Bye
And sometimes there's 4. persuasion/intelligence when on a quest.

Even BG was better than Arcanum in that regard (and I think BG2 was way better in that regard than BG).

Wouldn't say so. Almost all dialogues in BG2 have options that lead to the same outcomes.

 

[Qwinn]

"The first time was when you said that no other game had characters deeper than BG2 characters."

I assumed that no one here was idiotic enough to think that I, of all people, wouldn't hold PS:T to be an exception, and I actually expected people to address the arguments I made rather than -insisting- on arguing against a straw man I've already refuted 4 goddamn times since you first made it and -still- insist on doing so.

Watching lint accumulate would be more productive than continuing a debate with someone so obviously trolling.

Qwinn

 

[Liberal]

I wash my hands away from this, I can't argue with someone who keeps madly repeating his theses even after he has been shown time and again how baseless and untrue they are.

 

[Qwinn]

Wouldn't say so. Almost all dialogues in BG2 have options that lead to the same outcomes.

Earlier in the thread, I listed a whole ton of consequential dialogue choices. Just as a brief recap, virtually all of the stronghold quests, dialogues in Ust Nastha (sp?), Bodhi/Shadow Thieves, the Sahuagin city, the Hell Trials, the romances, etc. I think there was more of it in BG2, at least, than in most other games. And that's just what I can remember in a minute's thought about a game I haven't played in 3 years.

There's a lot of them. Not all of the different outcomes were actually apparent immediately, btw (such as telling Saemon to smeg off meant you'd miss out on the entire Sahuagin city), which I think is actually a good thing.

EDIT: Btw, I would agree that the original BG was somewhat poor in terms of dialogue choices/consequences. I think one of the reasons BG2 is substantially better than BG1 is because they improved on that specific aspect significantly.

Qwinn

 

[Qwinn]

Incidentally,

I wash my hands away from this, I can't argue with someone who keeps madly repeating his theses even after he has been shown time and again how baseless and untrue they are.

That's pretty freakin' funny coming from someone whose thesis is that the game is absolutely terrible, considering the poll results so far show 58 people considering the game to be above average, and 7 people consider it below average (including, presumably, you).

And the theses I am supposedly repeating madly is one I never made in the first place, lol. Too funny.

Qwinn

 

[Elric]

But when I want to say that something is "shitty", I don't compare it to he absolute best thing evar.

Yes, but YOU think BG is excellent.

I think it's an excellent game.

That's your opinion of BG2.

But the thing is, the characters in -other- games that get praised for great writing and deep characters really aren't any deeper

That's your opinion of other games compared to BG2.

How can it be excellent or second best, if there's no way you can compare it to the actual - best - RPG ever? Just because PST is best doesn't mean it has some kind of divine status. It's just a game. And were BG2 a good game, you could compare it to PST without feeling like taking candy from a baby.

Except he's not asking you to agree that the game is excellent. He's simply saying its unfair to call it poor, and blatantly not true to call it average or below average (for every game better than it, there are loads of games worse than it, so its certainly not average).

Opinions are opinions. You can say that you didn't like the game. But you can't make factual statements about it that are wrong. To say that it was cliche is false. To say that it's average is false. To say that there was no C&C is false. Qwinn has addressed all of these multiple times.

 

[Liberal]

That's pretty freakin' funny coming from someone whose thesis is that the game is absolutely terrible

You just lied. Congratulations. Is there any depth to which your arrogance and ignorance will not drag you?

 

[Qwinn]

Heh! Thank you for quoting that, Elric. I just noticed what little weasely play he was hanging his entire trollbait on.

But the thing is, the characters in -other- games that get praised for great writing and deep characters really aren't any deeper

That's your opinion of other games compared to BG2.

See, here's how he does it. "Liberal" (heh) magically inserts the word "all" before the word "-other-" in my sentence, in order to completely transform my sentence to mean something significantly different than what I said. Did I say -all- other games that are considered deeper aren't? No. I just said that there are other games which people consider deeper that really aren't, and I even proceeded to give an example, Arcanum. But based solely on his insertion of the non-existent word "all" into my sentence, he -insists- no matter how often I state otherwise that I clearly think BG2's writing is better than PS:T's.

But when you deliberately distort what people are saying by magically adding words, you can amuse yourself against straw men all day long.

Qwinn

 

[Liberal]

To say that it was cliche is false. To say that it's average is false. To say that there was no C&C is false. Qwinn has addressed all of these multiple times.

It was cliche and it was average. To say otherwise is wrong.

 

[Elric]

To say that it was cliche is false. To say that it's average is false. To say that there was no C&C is false. Qwinn has addressed all of these multiple times.

It was cliche and it was average. To say otherwise is wrong.

You either are incapable of reading, or don't know the meaning of the word average.

1: equaling an arithmetic mean
2 a: being about midway between extremes <a> b: not out of the ordinary : common <the>

This would mean that an "average" game has a similar number of games better than it to the number worse than it. Given the number of absolute shit games out there, I find it hard to believe you can come up with a similar number of games better than it.

 

[Liberal]

I am getting tired of this. Lets do some dictionary then, for those with certain syndromes.

1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b: mean 1b
2 a: an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean b: a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series <above>
3: a ratio expressing the average performance especially of an athletic team or an athlete computed according to the number of opportunities for successful performance
— on average or on the average : taking the typical example of the group under consideration <prices>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

 

[Liberal]

And since Qwinn finally descended into lies and demagogic rhethoric, I consider my work with him done. And no, I was genuinely interested in this discussion, thus, NOT trolling.

Compared to the level of depth you can find in characters in novels, of course they're not very deep in most cases. But the thing is, the characters in -other- games that get praised for great writing and deep characters really aren't any deeper. Most of the depth you imagine those characters had, you imputed to them in your imagination, cause there really isn't that much detail in -any- game. I'd say a game where characters actually talk to you dozens of times throughout the course are deeper simply for that reason alone. There's actual content for you to base your imagination around.

Anyone in the right mind will understand the meaning of the sentence in this context. PST is just one of the many games which are way above BG and the likes.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

But the -roleplay- aspect, the options in dialogue to actually have a different personality, and party NPC interaction, sucked (at least up until around the Wheel Clan, which is as far as I got). Even BG was better than Arcanum in that regard (and I think BG2 was way better in that regard than BG). Hell, even Fallout 3 was arguably better in that regard.

Complete the game, and then start rattling your bone-box. There's enough characters in Arcanum that have depth, e.g. Virgil has three different personalities, his character development completely depends on your actions. Did you know that? Then there's also Magnus, Torian Kel, Raven, Z'an Al'urin, etc, they also interact with other NPCs and comment on some areas/situations. And if you're a fan of romances, you can do that with Raven.

The writing in Arcanum is pretty solid. At least it doesn't feel infantile and unnecessary long-winded. Really, what else did you expect? Interparty banter? Personally, I find it extremely annoying (LOL STOP LOOKING AT MY ASS YOU SKULL).

In any case, I would refrain from bashing a game I've not played through.

 

[Gragt]

In any case, I would refrain from bashing a game I've not played through.

You're not a true Codexer until you criticize without knowledge of the subject.

 

[Elric]

I am getting tired of this. Lets do some dictionary then, for those with certain syndromes.

1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b: mean 1b
2 a: an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean b: a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series <above>
3: a ratio expressing the average performance especially of an athletic team or an athlete computed according to the number of opportunities for successful performance
— on average or on the average : taking the typical example of the group under consideration <prices>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

Great, you can use a dictionary, but you fail at recognizing parts of speech!

Average is being used as an adjective. Try again.

 

[Liberal]

I am getting tired of this. Lets do some dictionary then, for those with certain syndromes.

1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b: mean 1b
2 a: an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean b: a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series <above>
3: a ratio expressing the average performance especially of an athletic team or an athlete computed according to the number of opportunities for successful performance
— on average or on the average : taking the typical example of the group under consideration <prices>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

Great, you can use a dictionary, but you fail at recognizing parts of speech!

Average is being used as an adjective. Try again.

May I please laugh out loud?

 

[nomask7]

In other words, a hero with secret potential, a special ability that's both a curse and a blessing. He can either use it responsibly or turn to evil. Sounds like something taken straight from a Marvel comic.

Exactly like what you hail as the wonder of creative writing, MotB.

A couple of points: your response is irrelevant, inasmuch as your argument is that the hero in BG2 is not cliched, which is the argument I responded to with the above. You seem to have trouble remembering what you wrote half an hour ago. That may or may not be a sign of actual brain damage. Either way, your response is funny for another reason as well: I've never written, anywhere, that MotB is a wonder of creative writing or anything even close to that.

I've noticed that you're familiar with the word straw man. I've also noticed that you have tremendous trouble avoiding argumentative fallacies in your own scribbling. You might want to work on that.

You appear to be another Codexer who longs for the RPG where the protagonist is a beta male who lives alone with his two cats, gets beaten up by the mailman, and gets wedgies from the arch villain's girlfriend. Talking about assuming uncomfortable roles, is it really necessary that the protagonist be just like you?

Speaking of straw men.... Incidentally, you don't only suck at thinking but writing as well.

He's one of -many- NPC's. Some have depth, others don't, just like real people. Acting as if every single person in the world is a fountain of wisdom and poetic prose is an example even beginning writers are usually smart enough to evade.

Another ridiculous straw man. Not even a caricature with a point, just something completely unrelated. You said Minsc was an innovation in characterisation or as a character. He wasn't.

Said logic being just as applicable to -every- side quest in any game. So, yeah, an RPG sucks unless every single quest is tied directly to the main quest. Why are they wasting their time doing those otherwise? That's what everyone wants, unwavering linearity! Seriously, the "perfect game" you are apparently pining for sounds like the worst piece of shit I've ever heard of.

Strange logic on your part, coupled with yet another ridiculous straw man. There are many RPGs whose heroes aren't in a constant hurry, or where too much loitering actually has some effect on the game world. The motivation to complete optional quests may be to earn needed money or whatever fits the story. Since such RPGs have been made, they must be possible to make, don't you think?

Uh, no, there are distinct individual strongholds with individual quest chains for fighters, paladins, rangers, mages, druids, clerics, thieves, and bards. That's not all the classes there are, of course, some share a stronghold.

Oh okay. You said "for each and every class". I guess I was taking you too literally again, or maybe your memory is worse than mine, as I recalled without checking that some of the classes share a stronghold.

You know what? I'm gonna stop with this one.

Thank God. I only hope you weren't serious when you seemed to qualify that statement.

In case there was any doubt... you gain the ability to transform into the Slayer in Spellhold, which you can get to very early in BG2.

Well, it's some time since I played that piece of crap. Anyway, more proof that the whole "secret powers" shtick as it was glued to BG2 didn't impress me much. I would otherwise have remembered its details much better.

 

[nomask7]

1: equaling an arithmetic mean
2 a: being about midway between extremes <a> b: not out of the ordinary : common <the>

This would mean that an "average" game has a similar number of games better than it to the number worse than it. Given the number of absolute shit games out there, I find it hard to believe you can come up with a similar number of games better than it.

See, that's what happens when a retard tries to understand a dictionary. Here's another definition of 'average' from another dictionary: "neither good nor bad." The dictionary gives a related example phrase: "Her work as an actress has never been better than average."

 

[Liberal]

1: equaling an arithmetic mean
2 a: being about midway between extremes <a> b: not out of the ordinary : common <the>

This would mean that an "average" game has a similar number of games better than it to the number worse than it. Given the number of absolute shit games out there, I find it hard to believe you can come up with a similar number of games better than it.

See, that's what happens when a retard tries to understand a dictionary. Here's another definition of 'average' from another dictionary: "neither good nor bad." The dictionary gives a related example phrase: "Her work as an actress has never been better than average."

That means there's an equal amount of actresses in the world that are better and worse than our heroine. If any of those actresses dies, our heroine instantly stops being average.

 

[Qwinn]

I have to run for several hours, but let me make what few replies I shouldn't be bothering to make to nomask's adhominem rant..

Oh okay. You said "for each and every class". I guess I was taking you too literally again, or maybe your memory is worse than mine, as I recalled without checking that some of the classes share a stronghold.

Okay, you're right. The fact that sorcerers use the mage stronghold, and barbarians and monks use the fighter stronghold, completely unravels my point. That's it as far as redundancy. Oh noes! You got me! Clearly, the fact that there are 11 classes with 8 different strongholds is more compatible with your claim that there are "three or four classes" than with anything I said. Especially when the classes that don't get a stronghold ARE pretty freaking redundant to ones that do.

Sarcasm aside, your statement that I ripped you for had nothing to do with the number of -strongholds-, it was about the number of classes, which you numbered at 3-4. Whether 8 strongholds or 11 classes, that was -wildly- inaccurate, and had nothing to do with being "literal" or a poor memory. Nice try.

I've never written, anywhere, that MotB is a wonder of creative writing or anything even close to that.

The story itself is, of course, either a revenge story or a coming-of-age story, depending on which sort of character you play, with a save-the-princess story thrown in for good measure. The hidden powers function as a flimsy plot device. The whole farce is so far removed from MotB in every way that it's almost tragic to see someone attempt comparisons between the two.

Okay, so you say that the hidden powers function is a "flimsy plot device". And then you say that it is "so far removed" in comparison that it's "tragic". I point out that MotB, which you make out as -unspeakably- superior contains the exact same plot device. And my pointing out this wild inconsistency is a strawman? Hhahahahaah. Okay. That's if you consider the definition of a strawman to be "directly addressing your explicit argument".

More later. But cripes, it's embarassing that you keep coming back for more.

Qwinn