Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
Lionheart. cos it built my expectation up so much then dash it to the rocks. frown



......a gift from LaFille......
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I understand that, Jang. Up till you leave New Barcelona, it's on course to be one of the best of all time... I still can't play it again. It broke my heart...


Please click the banner...
Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Elliot_Kane
Actually, I think The Witcher is by far the best single character RPG I've ever played. I really don't know where you get the idea the system is designed for more than a single character, though. It's clearly not. Given the way combat is set to timed moves, you'd have real trouble with more than one character, don't you think? It had its problems, yes, but nowhere near the level of bugs that NWN had. The main problem with Witcher was horrendous load times, which were annoying but far from game breaking.

As for being MORE valid, I take it you do know that D&D is a system designed for a MINIMUM of four characters and preferably five or six, right? The classes are all balanced the way they are for that reason.


I didn't say The Witcher's system is designed for parties, I simply said if you pretend to claim NWN IS designed for party-based play, then the Witcher is, even moreso. The engine was designed for NWN, not for some party-based game. NWN never even supported single-player party-based play (multiplayer != single-player party-based). I would say NWN2 proves that party-based play was never the idea of Aurora engine, because its party-based play is a nightmare.

I loved the Witcher as well, but up until the EE, its performance was absolutely dreadful. I was playing with a top-notch PC when the Witcher came out, and graphically it was a nightmare, especially the cutscenes. It also suffered from stuttering a lot, even on lower graphic settings, and its response was also very slow at times. Loads of weird framerate drops and insane loading times really diminished the game experience in the early days. There were also a couple of crash-to-desktop bugs, and with AA on, my PC would hang every time on reaching Vizima.

The EE fixed most of these issues, but that was a lot later. And if I'd known, I'd have bought it when EE came out, cause it would've saved me a bunch of money. Still, I agree that it is easily the best single-player RPG since Gothic II.

When I bought NWN, I by no means had a top-notch PC for the time, and it played beautifully. I never had a stutter, much less a bug in it. Graphically, there was nothing even close to being in its range at that time (Morrowind looked really nice in terms of colors and stuff, but it was no match for NWN), and it was the only game in which I ever played around with the mod tools myself; because it was so user-friendly.

Even though the D&D system is designed for parties of at least 4, that doesn't mean every D&D game is designed for parties of at least 4.

The Witcher's biggest drawback for me just also happens to be one of NWN's strengths: character creation and development. Witcher's story, quests and characters are far superior, I fully agree, but those are not the only things that matter. And NWN's story, quests and characters, while rushed towards the ending and not being Shadows of Amn-worthy , are definitely not so bad as they're made out to be.


*shrug* different experiences, different opinions. Did you play The Witcher right when it came out? I never encountered bugs in NWN, but I didn't actually buy it right when it came out.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
I think we have a confusion between ENGINE and SYSTEM, Swordscythe. As I played D&D for over 20 years, I don't have to 'pretend' anything with regard to it - I know it pretty well, including the way it was deliberately designed to encourage teamwork and group play by making sure no single character class could do everything. That is the SYSTEM that both NWN games use. That is simple fact and easily verifiable, should you care to do so. Trying to make a single character game with a SYSTEM designed for multiple characters is a pretty bad design decision, as I'm sure you will agree.

Witcher and NWN2 use the same ENGINE, not the same SYSTEM.

As for both original NWN and The Witcher - yes, I have the original versions of both and played them straight out of the box. NWN was an appalling mess where Witcher's main problem was with the dreadful load times, as noted.





Please click the banner...
Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
I still think NWN - while not exactly perfectly balanced - still has reasonable balance, to the point where you can finish the game with any class. Of course, classes like Sorcerer or Paladin are easier to play than, say, Ranger or Rogue, but that kind of imbalance exists in any game; in fact, NWN2 - while being based on the same SYSTEM, AND being a party-based game, was balanced much worse than NWN was. The Witcher, on the other hand, doesn't make an issue of balance, it just makes skill allocating redundant and any choice other than morality obsolete. There goes character development, right into the same water character creation jumped in earlier.

I believe we have had opposing experiences with NWN - our difference in opinion must stem from that - but still; if you feel that way, perhaps you should try it again and see if it still is that bad for you? It may also be your D&D background preventing you from enjoying the game - if so, there's nothing to be done.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
To be honest, Swordscythe, the original NWN campaign was SO awful there's no chance of me trying it again. I DID get talked into trying the sequels, though, and although they are nowhere near being in the league of the Baldur's Gate games, let alone PS:T, I found them both playable and Hordes Of The Underdark was actually rather good.

NWN2 original campaign is OK rather than great, and I found Mask quite boring, but neither belongs on a worst list, to me. Storm of Zehir is actually good, and arguably the best of all the NWN games to date.

As for Witcher, you'll have real trouble making a moral decision as such, considering that a lot of the time you are faced with 'least worst' and skill allocation is actually crucial. I'm starting to think there are two games called The Witcher, because the one you describe is not the one I played.

I didn't find NWN2 to be unbalanced at all, so I suspect that we are bringing very different strengths and weaknesses to these games, hence the immense gulf between our opinions of them. I could throw a lot of criticisms at NWN2, from the railway tracks that direct your every movement to the stupidly limited party size, to the sheer annoyance of not being able to get full party control. But it's more irritating than outright bad.

I just hope if there are ever any more NWN games that the makers actually pay attention to the system they're using, rather than try to create the next Diablo with a completely inappropriate system, again. Storm Of Zehir is certainly a very promising step in the right direction.


Please click the banner...
Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
Hmm, perhaps I should try Storm of Zehir, then. (Where I've heard only good things about MotB, I've heard only mediocrity from SoZ) I will certainly negate your calling of NWN's OC 'awful' and NWN2's OC 'OK', which implies that NWN2's was actually better than NWNs. Longer, yes, but more boring than long. As for the balance issues, firstly if you're in a one-man RPG and you have low charisma, I can verily understand that you cannot be very persuasive. However, a four man party with two members with somewhere around 26 CH and good conversation skills that can't persuade a damn kobold because the main character happens to be a ranger... that's pretty friggin' ridiculous to me. At least Tomi Undergallows didn't get stuck behind a rock every two seconds like Khelgar or Neeshka. In my experience, NWN2 is no more party-based than NWN1, except you get one more henchman than HotU, but with FAR worse AI. I'm not a Diablo player, I really dislike pure hack'n slash games, but you make NWN sound like a hack'n slash game Diablo-style, while it is definitely not.

Last edited by swordscythe; 23/09/09 04:31 PM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
NWN1 pretty much IS a hack and slash game, especially the endless-seeming last section. IMO, NWN2 is definitely a better game and vastly more worthy of the title RPG, not least because you can actually talk to your party members and interact with them. It could certainly be improved a lot, though, which is why it is merely OK rather than good. SoZ actually allows your whole party conversation options, rather than just your main character, so you'll like that part, at least (As I did myself). It's not got the most amazing plot and you'll see every twist coming a mile off, but it gives you a lot of freedom and a real sense that a party is involved rather than one person plus henchmen.

Now they need to fuse the openness of SoZ with the character interaction of NWN2 and we'll finally be getting there... smile Although from the sound of things, Dragon Age may have beaten them to it.


Please click the banner...
Joined: Sep 2009
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2009
best rpg i ever played is breath of fire 3 no doubt
i havent played divinity 2 ego draconis
that will prolly be my new fav thogh

Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the NWN thing. Dragon Age does look good, and I'm glad they chose to do without the D&D system this time. I tend to like many D&D books, but the whole ruleset is not my cup of tea... Too magic-oriented. I won the Dragon Age book (even won two copies, if anyone wants it) and even though it's no R.A. Salvatore, it sounds pretty good.

Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
In which language is it ?


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
Joined: Sep 2009
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2009
wow lol i feel stupid i misread it it says worst rpg
worst rpg is oblivion i mean first person sword combat is wack lol

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Guess we will, Swordscythe. World would be a boring place if we all liked the same things, though smile


Please click the banner...
Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by AlrikFassbauer
In which language is it ?
It's in English


True enough, EK, true enough wink

Last edited by swordscythe; 24/09/09 09:04 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
If no-one wants it, I might be interested ... But first I need to know whether it has an happy ending or not. wink

I don't buy books anymore without an happy ending. wink


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
Joined: Jan 2009
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2009
If you've looked into dragon age, you'll know that dragon age is not a 'happy ending' type of world, but more of a 'bad things happen, life goes on' type of world... and that's also the book's premise, really. So no, I wouldn't call it a happy ending... but it's no "Dog of Flanders" type tragedy either... It holds the gray middle area, really

Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
I'm not surprised about that.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Bielefeld :-p
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Bielefeld :-p
Originally Posted by swordscythe
And NWN's story, quests and characters, while rushed towards the ending and not being Shadows of Amn-worthy , are definitely not so bad as they're made out to be.


True, but the presentation is just horrible. Completely sterile interface (especially compared to the nicely designed interfaces of Icewind Dale... imho by far the most beautiful Infinity Engine-Game ever), crappy dialogues, extremely awful graphics.

That's the reason why NWN never really reached the level of Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. It's not the rules or the game mechanics. It's not the story or the characters. No, it's the awful presentation of the game sleep

btw: Because of your criticism of Wizardry 8 I've restarted the game. Awesome as ever. I'm currently invading Bayjin and evading evil Nessie grin




Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
Joined: Sep 2009
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2009
Do tell you the truth I hated Beyond divinity....
I even don't know why... Maybe the fact of being soulforged and you have to take care of 2 things instead of one..

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

Playing a warrior/warrior (through most of act 1) and an archer/warrior (from the citadel onwards) in BD, I almost always had both characters selected and directed them in combat as one. Other than the occasional tough fight or to use potions, there wasn't much need to micromanage or swap control back and forth.

Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12

Moderated by  ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5