What do you think about BG2?

[Qwinn]

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.

No one's being that literal, wiseass. We're simply pointing out that you're not exactly making your case that it's average by pointing out ONE other game that is better in ONE single aspect. This really shouldn't be that hard.

Qwinn

 

[nomask7]

Qwinn, seriously, learn to read and write before you attempt to argue with someone like me. Begone now, freak.

 

[Liberal]

No one's being that literal, wiseass.

Exept a certain DragQueen and his/her lover.

We're simply pointing out that you're not exactly making your case that it's average by pointing out ONE other game that is better in ONE single aspect.

And that ONE aspect just HAPPENS to be the SOLE aspect that DEFINES the ROLEPLAYING quality of an RPG. See, I even capped and coloured the keywords so that even an infantile like you would understand.

Because without it RPG merely degenerates into an action/adventure mutant, just like all Bioware and (modern) Bethesda games.

 

[Volourn]

Liberal is liberally showing off his retardness.

 

[zerotol]

the result of this voting is void : 2 % of the votes are missing. Recount please!

 

[Longshanks]

BG2 wasn't the -best- at anything (except their implementation of strongholds), but it was second or third best at almost everything.

2nd or 3rd best at almost everything?

Writing: no.
combat: no.
story: no.
choice and consequence: no.
exploration: no.
graphics: no.
dialogue: no.
roleplaying: no.


Some of these I may consider good or above average, but not 2nd or 3rd best. Graphics comes closest, combat is not entirely ridiculous but it would need a huge dose of personal preference, the rest are nothing like 2nd or 3rd best.

 

[Hamster]

2nd or 3rd best at almost everything?
combat: no.

So, name 3 rpg's with better real time combat.

 

[Volourn]

"Writing: no.
combat: no.
story: no.
choice and consequence: no.
exploration: no.
graphics: no.
dialogue: no.
roleplaying: no. "

Your opinion is SOZZY.

 

[KurtH]

BG2 wasn't the -best- at anything (except their implementation of strongholds), but it was second or third best at almost everything.

2nd or 3rd best at almost everything?

Writing: no.
combat: no.
story: no.
choice and consequence: no.
exploration: no.
graphics: no.
dialogue: no.
roleplaying: no.


Some of these I may consider good or above average, but not 2nd or 3rd best. Graphics comes closest, combat is not entirely ridiculous but it would need a huge dose of personal preference, the rest are nothing like 2nd or 3rd best.

well the pathfinding was p. good so i guess theres that rite

 

[qliveur]

Pretty good.

I enjoyed BG2 for what it was: a frivolous D&D romp with fun combat (IMO, I realize that people either love it or hate it) and voice acting that ranged from decent to terrific. In spite of it's numerous flaws, I found quite entertaining on the whole and I still replay it from time to time.

It is easily Bioware's greatest game, though that's not really saying very much.

 

[Longshanks]

2nd or 3rd best at almost everything?
combat: no.

So, name 3 rpg's with better real time combat.

Why the qualifier?

And -

combat is not entirely ridiculous but it would need a huge dose of personal preference

... to be considered 2nd or 3rd best ever.

Your opinion is SOZZY.

Thanks. Anyway Volourn, you seem like a level headed fan of the game, which of those aspects would you consider as second or third best ever in BG2?

I'm not saying this is a fair way to analyse the game. Just following on from someone elses post.

 

[Jaesun]

Pretty good.

I enjoyed BG2 for what it was: a frivolous D&D romp with fun combat (IMO, I realize that people either love it or hate it) and voice acting that ranged from decent to terrific. In spite of it's numerous flaws, I found quite entertaining on the whole and I still replay it from time to time.

It is easily Bioware's greatest game, though that's not really saying very much.

 

[zerotol]

It is easily Bioware's greatest game, though that's not really saying very much.

And yet almost every game released after it was utterly shit, except a few.

 

[deranged]

The only problem with BG2 is that it contains too much combat - filler and random monsters obviously out of place in most dungeons. The random spawning Golems are also a pain in the ass, especially in the Planar Sphere, that was a horrible experience.

Apart from that the game is THE classic, where standard D&D fantasy is concerned. It is huge, it has character, and quality writing (see my post: http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=629535&highlight=#629535). If anyone wants to argue with me on this please do so on a quote-by quote basis. Saying that
'the dialogue sucks' is talking out of your ass. The ONLY games that ever did it better were Planescape, Fallouts (maybe) and Arcanum.

Sure it didn't have any significant C&C but so what? It was never meant to be the groundbreaking RPG experience but rather the realization of a fulfilling and epic (in the classic sense) D&D experience.

The only RPGs that i really enjoyed since then were MOTB and The Witcher (and they both had major flaws gameplay - wise).

The fact that 10 years after its release we are still arguing about it means a lot...

 

[janjetina]

The only problem with BG2 is that it contains too much combat - filler and random monsters obviously out of place in most dungeons. The random spawning Golems are also a pain in the ass, especially in the Planar Sphere, that was a horrible experience.

Only in one area in Planar Sphere there were spawning Golems (they weren't random, but scripted, however).

Saying that 'the dialogue sucks' is talking out of your ass. The ONLY games that ever did it better were Planescape, Fallouts (maybe) and Arcanum.

And Vampire: Bloodlines. And KOTOR 2. And MOTB. And Fallout 2.

 

[nomask7]

Saying that 'the dialogue sucks' is talking out of your ass. The ONLY games that ever did it better were Planescape, Fallouts (maybe) and Arcanum.

And Vampire: Bloodlines. And KOTOR 2. And MOTB. And Fallout 2.

And Ultima VII, M&M6, and an awful lot of other old games where the other half of dialog consisted of key words and the whole system was basically just a way to give information about the game world or the story.

I'm pretty sure that people who think BG2 was a good game played it in their teens when their shit-detectors weren't yet developed and functional, and are now uncritically recalling their nostalgic experience, or are still in their teens, or are not very bright.

 

[deranged]

I disagree...

Neither Vampire: Bloodlines nor KOTOR 2 nor MOTB had better written dialogue than BG2. Maybe the theme was more suited to some of you, but that doesn't mean it was better written. MOTB in particular had its moments of brilliance but also low-points. Maybe you are confusing the writing with C&C?

And the Ultimas, M&M? Please...

As for the random spawning golems, I can remember entering and exiting an area only to find those buggers in front of me again. And not only in the Planar Sphere, but also in the dungeon in Windspear Hills and in the final areas in the elven city.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I disagree...

Neither Vampire: Bloodlines nor KOTOR 2 nor MOTB had better written dialogue than BG2. Maybe the theme was more suited to some of you, but that doesn't mean it was better written. MOTB in particular had its moments of brilliance but also low-points. Maybe you are confusing the writing with C&C?

And the Ultimas, M&M? Please...

As for the random spawning golems, I can remember entering and exiting an area only to find those buggers in front of me again. And not only in the Planar Sphere, but also in the dungeon in Windspear Hills and in the final areas in the elven city.

*head asplode*

The truth:

I'm pretty sure that people who think BG2 was a good game played it in their teens when their shit-detectors weren't yet developed and functional, and are now uncritically recalling their nostalgic experience, or are still in their teens, or are not very bright.

 

[deranged]

I disagree...

Neither Vampire: Bloodlines nor KOTOR 2 nor MOTB had better written dialogue than BG2. Maybe the theme was more suited to some of you, but that doesn't mean it was better written. MOTB in particular had its moments of brilliance but also low-points. Maybe you are confusing the writing with C&C?

And the Ultimas, M&M? Please...

As for the random spawning golems, I can remember entering and exiting an area only to find those buggers in front of me again. And not only in the Planar Sphere, but also in the dungeon in Windspear Hills and in the final areas in the elven city.

*head asplode*

The truth:

I'm pretty sure that people who think BG2 was a good game played it in their teens when their shit-detectors weren't yet developed and functional, and are now uncritically recalling their nostalgic experience, or are still in their teens, or are not very bright.

I've already quoted (see previous posts) some text from BG2. If you are not prepared to do an actual comparison on a quote-by-quote basis then I think I am entitled to disregard your attitude of 'hey BG2 was sweet and nice but now that I am mature enough it's kind of dumb' as pure dumbfuckery of the highest order.

So quote or fuck off.

 

[Qwinn]

I'm pretty sure that people who think BG2 was a good game played it in their teens when their shit-detectors weren't yet developed and functional, and are now uncritically recalling their nostalgic experience, or are still in their teens, or are not very bright.

Or aren't quite bright enough to realize that what they think is "cliche" now wasn't cliche when it was first done 8 years ago, and in fact BG2 was groundbreaking in several ways that lots of games that followed it directly ripped off (but usually never did as well).

That, and:

MotB is average. Its combat is pretty bad, for example. The good games simply haven't been made yet. That doesn't mean I can't imagine them.

Which was the true original response to the point that the meaning of the word "average" was being completely and thoroughly abused and trampled. Those hundred or so better games that would be needed to make BG2 come out as "average" are a part of their fevered imaginations. It's been pretty amusing to watch them realize how utterly hilarious and pathetic that response was, and now dig around for a retroactive rationalization like scanning multiple dictionaries to find definitions for average that -still- don't mean what they claim it means, but they imagine it's easier to pretend that they do.

Qwinn

 

[Qwinn]

Drog:

Complete the game, and then start rattling your bone-box.

Fair enough. I will refrain from doing so in the future. However, allow me to point out a few things here in my defense:

1) I made it to level 34 this playthrough, and at least 30 the first time I tried it. (First game I'm pretty sure I stopped after spending some time in Qintarra). My playing style is to always complete every side quest possible before progressing in the main quest. Which means that other than the main quest, there ain't that much left. Looking at a few different walkthroughs, I'd say I've made it through at least two thirds of the content of the game. And in -that- portion of it... no, I didn't see any great roleplay. Lots of other aspects were good to great, but dialogue and roleplay weren't one of 'em. -Story- isn't bad, I've been told there's some good twists in it that improve it, and I'm more than willing to give benefit of the doubt on that one based on what people have said, but I think at level 34 it's too late to start feeling like I can give my character much of a personality, thus salvaging the roleplay aspect.

I'd also like to point out that I said a lot of -good- things about Arcanum without finishing the game too. For all I know, the character development options get weaker in the endgame. That didn't stop me from giving it kudos for what I've experienced in my first 34 levels either. I was hardly inconsistent or looking to bash it. I gave both the good and bad out of my experience with the first 2/3 of the game. I think that's fair, and I think two different playthroughs where I got to 30+ levels is enough to have an opinion.

2) 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.

I knew about all that from the walkthroughs, yes. Magnus so far has had a little input, yes, and no one's contesting that Virgil seems to have decent content, but I -did- say that "other than 3 or 4 they have no content". Your response has been "Well, did you know about the three or four?" Um, yes. You're adding an "etc." in that paragraph that isn't warranted, you basically scraped the barrel in what you listed there. Again, 3 or 4 remotely fleshed out characters out of 28 isn't exactly "zomg awesome roleplay". I will finish the game someday, and judge for myself, but I think it's very fair to say that every single NPC in BG2 got -far- more fleshed out than pretty much everyone in Arcanum except Virgil, and I'm guessing it's roughly equal with him.

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?

Um. Yes. I enjoy it. It gives characters a kind of depth (you know, like being aware of the world around them, rather than just being pack mules and/or combat drones) that is very hard to pull off any other way. Lots of other people appreciate it too.

Personally, I find it extremely annoying (LOL STOP LOOKING AT MY ASS YOU SKULL).

That's not what I'm referring to as interparty banter. That's just little sound files that play every so often. What I'm referring to as interparty banters in PS:T usually involved around 5 or 6 lines of dialogue going back and forth between two and sometimes three party members. In BG2, there were more of them and more detailed even than PS:T. And in fact, the banters in PS:T weren't any "deeper" than those in BG2... the interparty banters in PS:T were pretty much strictly humorous. PS:T's depth was found elsewhere. As far as interparty banters goes, I think PS:T and BG2 were roughly equal, and PS:T stays even only because of the wonderful voice acting (as -all- of PS:T's banters were 100% voiced, I think BG2's were only partially so).

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

I analyzed, and gave both the good and bad, I didn't "bash". And I think my analysis was fair. The dialogue in Arcanum wasn't -awful-. But it wasn't as good as BG2's. Which you may think is some huge insult, but I don't. It's only an insult if you buy the whining and bitching about how godawful BG2 was by people who clearly are talking trash out their ass because they seem to have some bizarre emotional investment in the ludicrous idea that your first dialogue with Minsc in Irenicus's dungeon is representative of every dialogue in the game.

Qwinn

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

Lots of other aspects were good to great, but dialogue and roleplay weren't one of 'em. -Story- isn't bad, I've been told there's some good twists in it that improve it, and I'm more than willing to give benefit of the doubt on that one based on what people have said, but I think at level 34 it's too late to start feeling like I can give my character much of a personality, thus salvaging the roleplay aspect.

There are enough story twists and choices to be made in the second half of the game, e.g. in T'sen-Ang you can join the Dark Elves and follow a different branch of story. Also your character's level is completely irrelevant to how much you have experienced of the game, you can easily get up to level 34 even before going to the BMC. Again, stop making assumptions.

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.

I knew about all that from the walkthroughs, yes. Magnus so far has had a little input, yes, and no one's contesting that Virgil seems to have decent content, but I -did- say that "other than 3 or 4 they have no content". Your response has been "Well, did you know about the three or four?" Um, yes. You're adding an "etc." in that paragraph that isn't warranted, you basically scraped the barrel in what you listed there. Again, 3 or 4 remotely fleshed out characters out of 28 isn't exactly "zomg awesome roleplay". I will finish the game someday, and judge for myself, but I think it's very fair to say that every single NPC in BG2 got -far- more fleshed out than pretty much everyone in Arcanum except Virgil, and I'm guessing it's roughly equal with him.

There are only 20 *real* companions in the game, if we don't count 6 temporary ones and 4 at the end of the game. IMO, the most fleshed out companions in the game are Virgil, Magnus, Loghaire, Raven, Geoffrey Tarrelond-Ashe, Perriman Smythe, Torian Kel, Z'an Al'urin and Franklin Payne. You may also count Arronax in, although he's available only in the final area. So we have at least 10 really good NPCs. (All of them completely voiced.) Of course, some of the followers were nothing but mercenaries with a few lines of dialog, but why not? If you just want a bodyguard for your diplomatic character, then just get Sogg or Dog or Chukka, they will do just that.

Personally, I find it extremely annoying (LOL STOP LOOKING AT MY ASS YOU SKULL).

That's not what I'm referring to as interparty banter. That's just little sound files that play every so often. What I'm referring to as interparty banters in PS:T usually involved around 5 or 6 lines of dialogue going back and forth between two and sometimes three party members.

No, that's what I meant. Most of interparty banter in PS:T consisted of bickering and bitching. These lines were NOT funny, but annoying.

The dialogue in Arcanum wasn't -awful-. But it wasn't as good as BG2's.

Insane.

 

[nomask7]

I'm pretty sure that people who think BG2 was a good game played it in their teens when their shit-detectors weren't yet developed and functional, and are now uncritically recalling their nostalgic experience, or are still in their teens, or are not very bright.

Or aren't quite bright enough to realize that what they think is "cliche" now wasn't cliche when it was first done 8 years ago,

BG2 was a cliche fest. Cliches don't necessarily turn into innovations when you use them in a new medium (game instead of comic book). More significantly, though, when BG2 did innovate, the results were terrible, bad. It was influential, but its influence was evil. That's why sane people hate the game. More significantly, though, BG2 did nothing much with all those innovations and cliches. Given enough time and talent, one could have made a good game from them. Alas, BG2 is not a good game.

By the way, you don't seem to know much about linguistics (or English! or anything really!). The definition of 'average' that I provided you with came from a dictionary I knew would give the word a definition based on actual real world usage, as opposed to imagined fantasy usage based on some half-understood etymology.

 

[BethesdaLove]

I'd like examples of Arcanum's magnificent dialogs.

 

[Smarts]

Hell, I'd like examples of BG2's terrible innovations.