Will PoE be shit?

[Rake]

a flawed combat SYSTEM (poor character development/stat system, monty haul itemization, rest abuse, too many hard counters, etc)

BG2 had the best itemization of every game i have seen, and the hard counters were the thing that made it's combat good as opposed to IWD1+2 mediocrity.

Plenty of TB games have better combat overall (ToEE, Wiz8, etc).

Combat system yes. Overall combat? Hell no. The encounter design was abysmal, which makes the combat in BG2 way more fun for me.
JA2 is a different matter, but having worse combat than JA2 isn't realy a critisism. It's like saying Fallouts1+2 have shit story/writing because they are worse than PS:T

 

[Seari]

Shevek why don't you just admit that you don't like BG2 and be done with it.

 

[Roguey]

Umm, well, BG2 has plenty of trash combat with a relative minority of memorable encounters as well. It might be interesting to see what Numenera does with its "no trash mob" philosophy but most rpgs have a whole lot of trash combat.

I remember BG2 having very good wheat:chaff/killer:filler ratios as long as you ignore Irenicus's dungeon, which is tuned low on purpose, being a tutorial dungeon (but much too long for one).

I prefer IWDs'/ToEE's de-emphasis on hard counters, but they were worse about it.

Now KotC, there's a fine example of D&D without extreme-counter-crap and great combat pacing, at least up until the point where you hit the mid-upper-teens and they have to throw endless dragons and platoons of creatures at at time to give you a challenge (assuming you are playing with self-imposed restrictions).

 

[Weirdstuffinspace]

Shevek why don't you just admit that you don't like BG2 and be done with it.

and that that's why you have no problem with the new shit combat system

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Shevek why don't you just admit that you don't like BG2 and be done with it.

He likes PoE's combat/systems, most people who do, don't like BG2 all that much (it's a different gaming philosophy/approach).

 

[Shevek]

I like BG2 quite a bit. I simply find its combat systems (and related character development and itemization systems) to have some serious flaws. I never said that I didnt have a problem with PoEs combat or related systems. I have described it at different points as "ok" and "good." I have stated my belief that it will be "very good" by release. I have never called PoEs combat "flawless" because nothing is.

 

[Shannow]

coffeetable

I dunno about you, but I find it weird to come to the Codex of all places and find people claiming that BG2 was great because of its combat. Its like we are suffering from post decline PTSD.

Yep. When I joined the codex BG2 was in my personal top 3. Perhaps it still is.
The point is, considering BG2 a good game got you a similar treatment as now saying "DA2 and DA:I are the best games ever". Only the codex was far more vitriolic compared to today's church choir. So yes, putting BG2 on a pedestal is a sign of our decline.
And as you said, BG2 was a complete package, that's what made it good. It certainly did not excel in combat. It had a mediocre system at best, with some good encounters mixed in.
Also the hard counters, when they were available, were one of the things that could make combat fun and entertaining. So I'd disagree with you on that point.

All that aside:
RTwP is what remains after an incestual abortion and needs to die in a fire already.

Spoiler

Ok, ok. I'll allow 1 RTwP for every 3 RT and every 6 TB RPGs being made.
*Looks at the market*

 

[imweasel]

RTwP is what remains after an incestual abortion and needs to die in a fire already.

The worst (or only bad thing) about TB is waiting for the enemy to take their turns.

RTwP doesn't have that problem, which is probably the main reason why I also really love it.

 

[Lhynn]

The problem with RTwP is its poor feedback, you usually cant tell what the fuck is going on and react on time, IE games in general and BG2 in particular mostly solved this issue, add in interesting encounter design, cool magic system, and a good and sensible character system that is heads and shoulders above anything ive seen in the past few years and you got a p. decent game.

 

[DollarSign]

BG2 had the best itemization of every game i have seen, and the hard counters were the thing that made it's combat good as oposed to IWD1+2 mediocrity.

The "hard encounters" relied entirely on enemies casting scripted non-counterable spells, which basically amounts to cheating and admitting that BG combat system does not support genuinely hard encounters, so long as both the player party and the enemies play by the same rules. If they only cast buffs in the beginning of the fight - that would make sense because the player can buff before starting the fight, but they did it all the time. Would Kangaxx demilich fight be difficult if he didn't script-cast Imprisonment that perma-deleted party members from the game? Oh, and give me one example of a hard encounter that didn't involve some form of spellcaster. Even dragons were only hard because of their spell-like abilities! Anything that wasn't a mage was a cakewalk to kill.

 

[hiver]

Who ever said that spells and spell like abilities are not allowed in hard encounters?

The "hard encounters" relied entirely on enemies casting scripted non-counterable spells, which basically amounts to cheating

And player ability to prebuff is not cheesing or cheating when enemies cannot? Obviously those spells were there to balance the players cheese.

 

[Shevek]

a good and sensible character system that is heads and shoulders above anything ive seen in the past few years

I disagree with both "good" or "sensible" to describe the character system of the IE games; its one of my beefs with the games, honestly. I would go with "serviceable yet heavily flawed." PoE has a better character system in my book.

 

[DollarSign]

Who ever said that spells and spell like abilities are not allowed in hard encounters?

I don't know. Certainly wasn't me. Are we playing the riddle game? Okay, I've got one for you. What's always butthurt and has a dumbfuck tag?

And player ability to prebuff is not cheesing or cheating when enemies cannot? Obviously those spells were there to balance the players cheese.

Lrn 2 read.

If they only cast buffs in the beginning of the fight - that would make sense because the player can buff before starting the fight, but they did it all the time

 

[hiver]

Oh darling, you just made a huge mistake. Its positively one of my favorite things when a scum retard newfag like you immediately goes for insults in your reply.


Lets instead play the game of quoting retarded turd own posts one right after another.

I don't know. Certainly wasn't me.

The "hard encounters" relied entirely on enemies casting scripted non-counterable spells,

+

and give me one example of a hard encounter that didn't involve some form of spellcaster. Even dragons were only hard because of their spell-like abilities! Anything that wasn't a mage was a cakewalk to kill.

That wasnt you? One would atleast hope that if a moron like yourself has multiple personalities disorder some of them would be smarter.

So... you are so goddamn stupid that you dont understand what you are saying, in addition to being such a low scum to try and grab the tags put there by others shits of your exact same kind that only serve to disgrace them beyond any redemption?
Im not sure what your devolved brain thought that will achieve except making you look like the blatant stupid shit you are.

Anything that wasnt a "mage" was a cakewalk to kill? When? After you tried the same encounter dozen times and reloaded after getting wiped?
Besides, when have you ever played with a party that did not have any spells or spell like abilities? How many encounters in the game did not contain any kind of spells and spell like abilities? I cant remember a single one.

- but they did it all the time

To balance player ability to cheese in many ways, not just prebuffing.

Give me some examples of those spells or "spell like abilities" that make your butthurt and stupidity so obvious. Because none can be sure what exactly are you thinking about at this point, being a sniveling retard as you are.

firing off spell containers? dragon abilities? what?

speak, you turd.

 

[Lhynn]

I disagree with both "good" or "sensible" to describe the character system of the IE games; its one of my beefs with the games, honestly. I would go with "serviceable yet heavily flawed." PoE has a better character system in my book.

Then your book is shit. Character system in PoE betrays its roleplaying roots, it fails to be reasonable or interesting in too many ways for me to say its even serviceable.

 

[Starwars]

Character system in PoE betrays its roleplaying roots

I lold.

 

[Shevek]

Ya, thats pretty funny. So, BG2 doesnt betray RPG-dom with an abysmmal stat system where most of its stats are either meaningless (wis, int, cha) or meaningless within certain ranges or with certain items? Not to mention the race gated classes (probably a good thing or everyone would be a gnome for shorty saving throws, max ac dex bonus and exceptional str), atrocious class imbalances, itemization so poor that entire builds and CLASSES are designed around the use a single item. PoE is doing alot of things better with regards to the character system. Sure, the system is in flux but OE is approaching this well. It just has to balance a couple minor things with regards to racial bonuses (so all races feel as good as Hearth Orlans) and find a set of stat bonuses that feel good (the ones in the Sawyer stream look pretty good).

 

[Shannow]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't play or judge games according to meta-knowledge. Especially not on the first playthrough. Many of your criticisms are non-issues for that:
No knowledge of "imbalances". BG2 can be played through with every class. (Whether or not the class "imbalances" are grievous is a discussion that can fill pages by itself.)
No builds around certain items. (And on replays I might choose beforhand in which weapon category I'll focus on, but that's it. You exagerate the meaning the "imbalanced" items had for the average player.)
Few stats are truly "meaningless" and those only for certain classes. You exagerate strongly here. (Another argument that has filled pages.)
So races and classes have advantages and disadvantages? And you whine about that? Sawyer's aim of making everything "the same" is far worse.

Seriously, the only point you make, that has some merit is about the stat-system. I'd not want to see something like that again. But it wasn't unplayably atrocious either.
We'll see if PE will truly provide better. But then, they had dozens of games and a score of years to analyse and learn from. So providing better "should" be a given. *shrug*

 

[coffeetable]

Sawyer's aim of making everything "the same" is far worse

cool scarequotin there bro

 

[Shevek]

No, wisdom, intelligence and charisma were pretty crap. The manual stated wisdom affected saves but it didnt (its only use was bonus priest spells - in other words, useless except for a mage casting wish). The manual stated that intelligence effected the level of the spells you could cast but it didnt until the EE versions. Strength was made meaning less by various items and was only meaningful above a score of 15. Con was useless above 16 for nonwarriors. Dex was the only stat useful for everyone at various levels.

Races were implemented laughingly badly in the IE games. The only reason to play a half elf was to be an OP cleric/ranger. Half-elf fighter? Why? Just be a gnome. The only reason to be a human was race gated classes (paladin, etc). Really really shitty, imo.

As far as items, the biggest offender here is the holy avenger but str boosting items and other monty haul itemization is at fault here as well.

 

[Seari]

I'm pretty sure WIS and INT bonuses were supposed to be in the game but just didn't work due to bugs. Same as the dual class proficiency limitation which worked in bg1 but not in the sequel.

The itemization is the best of any game. I can tell you're just really butthurt you couldn't use Carsomyr with any of your characters.

Dwarves =//= gnomes you asshole.

 

[Shannow]

No, wisdom, intelligence and charisma were pretty crap.

"No"? "No" what? Where do you contradict me?

The manual stated wisdom affected saves but it didnt (its only use was bonus priest spells - in other words, useless except for a mage casting wish). The manual stated that intelligence effected the level of the spells you could cast but it didnt until the EE versions.

So you are saying wisdom is very useful for clerics and to a (very limited degree) for wizards. You are also saying that int was a requirement for wizards. Btw, you are missing its usefulness when battling mindflayers, since high int increases your survivability against them.
So those stats are useful despite bugs(?) without which they'd been even more useful.
...
Wait, weren't you trying to argue that they're not useful?

Strength was made meaning less by various items and was only meaningful above a score of 15.

So it was meaningful, and if you wanted it high (without having a high natural stat) it required you to sacrifice an item that could be used on another character and an item-slot that could have held an alternative beneficial item. Items which you know nothing about without meta-knowledge.

Con was useless above 16 for nonwarriors.

So high con was useful.

Dex was the only stat useful for everyone at various levels.

That's a plain lie since you yourself correctly claim otherwise.

Races were implemented laughingly badly in the IE games. The only reason to play a half elf was to be an OP cleric/ranger. Half-elf fighter? Why? Just be a gnome. The only reason to be a human was race gated classes (paladin, etc). Really really shitty, imo.

Advantages and disadvantages. Without meta-knowledge you have no idea which class might or might not be "OP". You have yet to counter anything I said. Btw, I never played a gnome in BG2, but plenty of fighters, so...
(And you play human for dual-classing, ffs. Everybody knows that. Pfft.)
Not to mention that finding out which classes/builds might become especially powerful on a second playthrough can also be part of the charm.

As far as items, the biggest offender here is the holy avenger

Which you know nothing about before you play the game. Which I personally also never found "that awesome", though I kept Keldorn around for it. (And it for him.) And using it also means, you're not using Cromfaer with the same character, which I gathered was such a huge issue for you.
Wait, are you saying there are several good items that you can't all use at the same time?

but str boosting items

See above.

and other monty haul itemization is at fault here as well.

Please be more specific.

It's not even that I completely disagree with all the criticisms, it's just that I think you strongly exagerate, the alternative has to be "better", and so far many of Sawyer's suggestions seem to go in very wrong directions.

 

[Lhynn]

Shevek is talking out of his ass.

 

[Shevek]

1. Wisdom was nearly useless for clerics since the added spells were only mildly consequential. Stats being relegated to a shield against a single enemy type is pretty shitty.

2. Meta knowledge or no, items that set str to x value made stat investment meaningless. Just because the game pulls a gotcha on you doesnt make it better. It makes it worse.

3. Sorta. Con was useful for some and only really up to 18. The regen after that is only mildly useful for rest abuse. Con is pretty good for midget races but the game does a bad job of explaining that.

4. I dont lie.

5+. You meta knowledge arguement is shit. Are you saying the game is good because noobs dont know any better? What?

 

[Lhynn]

1. Wisdom was nearly useless for clerics since the added spells were only mildly consequential. Stats being relegated to a shield against a single enemy type is pretty shitty.

Stats where there to tell you who your character was, not how well he could fight (tho some did have an impact on that), you have different stats for that, stop being so god damn retarded. They did their job, not more or less.

2. Meta knowledge or no, items that set str to x value made stat investment meaningless. Just because the game pulls a gotcha on you doesnt make it better. It makes it worse.

It was never meaningless, you had 6 slots and no relevant magical item in the game could be found 6 times.

3. Sorta. Con was useful for some and only really up to 18. The regen after that is only mildly useful for rest abuse. Con is pretty good for midget races but the game does a bad job of explaining that.

Con still gives hitpoints past 20 to warrior classes, what the fuck are you even talking about? a 16 in con already statistically puts you above 90% of the worlds human population, id say thats high.

4. I dont lie.

I can attest to that, you are just flat out wrong.

5+. You meta knowledge arguement is shit. Are you saying the game is good because noobs dont know any better? What?

Are you saying every game that becomes easier when the player knows what comes next and how to deal with it is bad? sounds to me like you are full of shit.