Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Why do peoople like Icewind Dale 2 so much?

124

Comments

  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,564
    actually the CR system in IWD 2 is absolutely horrible, I had to modify the XP tables to help not make the game so trivial

    starting in chapter 3 ( I believe ) you start getting to a point where monsters just start giving you 0 XP, so if im getting 0 XP for fights, why even bother? that is something that bugged me hard when I played in the past, but I scaled the XP tables so even at the lowest CR your party still gains 6 XP per baddy, which really helps make the game feel less trivial ( when I beat the game on normal I was almost level 17, still 16, but damn close to 17) so im pretty sure my adjusted tables didn't affect the game at all, there were level 9 scrolls all over the severed hand and I was still only able to cast level 7 spells at the time

    in my opinion NWN does it better because again the less amount of XP you get is 1, and none of this "sharing XP between team memebers" everyone has the same value so everyone is growing up levels at the same time, in IWD 2 you still share the XP and right now my top guy is 2000+ XP ahead of my 6th guy because of it

    although in hordes of the underdark once you hit level 20/21 you start getting static XP instead of the CR XP, and even with that I only hit level 25 or so when I beat that game ( I think I had an XP penalty for my half orc fighter/bard/dragon disciple )

    BelgarathMTHmlneveseBaptor
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    ThacoBell said:

    Fardragon said:

    ThacoBell said:

    Fardragon said:

    DrakeICN said:

    ...in your mind.


    Hmm, developing your antagonists and making protagonists personally invested in the story is pretty much creative writing lesson 1.

    And I'm pretty sure the original writers would agree, and would have tackled those issues had they been given time for another story pass.
    The antagonists are developed though. We learn about them as we progress through the game. Heck we know what their early childhood was like by the end. I probably know more about their motivations than Sarevok or Irenicus from BG. As for the protagonists, well, that's sadly the blanket weakness for IWD as a whole.
    Again, if that's true, it's way to far in, since I have never go far enough into the game to learn anything about them, and not for lack of trying.
    About two thirds in I suppose. Would BG be improved if you got ahold of Sarevoks diary after the nashkel mines? Because it sounds to me thats about how far into the story of IWD2 you reached.
    I don't understand your comparision, in BG you have already encountered Sarevok before you get to Nashkel - when he kills Gorion. He is also in the opening cinematic, so Sarevok is in the story before CHARNAME.

    sarevok57
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 9,470
    Fardragon said:

    ThacoBell said:

    Fardragon said:

    ThacoBell said:

    Fardragon said:

    DrakeICN said:

    ...in your mind.


    Hmm, developing your antagonists and making protagonists personally invested in the story is pretty much creative writing lesson 1.

    And I'm pretty sure the original writers would agree, and would have tackled those issues had they been given time for another story pass.
    The antagonists are developed though. We learn about them as we progress through the game. Heck we know what their early childhood was like by the end. I probably know more about their motivations than Sarevok or Irenicus from BG. As for the protagonists, well, that's sadly the blanket weakness for IWD as a whole.
    Again, if that's true, it's way to far in, since I have never go far enough into the game to learn anything about them, and not for lack of trying.
    About two thirds in I suppose. Would BG be improved if you got ahold of Sarevoks diary after the nashkel mines? Because it sounds to me thats about how far into the story of IWD2 you reached.
    I don't understand your comparision, in BG you have already encountered Sarevok before you get to Nashkel - when he kills Gorion. He is also in the opening cinematic, so Sarevok is in the story before CHARNAME.

    Your quote above was specifically mentioned knowing nothing about them or their motivations for much of the game. Its the same with Sarevok in BG. Yes, he appears early on, but you don't learn his name until what, chapter 4?5? You get nothing of his motivations until reading his diary at the Iron Throne building. This is not bad, its a mystery to unravel. Isair and Madae are the same. You know someone is leading an army against the ten towns, but not who. You actually get a little more info about them than Sarevok, as you see them and learn their names about halfway through the game (Its not clear the Armored figure is Sarevok until right up at the end). You get the full backstory and motivation about them around the same time you storywise as the you learn about Sarevok's.

    GrumShikaoGrond0
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    The thing is "Armoured figure" is iconic (good use of art here). You don't don't need to know his name or his motives to be aware from the start that someone powerful is after you personally. So, when you do learn more about him it is meaningful.

    In IWD2 it really doesn't matter to the protaginists who is in charge of the hostile army. It's not someone they have a backstory connection to, or met and developed a relationship with in the first act, it's not even a character from a previous game - and they don't even look very distinctive.

    helmo1977
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,099
    They look distinctive. Large, winged, obviously not goblinoid.

    DreadKhanThacoBellsemiticgod
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,854
    Grum said:

    They look distinctive. Large, winged, obviously not goblinoid.

    I think they're more distinctive that Sarevok, who's distinction is shopping at the Big and Tall armourers!

    ThacoBellsemiticgodGrum
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 13,534
    If Isair and Madae don't look distinctive, then the SoD Neothelid giant tentacle monster is no more distinctive than a hobgoblin.

    ThacoBellKamigoroshiRaduzielDev6
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    But that is irrelevant, isn't it, because you don't see them until you finish the game. For an image to become iconic you need to keep seeing it.

  • helmo1977helmo1977 Member Posts: 360
    I think it didnt feel personal, unlike BG. You are a bunch of heroes (you do all of them so no interesting stories either) who must «save the world» and that is all. That never catches my attention. A very good plot could have fixed that, but IWD 2 plot is not very bright. The only redeeming point, for me, was that it used something very similar to 3.0 rules. But that doesnt make for all the other black spots.

    Grum
  • BelegCuthalionBelegCuthalion Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 419
    I'd buy it to finish it finally. Reached final battle, got beaten badly, got frustrated, got bored, regret to have given up since then, but playing it now feels so outdated, so I hope EE could fix it ...

  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,099
    I'm pretty sure you see them at the gobbo fortress too dressing down the bugbear general.
    helmo1977 said:

    I think it didnt feel personal, unlike BG. You are a bunch of heroes (you do all of them so no interesting stories either) who must «save the world» and that is all. That never catches my attention. A very good plot could have fixed that, but IWD 2 plot is not very bright. The only redeeming point, for me, was that it used something very similar to 3.0 rules. But that doesnt make for all the other black spots.

    I think this is it. It doesn't feel as personal. Sarevok killed *your* father and is trying to kill *you*

    In IWD2 you are mercenaries. That is so you can RP any party. It is the same issue as IWD1. But making it personal would take away our ability to fully customize our party, right?


    DreadKhanThacoBellRaduziel
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,854
    edited August 2017
    That's someone else thats very distinctive, Sherincal. Thats a pretty fun battle actually, very challenging for some parties.

    As for making it personal, they are trying to kill you I guess, and the unique build/skill/race stuff is supposed to add some replayability, but this aspect wasn't developed enough to make up for the lack of NPCs with backgrounds.

    ThacoBellGrum
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,282
    Oh, there's something pedantic I might add, because people seem to make this mistake a lot.

    Isair and Madae are not tieflings; they're cambions.

    DreadKhansemiticgodThacoBellsarevok57
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,189
    I keep seeing people say "I like that it used the 3.0 rules, but the game itself was meh." Thing is, generally the quality of a game cannot be so easily divorced from its mechanics. Did anyone ever consider that the 3.0 ruleset might be part of why the game is unsatisfying?

    tbone1ArtonaBaptor
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,854
    I think most people agree skills could have been more thoroughly implemented, and there is a definite shortage of feats, topped off with no Prestige classes. However, getting rudimentary skill use and some feats is better than cookie cutter builds churned out by 2nd ed. Ymmv.

    RaduzielKamigoroshikanisatha
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,189
    edited September 2017
    Cookie-cutter "builds" /= cookie-cutter characters. I mean that's like saying all doctors are "cookie-cutter" because they belong to the same 'class.'

    More to the point, what I'm suggesting is, the wildly open-ended ability to make "builds" in 3E is catnip for a certain part of our brains. And I have this pet theory that in IWD2 you sort of OD on that, and then by contrast the actual gameplay - using your build, instead of building it - seems dull and lifeless. But maybe the game is perfectly competent if you could somehow get away from the "build"-building.

    Like, it would be great to find someone who never played it, but did play IWDEE, and have them start with a pre-generated party of basic-but-strong builds. And see what they think of the game. I wonder if the review would have a different tone...

    tbone1
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,854
    The way I see things, especially without non-weapon proficiency, any two fighters, rogues, rangers, paladins are pretty interchangeable. Stats matter less in 2nd ed, and average stats give no bonus, so most fighters should have few bonuses other than profiency, making race the 'big' difference, which in many situations is a non-issue. I know this can be an asset, but its not like you can build an oddball stealthy finesse fighter in 2nd ed.

    Regarding doctors, they are supposed to be pretty cookie-cutter actually... they learn a similar toolkit and unless they are inexperienced or god forbid incompetent, they are supposed to be somewhat interchangeable in Western medicine; of course they aren't quite, but thats why they all get similar educations.

    I agree that character generation and early level ups are so cool they make the game seem more bland, and the urge to munchkin almost always hurts immersion. The starting parties might help though, as long as they don't screw up their leveling, to experience a more balanced playthrough. Still, if they liked IWD despite side quest poverty, they might find the game itself interesting if they indeed don't overthink character choices.

    Kamigoroshi
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    I keep seeing people say "I like that it used the 3.0 rules, but the game itself was meh." Thing is, generally the quality of a game cannot be so easily divorced from its mechanics. Did anyone ever consider that the 3.0 ruleset might be part of why the game is unsatisfying?

    3ed edition was fine in NWN, so no. The continued popularity of Pathfinder in PnP, despite issues at high level, also suggest it's a good system.

    I assure you, my issues with IWD2 are entirely story based. Again, I point to Sword Coast Legends, which had the most appalling bad gameplay mechanics, but still managed to tell an entertaining story.

    kanisatha
  • DrakeICNDrakeICN Member Posts: 623

    I keep seeing people say "I like that it used the 3.0 rules, but the game itself was meh." Thing is, generally the quality of a game cannot be so easily divorced from its mechanics. Did anyone ever consider that the 3.0 ruleset might be part of why the game is unsatisfying?

    Yes and no. 3E rules are a disaster in NWN, especially the knockdown feat and the six attacks per round at a BAB so high all attacks hit automatically becase AC is harder to gain. But the 3E shit that makes 3E shit in mercifully left out of IWD2. So, yes, 3E sucks, but no IWD2 does not suck because of it.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    DrakeICN said:

    I keep seeing people say "I like that it used the 3.0 rules, but the game itself was meh." Thing is, generally the quality of a game cannot be so easily divorced from its mechanics. Did anyone ever consider that the 3.0 ruleset might be part of why the game is unsatisfying?

    Yes and no. 3E rules are a disaster in NWN, especially the knockdown feat and the six attacks per round at a BAB so high all attacks hit automatically becase AC is harder to gain. But the 3E shit that makes 3E shit in mercifully left out of IWD2. So, yes, 3E sucks, but no IWD2 does not suck because of it.
    YOU don't like 3e. Fine. That's you. However lots of people do. Pathfinder still has more players than 5e.

    I DO like 3e, but I don't like the story of IWD2. That is me. Guess what? people are different!


    (off topic, but the AC issue is a holdover from 1st and 2nd edition, but doesn't really matter in PnP, because characters rarely reach the kinds of levels where it matters outside of a computer game).

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,189
    edited September 2017
    DreadKhan said:

    The way I see things, especially without non-weapon proficiency, any two fighters, rogues, rangers, paladins are pretty interchangeable.
    ...
    its not like you can build an oddball stealthy finesse fighter in 2nd ed.

    You clearly have never used any of my mods... or, I guess, any kits at all?
    Fardragon said:

    3ed edition was fine - The continued popularity of Pathfinder ...

    DrakeICN said:

    3E rules are a disaster
    ...
    So, yes, 3E sucks, but no IWD2 does not suck because of it.

    You guys didn't RTFP, huh? It very specifically is not predicated on an idea of "3E sux so IWD2 sux." Quite the opposite actually.

  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,564
    in my opinion, 3E is okay, a solid 7/10, the problem I see with it, is that it has horrible power scaling, where the higher level you become your power accelerates uncontrollably

    my favourite version of DND is the implementation of how the BG series did it, I've never played 2nd edition on PnP ( in fact BG is what introduced me to DnD in the first place ) but I like BG's 2nd edition the best, especially in SoA the power scaling is a lot more balanced than it is in 3E games

    what I find that in the 2E games it is a lot harder to solo games than it is with the 3E ones, in fact I just straight up starting soloing in the NWN games not because I wanted a challenge, but because I was getting so powerful that it wasn't even remotely necessary to have companions

    now with that being said, I have no idea what path finder is, I've heard about it, but I have no experience with it, so perhaps it has better scaling with 3E? because that is 3E's biggest weakness, the power scaling is just crazy

    now, when it comes to IWD 2, its not full blown 3E, its actually a form of pseudo hybrid of 2E and 3E, because back in the day, they had a lot harder time converting the infinity engine over to 3E rules, so some 2E stuff had to stick ( like 2E casting/attack times ) that is why the Improved initiative feat gives you a -1 casting/attacking time bonus ( or at least it would if it actually worked, rumor as it, that feat is broken )

    but with that being said, I don't think IWD 2's problem is the ruleset regardless of what version of DnD it uses, to me, it kind of feels that they didn't put much effort into IWD 2, it feels like they brain stormed a bunch of cool ideas and were excited to do the project but once they starting working on it, they found that it was a daunting task for what they wanted to do, and they just wanted to get it over with so they half assed it

    also if I can recall, back in those days NWN was on the horizon and I think more resources was going into that game than IWD 2 was, and since NWN was a whole new game, whole new engine it needed more love than NWN 2

    also another fun fact, in the original planning, they were going to make it so you could export your character from BG 2 over to NWN ( my only assumption was that NWN was going to originally use the infinity engine ) but NWN still advertised the 3E rule set which is a bit of a head scratcher, in fact the demo video that came with SoA was the NWN video saying the NWN will use 3E rules, so I have no idea what they were planning with that one

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 592

    I keep seeing people say "I like that it used the 3.0 rules, but the game itself was meh." Thing is, generally the quality of a game cannot be so easily divorced from its mechanics. Did anyone ever consider that the 3.0 ruleset might be part of why the game is unsatisfying?

    Not me even in the slightest. I absolutely hate 2e rules (they are cookie-cutter and lame and provide for only very minimal character development after 10th level) yet I love BG1, BG2 and IwD1. Story and mechanics are separate things.

  • DrakeICNDrakeICN Member Posts: 623
    edited September 2017
    Fardragon said:

    (off topic, but the AC issue is a holdover from 1st and 2nd edition, but doesn't really matter in PnP, because characters rarely reach the kinds of levels where it matters outside of a computer game).

    No, it is not. In 2E, you max out at 13 to 0 BAB, depending on class. Now, it is not as if you cannot powerlevel insanely anyway due to magics, special skills and items combinations, and one of the things I do not like about ToB is that most fights are *yawn* "Thats the best you got!!?". But with that said, NWN feels like PVP duels in Diablo. You put the pointer over an enemy, and you either die instantly or kill the enemy instantly. Where is the fun in that? I want some back and forth, you know? Some tension, some need for skill and strategy.

    subtledoctor
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    1) Play PnP. I've never seen that happen, for the very simple reason that it takes about two years regular play to get to maximum level, and games never last that long. You spend most of your time with characters around level 3 or so.

    2) Don't "optimise your build". Choose abilities based on role playing reasons and theme.

    But: off topic. This thread is not about IWD's choice of ruleset.

  • DrakeICNDrakeICN Member Posts: 623
    edited September 2017
    Fardragon said:

    1)But: off topic. This thread is not about IWD's choice of ruleset.

    Uh... yeah it is, if 3E is one of the things you like in IWD2. On that note, I do enjoy 3E in IWD2, again, because they did not add the elements that otherwise wreck 3E. Combining classes as you like - like my 1 lvl paladin 4 lvl warrior rest sorc --> awesome spellcasting archer. I don't remember no more what the paladin level was for, I guess access to some feat.

    Edit: Wait, I do remember! It was for detect evil, incredibly useful to determine who I should trust. Didn't have no other paladins. Also access to some paladin only items and dialogue options.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,189
    edited September 2017
    DreadKhan said:

    cookie cutter builds churned out by x edition

    Btw, off-topic I know, but I just discovered and watched listened to this, it's pretty great.

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
    tbone1BelgarathMTHBaptor
  • SirBatinceSirBatince Member Posts: 789
    edited September 2017
    I was an idiot kid stumbling about with zero idea how 3rd edition works and I still had a hell of a blast in IWD2. I can imagine how fun it would be now that I can actually learn and understand things.

    IWD2 is part of the IE family and has a very beautiful story. The ties-in with IWD1 are fantastic (Maiden Ilmadia, Mother Egenia, ect). I'd rather find reasons on why not to like IWD2.

    Sadly it has aged poorly and I'm not gonna try enjoying it again with like 15 frame per second and screwed up resolution. Beamdog has my entire trust if they do manage it.

    ShikaoGrumsarevok57
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,564

    I was an idiot kid stumbling about with zero idea how 3rd edition works and I still had a hell of a blast in IWD2. I can imagine how fun it would be now that I can actually learn and understand things.

    IWD2 is part of the IE family and has a very beautiful story. The ties-in with IWD1 are fantastic (Maiden Ilmadia, Mother Egenia, ect). I'd rather find reasons on why not to like IWD2.

    Sadly it has aged poorly and I'm not gonna try enjoying it again with like 15 frame per second and screwed up resolution. Beamdog has my entire trust if they do manage it.

    you don't really have to worry, I had no troubles what so ever running it on my windows 7 PC and you can run it in 1024 res ( which isn't perfect, but it's not too terrible ) at least, that's the res I like running it at, I think you can bump it up to 2048x1536 if you want to give that a go, apparently they say these RES are unsupported by I know that 1024 works just fine

Sign In or Register to comment.