@Sleven said: Removing "exploits" for the sake of "balance" is a poor excuse for taking away player options in a single player game, and is akin to trying to make someone play the game the way you want them to
I’ll second this one. Every time I hear of an “exploit” that has been “fixed” I think, how is something that people have been enjoying in their own games for so many years an exploit in need of “fixing”?
I remember reading an article years ago where a Bethesda developer said that they have sometimes left such “bugs’ or “exploits” in a game when it was found to be fun for some players. Seems sensible to me.
Unkitted bards are the ultimate class in the game. Especially when EEKeepered to be a dwarf. Spellslingers and Spearshakers are are dime a dozen, but songs of merit (about gold) are few and far between.
@Sleven said: Removing "exploits" for the sake of "balance" is a poor excuse for taking away player options in a single player game, and is akin to trying to make someone play the game the way you want them to
I’ll second this one. Every time I hear of an “exploit” that has been “fixed” I think, how is something that people have been enjoying in their own games for so many years an exploit in need of “fixing”?
I remember reading an article years ago where a Bethesda developer said that they have sometimes left such “bugs’ or “exploits” in a game when it was found to be fun for some players. Seems sensible to me.
The opposite has just happened as far as I can tell from what people have posted.
Summons now will not turn hostile if caught in your own AOE spells. Apparently it's because fire elementals turn hostile when you use fireballs but that "individual" fault cannot be corrected so everything "has" to change.
Just why? It's quite an element of fights that you have to be careful of your summons, an added dimension of complication.
@Sleven said: Removing "exploits" for the sake of "balance" is a poor excuse for taking away player options in a single player game, and is akin to trying to make someone play the game the way you want them to
I’ll second this one. Every time I hear of an “exploit” that has been “fixed” I think, how is something that people have been enjoying in their own games for so many years an exploit in need of “fixing”?
I remember reading an article years ago where a Bethesda developer said that they have sometimes left such “bugs’ or “exploits” in a game when it was found to be fun for some players. Seems sensible to me.
Who said Baldur's Gate is a single-player game? There's multiplayer involved. And I believe multiplayer was supported since the original game in 1998. Bugs/exploits/glitches that affect the single-player, also affect the multiplayer and vice-versa.
Exploits are basically bugs, that let you cheat. Fixing exploits is fixing stuff that shouldn't have been there, like bugs. If you want to cheat, you don't need bugs or exploits, there's the debug console.
By this logic, any bug that gives you a disadvantage should be fixed but any bug that gives you an advantage shouldn't. That seems like double-standards to me.
"Why did you remove the potion duplication bug that gave me infinite gold?! That bug that made that item disappear should be fixed, though!"
When I want to cheat, I use the console. I don't need bugs and exploits. The "option to play the way you want" is still there.
Bethesda mainly makes single-player games. There's no multiplayer involved with Skyrim or Fallout 3/4 for example. And those cannot be replicated with the console, either. They're physics bugs or exploits, usually (which Skyrim has many).
Who said Baldur's Gate was a single player game? The entire story was designed around one person, no one had to.
And you're only half-right, bugs that affect single-player affect multiplayer, but bugs that affect multiplayer do not affect single-player. Multiplayer is literally a hosted version of the single-player game.
Exploits are basically bugs, that let you cheat. Fixing exploits is fixing stuff that shouldn't have been there, like bugs. If you want to cheat, you don't need bugs or exploits, there's the debug console.
By this logic, any bug that gives you a disadvantage should be fixed but any bug that gives you an advantage shouldn't. That seems like double-standards to me.
"Why did you remove the potion duplication bug that gave me infinite gold?! That bug that made that item disappear should be fixed, though!"
You've built a nice straw man. If you write a large enough argument against it does it become a wicker man? Is your favorite class the Druid?
Jokes aside, I'm not talking about cheating. You'll notice I placed the word "exploits" in quotes. Original game design elements have been removed from the game. Being able to use NPC items on characters who meet the prerequisites (for example) is one of them.
I was also specifically addressing player options. If "fixing" takes away a unique or interesting way to solve a challenge or play the game then it's stifling player choice and creativity. Plain and simple.
I still fondly remember stealing the Boots of Speed from Renal Bloodscalp and thinking to myself, "I wonder what else I can do?" Those days are long gone if I want to experience any of the EE content.
----------
And just for the sake of completion, I'll play the straw man for a bit (if only to prove that the Wizard's diploma wasn't entirely wasted on him):
When I want to cheat, I use the console. I don't need bugs and exploits. The "option to play the way you want" is still there.
That's also false, considering that there are many bugs you can't reactivate through the console. There's no "restore patch 1.1.4315" command I can use to get back the old Dimension Door trick.
Anyways, I hope you can enjoy my dry referential humor. Adieu.
I would argue that Baldur’s Gate is first and foremost a single player game. It has a neat little multiplayer option that allows someone to host a game with a few other players. Much like a board game, those few players can decide amongst themselves what the “house rules” are.
That is the problem with a lot of newbies to the RP scene. They demand everything be "balanced". The ultimate balance, of course, is that everyone does the exact same thing, or has the potential to. That is how we got saddled with the monstrosity that was 4th Ed.
People who have been RP-ing for a long time knows that game "balance" is a myth. There is no RPG that allows any measure of customisation (and therefore creation of unique characters) and be balanced at the same time. If you have the means to create both Elminster AND killed-by-a-cat commoner in the same game, it is by definition not balanced.
The only balance is whatever that is agreed upon between the various players and the DM sitting around the table (or in the case of BG, in front of their screens). The goal is to have fun, and anyone who says that a bunch of powergaming, God-killing Monty Python-esque players cannot be having fun is guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and needs to have his licence to RP ganked.
Candlekeep would have made more sense if you had to provide the valuable book in order to get lifetime access to the library (as opposed to just on time access to anywhere within its exterior walls). Then there would be no doubt about how Carbos or Shank got in (and the town frankly would seem a lot more practical).
Candlekeep would have made more sense if you had to provide the valuable book in order to get lifetime access to the library (as opposed to just on time access to anywhere within its exterior walls). Then there would be no doubt about how Carbos or Shank got in (and the town frankly would seem a lot more practical).
I assumed that those two got in by posing as servants, who'd be exempted from those rules. Anyways, the requirement is only there to ensure the PC can't return until the plot demands it, so that would solve one problem only to resuscitate the problem that the problem was supposed to resolve. And that's a problem.
Given that you can't get access to a book of great value anyways (at least one that counts) until the end of chapter 5 I'm not sure allowing access would be that problematic for the plot (because you still couldn't enter the library). Just have the keeper of the portal at the entrance to Candlekeep (and maybe a few others in it) bring up the attack and the fact that you aren't safe there anymore.
Given that you can't get access to a book of great value anyways (at least one that counts) until the end of chapter 5 I'm not sure allowing access would be that problematic for the plot (because you still couldn't enter the library). Just have the keeper of the portal at the entrance to Candlekeep (and maybe a few others in it) bring up the attack and the fact that you aren't safe there anymore.
But that still means you have a home, and access to Winthrop's inn and its warm, comfortable beds. What matters isn't what this would do to the plot, as such, but about what it would do to the part of the story immediately after Gorion's attack. You have no family (feh, Imoen) and no home, so your only option is to push forward. That's ruined if you can just pop back to Candlekeep and catch some zzz's, lameass assassins notwithstanding.
Plus, it makes the "Your journey has come full circle" bit that starts Chapter 6 weaker if you've seen everything but the library more recently.
Here is my unpopular opinion: BG2 engine (and implicitly BG:EE) made some convenience tweaks that aren't very realistic and I prefer the (more hardcore) original BG1 system. Too bad they were not implemented as game options in the EEs. Some of them are:
- display the remaining charges of wands - like the wands have some digital display showing this number - showing "casting failure" when hitting enemy spellcasters - like they scream "my spell failed" letting everyone know this - auto pause in inventory - this way quick item slots became extra inventory slots for potions, wands and scrolls instead of very important slots to careful choose what you place in there. I would go even farther and implement the Pillars of Eternity system, where in combat the game is auto-paused in inventory screen but you cannot move or use anything except what is placed in the quick items.
Too bad books sell for a copper a dozen in this game. Pillars of Eternity made all of those flavor texts a lot more lucrative to loot.
PoE made me realize how much I actually enjoy limited inventory space as opposed to unlimited, even if the design and inventory management feels archaic to some.
I think I understand why they did it, but hmm..it just felt bloated to me in the end. And yes I know they had that special toggle in options for those who wanted to restrict the availability of the stash to certain regions.
Bag of holdings may eventually fulfill the same purpose, but I don't know..Walking around with a bag of holding feels more ''immersive'' *shrug*
PoE made me realize how much I actually enjoy limited inventory space as opposed to unlimited, even if the design and inventory management feels archaic to some.
I think I understand why they did it, but hmm..it just felt bloated to me in the end. And yes I know they had that special toggle in options for those who wanted to restrict the availability of the stash to certain regions.
Bag of holdings may eventually fulfill the same purpose, but I don't know..Walking around with a bag of holding feels more ''immersive'' *shrug*
A game where a piece of red cloth can take up the same amount of space as a bushel of 24 potion bottles or a suit of full plate doesn't make a lick of sense either, though. Anyways, the pack in a nutshell:
I like Garrick, dunno why people say his so unpopular or just bad npc companion. I use him as meat shield with his spells and stuff and fast rise in levels can't beat that
I like how NWN and Arcanum handle the inventory personally. Where you have to fit everything into a set area but also still have a weight limit. It might not be the most accurate way either, but its the best compromise I'm aware of.
i agree regarding the NWN inventory. its great that its more realistic in that items picked up slot into space and u then have to find it and carefully reorganise the items but it has the real annoyance sometimes of not being able to find the item as its popped itself someplace random
Geez, and when Haeravon made his Baldur's Gate guide, I didn't question his assertion that nobody plays these games for the thrill of inventory management. Maybe he was wrong.
Geez, and when Haeravon made his Baldur's Gate guide, I didn't question his assertion that nobody plays these games for the thrill of inventory management. Maybe he was wrong.
Why don't people find moving stuff in your inventory fun? I actually think it's fun, no joke. Even more in Diablo 2, but BG's better in every other aspect anyway.
Comments
Removing "exploits" for the sake of "balance" is a poor excuse for taking away player options in a single player game, and is akin to trying to make someone play the game the way you want them to
I’ll second this one. Every time I hear of an “exploit” that has been “fixed” I think, how is something that people have been enjoying in their own games for so many years an exploit in need of “fixing”?
I remember reading an article years ago where a Bethesda developer said that they have sometimes left such “bugs’ or “exploits” in a game when it was found to be fun for some players. Seems sensible to me.
Summons now will not turn hostile if caught in your own AOE spells.
Apparently it's because fire elementals turn hostile when you use fireballs but that "individual" fault cannot be corrected so everything "has" to change.
Just why?
It's quite an element of fights that you have to be careful of your summons, an added dimension of complication.
There's multiplayer involved. And I believe multiplayer was supported since the original game in 1998.
Bugs/exploits/glitches that affect the single-player, also affect the multiplayer and vice-versa.
Exploits are basically bugs, that let you cheat. Fixing exploits is fixing stuff that shouldn't have been there, like bugs.
If you want to cheat, you don't need bugs or exploits, there's the debug console.
By this logic, any bug that gives you a disadvantage should be fixed but any bug that gives you an advantage shouldn't.
That seems like double-standards to me.
"Why did you remove the potion duplication bug that gave me infinite gold?!
That bug that made that item disappear should be fixed, though!"
When I want to cheat, I use the console. I don't need bugs and exploits.
The "option to play the way you want" is still there.
Bethesda mainly makes single-player games. There's no multiplayer involved with Skyrim or Fallout 3/4 for example.
And those cannot be replicated with the console, either. They're physics bugs or exploits, usually (which Skyrim has many).
And you're only half-right, bugs that affect single-player affect multiplayer, but bugs that affect multiplayer do not affect single-player. Multiplayer is literally a hosted version of the single-player game. You've built a nice straw man. If you write a large enough argument against it does it become a wicker man? Is your favorite class the Druid?
Jokes aside, I'm not talking about cheating. You'll notice I placed the word "exploits" in quotes. Original game design elements have been removed from the game. Being able to use NPC items on characters who meet the prerequisites (for example) is one of them.
I was also specifically addressing player options. If "fixing" takes away a unique or interesting way to solve a challenge or play the game then it's stifling player choice and creativity. Plain and simple.
I still fondly remember stealing the Boots of Speed from Renal Bloodscalp and thinking to myself, "I wonder what else I can do?" Those days are long gone if I want to experience any of the EE content.
----------
And just for the sake of completion, I'll play the straw man for a bit (if only to prove that the Wizard's diploma wasn't entirely wasted on him): That's also false, considering that there are many bugs you can't reactivate through the console. There's no "restore patch 1.1.4315" command I can use to get back the old Dimension Door trick.
Anyways, I hope you can enjoy my dry referential humor. Adieu.
People who have been RP-ing for a long time knows that game "balance" is a myth. There is no RPG that allows any measure of customisation (and therefore creation of unique characters) and be balanced at the same time. If you have the means to create both Elminster AND killed-by-a-cat commoner in the same game, it is by definition not balanced.
The only balance is whatever that is agreed upon between the various players and the DM sitting around the table (or in the case of BG, in front of their screens). The goal is to have fun, and anyone who says that a bunch of powergaming, God-killing Monty Python-esque players cannot be having fun is guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and needs to have his licence to RP ganked.
Plus, it makes the "Your journey has come full circle" bit that starts Chapter 6 weaker if you've seen everything but the library more recently.
...Yeah, I think they're dead.
- display the remaining charges of wands - like the wands have some digital display showing this number
- showing "casting failure" when hitting enemy spellcasters - like they scream "my spell failed" letting everyone know this
- auto pause in inventory - this way quick item slots became extra inventory slots for potions, wands and scrolls instead of very important slots to careful choose what you place in there. I would go even farther and implement the Pillars of Eternity system, where in combat the game is auto-paused in inventory screen but you cannot move or use anything except what is placed in the quick items.
I think I understand why they did it, but hmm..it just felt bloated to me in the end. And yes I know they had that special toggle in options for those who wanted to restrict the availability of the stash to certain regions.
Bag of holdings may eventually fulfill the same purpose, but I don't know..Walking around with a bag of holding feels more ''immersive'' *shrug*