Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

DELETED

2hellwBg22hellwBg2 Member Posts: 18
edited September 22 in Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition
DELETED

Post edited by 2hellwBg2 on
«134

Comments

  • MaurvirMaurvir Member Posts: 1,023
    Before you quit, consider adding tweaks and SCS, which vastly improve mages and clerics (along with a whole lot of others, but that's a separate issue) Even on the easiest setting, they behave much more realistically.

    Once you start using SCS, it's like the game's AI went to the next level.

    That said, you might finish your current game first, so you can appreciate what the mods are adding.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,004
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    I'm gonna use a character called Zargal who is BG1 for an example.

    He is a hobgoblin that attacks you, I looked up his stats, he has 9 dex and wears studded leather armor. But somehow he has an AC of 2. That is not in the rules of the game!! I'm wearing equipment with bonus to THAC0, and was shooting arrows at him with characters with 18 dex but can't hit him. Meanwhile his archers hit almost every round and they apply poison for some reason.

    So what do you have to do? Reload aka save-scum until you get the outcome you need or use game breaking spells like sleep. It's utter nonsense

    Then there is "scouting" option where you walk around the map hidden and things are just standing there waiting for you to "find them" which is so immersion breaking. People walk around towns and go to bed at night, but enemies just stand in place waiting for you to uncover them. Like basilisks, hey I found a basilisk and he immediately attacks me and I have base saves against petrification; it's game over. Yeah it's game over for me

    It's pretty clear in the game that Zargal is more powerful than a standard hobgoblin (in his dialogue he says something like "I'm the strongest there is" and he has two followers - after the combat you also find he drops a powerful weapon). Therefore it should be no surprise that he fights better. In 2nd edition D&D standard hobgoblins had AC5 (monsters never followed the AC system for player characters even in tabletop) and leaders are tougher than that. You've probably already realized that in BG1 missile weapons are really powerful, so you certainly need to beware of enemies that use them (and all elite hobgoblins apply poison to their arrows, so it's no surprise these ones do that).

    If you don't want to use spells to help combat (and there are many other spells beyond sleep that can help enormously), that obviously makes things more difficult, but all fights in the game can still be done without any need for reloading. Scouting out the situation and positioning your party to best advantage makes a huge difference in combat. When scouting unknown areas by the way, I would suggest you always use an invisible or stealthed character - that way you get the drop on basilisks, rather than the reverse.

    As for the point about whether enemies should be mobile, I would argue that the BG approach is good game design, not bad. It's obviously a question of taste, but I've played a fair amount with mods that do add mobility and I find it just becomes tedious after a while if you're walking repeatedly around the map and can't find enemies. In BG the designers compromised by having enemies in a fixed position until you find them, but making some of them move around really quite a lot after that (even if you're invisible when you first spot them). The first group of sirines you find at the lighthouse area are like that for instance and are significantly more difficult to deal with as a result.

    Of course you shouldn't play the game if you don't find it enjoyable and I can see why you might find it annoying that the game doesn't always follow your views of how it should work. However, it's possible you would enjoy it more if you planned how to beat the game as it is, rather than thinking about how you'd like to change it.

    That's not an excuse. Oh he's a "special hobgoblin" that breaks the rules.

    Oh the scouting game where enemies are just standing there waiting to be discovered. Yeah the basilisks are like every other battle in this game, use BS tactics like immunity to their attack before you fight them (knowing the situation before hand). Oh theres a mage, let's cast silence that has a huge -5 to their save so they are useless. Oh let's cast sleep on these monsters. You don't fight anything in this game you just stop them from attacking you by cheese tactics

    It's a terrible game... absolutely terrible. You can like it, I'm not saying you can't. But honestly, the player is the child of save-scumming, not the god of murder

    It's exactly because he is so clearly a special hobgoblin that he's not breaking the rules. Like most monsters, there's not a single variety of 'hobgoblin' that's always the same - if you look at the Monstrous Manual you'll see there's a number of different types of hobgoblin, so the game is being consistent with the source material here.

    I've played exclusively no-reload for many years now and used every possible character class, so I know there is no need to rely on reloading when playing the game. However, if you deliberately avoid tactics the game intends you to use (like using protection from petrification against basilisks), you will clearly make things more difficult. A nice thing about Baldur's Gate is that there is such a huge range of gameplay options available and there are still lots of ways to deal with basilisks without such protection (like using skeletons, or certain mage familiars, or charming Korax, or dominating the basilisks with Algernon's Cloak, or hold monster from nymphs, or area damage spells, or darts of stunning from stealth etc), but I think the game was designed with the expectation that players would use the various forms of gaze protection available - at least while learning the game.

    StummvonBordwehrConjurerDragonThacoBell
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 841
    You keep saying "game has bad design"

    how would you fix it, then? Game is also easily modded.

    jasteyThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,004
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    I'm gonna use a character called Zargal who is BG1 for an example.

    He is a hobgoblin that attacks you, I looked up his stats, he has 9 dex and wears studded leather armor. But somehow he has an AC of 2. That is not in the rules of the game!! I'm wearing equipment with bonus to THAC0, and was shooting arrows at him with characters with 18 dex but can't hit him. Meanwhile his archers hit almost every round and they apply poison for some reason.

    So what do you have to do? Reload aka save-scum until you get the outcome you need or use game breaking spells like sleep. It's utter nonsense

    Then there is "scouting" option where you walk around the map hidden and things are just standing there waiting for you to "find them" which is so immersion breaking. People walk around towns and go to bed at night, but enemies just stand in place waiting for you to uncover them. Like basilisks, hey I found a basilisk and he immediately attacks me and I have base saves against petrification; it's game over. Yeah it's game over for me

    It's pretty clear in the game that Zargal is more powerful than a standard hobgoblin (in his dialogue he says something like "I'm the strongest there is" and he has two followers - after the combat you also find he drops a powerful weapon). Therefore it should be no surprise that he fights better. In 2nd edition D&D standard hobgoblins had AC5 (monsters never followed the AC system for player characters even in tabletop) and leaders are tougher than that. You've probably already realized that in BG1 missile weapons are really powerful, so you certainly need to beware of enemies that use them (and all elite hobgoblins apply poison to their arrows, so it's no surprise these ones do that).

    If you don't want to use spells to help combat (and there are many other spells beyond sleep that can help enormously), that obviously makes things more difficult, but all fights in the game can still be done without any need for reloading. Scouting out the situation and positioning your party to best advantage makes a huge difference in combat. When scouting unknown areas by the way, I would suggest you always use an invisible or stealthed character - that way you get the drop on basilisks, rather than the reverse.

    As for the point about whether enemies should be mobile, I would argue that the BG approach is good game design, not bad. It's obviously a question of taste, but I've played a fair amount with mods that do add mobility and I find it just becomes tedious after a while if you're walking repeatedly around the map and can't find enemies. In BG the designers compromised by having enemies in a fixed position until you find them, but making some of them move around really quite a lot after that (even if you're invisible when you first spot them). The first group of sirines you find at the lighthouse area are like that for instance and are significantly more difficult to deal with as a result.

    Of course you shouldn't play the game if you don't find it enjoyable and I can see why you might find it annoying that the game doesn't always follow your views of how it should work. However, it's possible you would enjoy it more if you planned how to beat the game as it is, rather than thinking about how you'd like to change it.

    That's not an excuse. Oh he's a "special hobgoblin" that breaks the rules.

    Oh the scouting game where enemies are just standing there waiting to be discovered. Yeah the basilisks are like every other battle in this game, use BS tactics like immunity to their attack before you fight them (knowing the situation before hand). Oh theres a mage, let's cast silence that has a huge -5 to their save so they are useless. Oh let's cast sleep on these monsters. You don't fight anything in this game you just stop them from attacking you by cheese tactics

    It's a terrible game... absolutely terrible. You can like it, I'm not saying you can't. But honestly, the player is the child of save-scumming, not the god of murder

    It's exactly because he is so clearly a special hobgoblin that he's not breaking the rules. Like most monsters, there's not a single variety of 'hobgoblin' that's always the same - if you look at the Monstrous Manual you'll see there's a number of different types of hobgoblin, so the game is being consistent with the source material here.

    I've played exclusively no-reload for many years now and used every possible character class, so I know there is no need to rely on reloading when playing the game. However, if you deliberately avoid tactics the game intends you to use (like using protection from petrification against basilisks), you will clearly make things more difficult. A nice thing about Baldur's Gate is that there is such a huge range of gameplay options available and there are still lots of ways to deal with basilisks without such protection (like using skeletons, or certain mage familiars, or charming Korax, or dominating the basilisks with Algernon's Cloak, or hold monster from nymphs, or area damage spells, or darts of stunning from stealth etc), but I think the game was designed with the expectation that players would use the various forms of gaze protection available - at least while learning the game.

    That argument is ridiculous, "oh he's a special hobgoblin so the rules of dexterity and armor don't apply to his armor class", rules for thee, not for me is BAD GAME DESIGN! the title of the post

    he's wearing studded leather armor and has a better armor class than my plate wearer, with no dexterity bonus. yeah there are hobgoblin elites etc, with stats that break the rules of the game. I'm restricted by all these rules while the enemies in the game are not. THATS BAD GAME DESIGN

    he's a "special hobgoblin" because he said so? Apparently I'm the child of the god of murder, raised by a noted harper mage!!!

    Oh... you do no-reload runs? that's because you know where everything is, you know how to meta the game. you can prepare for each and every situation before it happens

    Yes I should have a chance to defend against a basilisks attacks other than using something which makes me completely immune to it. OTHERWISE ITS BAD GAME DESIGN. I'm suppose to have a bonus to my saves based on wisdom which helps me deal with special attacks, BUT I DONT. unless I am a dwarf or something

    protection from undead scrolls, that's ridiculous. the fights in this game are all about preparing beforehand with items and spells that make you immune to the battle you are about to face. "oh here comes a fight with a lich, I'll just use this scroll I bought and damn dooood, I'm such a bad ass, that lich couldnt do anything"

    walk into a tent, a guy robs me of gold and there is nothing i can do unless i pre-plan the strategy beforehand to knock him out, can't chase him down or anything. this is a scripted F-U moment.

    Imagine if a DM pulled that in a real game of D&D, or this situation; you walk into a room with a ghast on the other side that immediately attacks you and paralyses you, you are now dead because you couldnt kill it in time with your other party members because they missed most of their attack rolls

    trash game, worse than superman 64, and it's such a shame because the graphics are wonderful and the sense of exploration is great.

    I don't personally see any particular reason why a computer game has to be faithful to the source material that inspired it. However, BG does stick to the source material a lot of the time. You've referred a number of times to what a DM would do, so presumably you have some experience of the original 2nd edition D&D rules. I already referred to the Monstrous Manual, as the most basic source material about enemies. Even without the information about sub-races, the entry for hobgoblins refers to leaders, assistant leaders, sub-chiefs and chiefs - all of whom have better stats than the basic hobgoblin warriors - so it is not cheating, unexpected, or inconsistent with rules to find individual enemies with better stats than other members of their race (you will also find BG follows the convention in many other games that named enemies tend to be more powerful than generic monsters). As I said previously as well, monsters in D&D do not follow the same rules about AC as player characters, so you shouldn't assume that a monster wearing armor will have the same AC as you would wearing that same armor.

    The wisdom bonus that you refer to was not a general bonus in D&D rules. Obviously a DM could use whatever house rules they wished, so it might have been used as a general bonus for you. However, in the core rules the bonus only applied to spells that attack the mind (like charm or fear). You could argue this should have been incorporated into BG, but perhaps the developers felt that it would unbalance the selection of spells if you made it easier to defend against mind-attacking spells than other types of spell.

    I agree that playing no-reload does require the use of a lot of meta-knowledge. The scouting tactics I referred to before can allow you to prepare for most encounters, but not all. Hence I would not expect anyone to try and play no-reload until they had played the game a lot and were looking for a different sort of challenge.

    I think the original developers expected reloading to be used a lot - there are various hints and tips suggesting this both in the game and the original manuals. This is an old game and came from a time when games killed you far more easily than most modern games do - that reflects a different philosophy of game design, which personally I prefer (though I accept that may just be because that's what I was used to when first playing computer games). That doesn't mean though that reloading needs to be used as a means of trying the same encounter over and over until random chance favors you. Reloading can be used to try out different tactics to find the best way to solve an encounter. That allows you to get a wide experience of the possibilities of game play in a far shorter time than if you're just concentrating on staying alive.

    KatzerchenStummvonBordwehrThacoBell
  • SBlackSBlack Member Posts: 28
    edited July 31
    The game does require some knowledge of what lies ahead or meta gaming. But this isn't so different from many other games. You make mistakes and then you reload and try to do better. You try different options and see what works. For me that's what makes difficult fights interesting.

    What's the alternative here? Making every encounter beatable at the first attempt? How is that interesting? And there are plenty of easy fights in BG1. Some of the encounters at the very beginning - like the assassination attempt - are questionable design-wise. But they aren't a huge hurdle. And after you leveled up a little there are very few trash mobs that can seriously hurt you.

  • ArviaArvia Member, Moderator Posts: 1,914
    I strongly disagree that this game is badly designed and requires metagaming to finish without tons of reloads.
    The game is designed to be played with a party of 6, and it requires you to use your resources wisely and use them all, if you want it to go smoothly and if you're new.
    The EEs have already toned down some of the really mean encounters like Tarnesh and Shoal the Nereid.
    The ambush with 10 bandit archers sucks, but life on the road as it is sucks, too. So if we're talking about realism, a youngster who grew up in a library and just left home for the first time can't expect to be treated fairly by criminals and point out to them that their approach isn't fair and the should let you gain more experience before meeting you in a fight. If you want to survive, you have to be smart and use what you have.

    It's also a bit surprising to me if going invisible and scouting ahead, or using AoE/ crowd control spells like Sleep, is considered cheesy, but then the game declared to be too difficult. It's expected to play with a party and use their available abilities, the game is designed for that.
    Sure, some people do poverty runs, solo runs, whatever, but those are extra challenges, and if they don't go well, it's not the fault of the game design.

    Speaking of invisibility, there are some creatures that walk off when you come close to them. I have made that experience several times with kobolds for example. Especially in BG1 there are also creatures that roam around randomly at least in a small area. I believe it would be a bit complicated to expect every encounter to be randomized and adapted to a day/night cycle.
    There are mods that randomize the bounty hunters and ambushes or encounters like the amazons, but that's mostly to avoid metagaming for experienced players.

    Dice rolls are statistics and that's it. Personal experience will always have a number too small to reliably even out, and we tend to remember the results that concur with our expectations much more vividly.

    About the spells, the declaration that some of them are trash while others are total game-breaking cheese, that's a very narrow personal opinion and not a general fact. Some underrated spells shine in particular situations, and some AoE spells do get cheesy if you just continue to nuke everything with them, but not if you use them to save your life when severely outnumbered.

    And the game can be played blind and without metagaming, but that's only if you're ready to use what you have, and that includes scouting with a stealthy or invisible character, using consumable stuff like wands and potions, and a wide selection of the available spells.

    So, if someone criticizes the gameplay because of difficulties, and gets a whole thread full of useful advice how to improve their experience with the game, they can either give it a try or not, it's as simple as that and comes down to the conclusion if this is a thread to rant about a bad experience or to find out how to make it better.

    Venting about frustration with a game is perfectly legitimate, of course, but it would be pointless to try to contradict and convince a person who already has a settled opinion.

    I'm still glad there were so many constructive responses to the original post, though, because other people might look at this thread and think "huh, is that really right? I've had bad experiences, too!" and then they read further and find very good advice by you folks here how to improve their gameplay experience and give the game another chance.

    StummvonBordwehrKatzerchenjsavingBelgarathMTH
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 841
    edited August 1
    2hellwBg2 wrote: »
    1. Enemies should abide by the rules of the game; rules you are bound by
    Agreed, but the cheating on this front is not where you'd expect it to be - there are scads of humanoid NPCs with illegal skill sets (your example of Tarnesh in point #2 is usually the go-to example since he has more spells than he legally should be allowed to know for his level), but the monsters? They're all by the book. The hobgoblin you used in your example, if you were to use exactly P&P rules to recreate the scenario, would still have insurmountable stats at that point in the game. And yes, there are plenty of rebalancing mods to correct this.
    2. Bad "DM" scenarios shouldn't exist. Example; the friendly arm inn assassin, which can cast a magic missile with more damage than your health, he should be casting chromatic orb etc. The game is full of these bad DM situations
    Firstly, Chromatic Orb is a more dangerous spell to deal with at level one with the level disparity in this encounter, since it's a "Save or Suck" spell as well as a damage-dealing one (if Tarnesh casts Chromatic Orb and you fail your save, you're blind or your strength is sapped or you take as much as eight more damage or you're blind for even longer or you're outright stunned (depending on what level you are when you fight him - if you go straight to the FAI it should just be the strength sapping). Magic Missile only deals damage.
    3. Game mechanics should work properly, like wisdom save bonuses, spells working as advertised etc
    Agreed, though that's partially because I want my 19 wisdom to actually mean something beyond an extra 4th circle cleric spell.
    4. Pickpocket, you fail your roll and now the map is hostile to you. You can't "talk" your way out using your charisma or anything; suffering a -1 rep loss or something. That's what would happen in real D&D. If I try to pickpocket him again, he attacks me (only that character going hostile / and their guards if any) who you could knock out with your fists instead of killing them. This is not a difficult thing to program. They have all these "special dialogue scenarios" but couldn't do this for a repeated event
    This one is actually a balancing issue intended to reward players who invest in Pick Pockets and/or decide to play a thieving Bard - if your Pick Pockets skill is "high enough" then there's no actual roll to succeed, you just succeed automatically. The problem is that each mark has a target Pick Pockets value and not all marks in BG1 can legally be successfully pickpocketed under the BG1 level cap. But that's the risk you take when you pick pockets, and if you caught someone in real life trying to pick your pocket I'm pretty sure you'd become hostile and call for the authorities as well.
    5. Hit rolls. I roll a d20 one hundred times in real life, it will not get anywhere near the amount of 5's etc this game gives you. Nor will the enemy be rolling so many natural 20s. Looking this situation up on the internet, many other players have this problem too.
    I could go into a whole diatribe about true randomness vs perceived randomness, but really this just boils down to "reload your damn save and try again."
    6. Special abilities like turn undead automatically stop so the character can attack nearby enemies. The AI scripts are awful for this (and require keyboard micromangaing); the other option is to turn off party AI (or have my cleric run circles around enemies) How about my characters auto-attack enemies until I manually select something like turn undead which indicates, stop attacking and start doing this action
    Agreed, the modes should not be usurped by AI. Then again, in BG1 Bard Song is basically just a morale bonus, Turn Undead only scares the skeletons away, and Trap Detection is... it's own mess.
    7. combat itself should be turn based, real D&D is. it would of solved many of the games problems
    This is mostly just a limitation of the engine in line with its goals of being "a simulation of D&D combat in a real-time environment." You can fake round-based combat by enabling a certain autopause function, but the turns would still be synchronous within the round.

    On that note, what is your opinion of the 2003 Tomb of Elemental Evil computer game?
    8. trap detection is awful, and there is no way to deal with them other than using a thief (summons should be able to trigger them etc)
    There is a 2nd circle Divine spell called "Detect Traps" that does exactly what it says on the tin, though you do still need a thief (or a fighter with a zillion health) to disable the trap. Though there's really no excuse on this front - the game hands you Imoen on a silver platter, and she's a perfectly cromulent thief. Remember, half of the alleged appeal of this game is being able to use many varied and colorful NPCs (though I will agree that the need for a competent thief - especially if you intend to progress in any of the bonus content - kind of dampers things here, since your options basically boil down to Imoen, Safana, or a part-thief PC)
    9. the spell selection itself is bad. there are so many spells and most of them are trash, while others are game breaking. Same problem extends to HLA's. My thief can kill a dragon with a trap; WHAT?
    A problem in two parts.
    1) Yes, the spell selection is bad. It's less bad with mods (my preference is for the IWDification mod, which backports a bunch of wonderful divine spells to BG), but still bad. On the flip side, knowing what spell does what can be very helpful - sleep is powerful early on, but because it's tied to the target's level/hit dice it becomes increasingly unreliable as time goes on, while Chromatic Orb - which you previously suggested as a replacement for Magic Missile in the Tarnesh encounter - can literally kill a dragon in one shot if you get lucky.
    2) HLA's are supposed to be game-breaking. I can tell you right now, though, that you don't have to use them if you don't want to. Amely can be beaten legitimately without using them.
    one guy keeps arguing that "he's a special hobgoblin so rule-bending is allowed", I have never known a DM that has made his owns rules for their encounters
    You may want to re-read the official Monstrous Manual entry for Hobgoblins, because that's what that one guy keeps quoting from. The encounter in question would be a perfectly valid one in P&P (though your DM would be actively malicious if they allowed the encounter while you're still level one). In the context of Baldur's Gate, something I've said before (though I don't think it was in this thread specifically) applies - the difficulty curve only makes sense if you follow the plotted line. Once you leave the main path it is considerably harder to get back on to it alive.

    ThacoBell
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 841
    jmerry wrote: »
    Pokota wrote: »
    ...Though there's really no excuse on this front - the game hands you Imoen on a silver platter, and she's a perfectly cromulent thief. Remember, half of the alleged appeal of this game is being able to use many varied and colorful NPCs (though I will agree that the need for a competent thief - especially if you intend to progress in any of the bonus content - kind of dampers things here, since your options basically boil down to Imoen, Safana, or a part-thief PC)

    Or Montaron. Or Coran, since you can delay most dungeon content for after the Cloakwood. Or Shar-Teel, if you dual-class her.
    It's a shame that Alora and Tiax aren't available until way too late. Though there are mods for that.
    Coran and Shar-Teel I've not messed with, but Montaron I usually end up specializing as a stealth thief rather than a traps-and-locks thief. Again, because Imoen is right there.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,432
    Ammar wrote: »
    But to add a point where I think the game is a bit needlessly frustrating for newcomers, I think the one thing that BG should have taken over from Goldbox is that characters above -10 HP are just bleeding out and need to be bandaged to survive, instead of them dying straight-away.

    Glad you said this part, and I fully agree. Obviously I get why they didn't quite get everything right back when this game came out. But what we've seen from Pillars and Pathfinder show a smart evolution on this. And it's one of the key flaws of the BG games, but especially the first game. One of the chief reasons why levels 1-2 feel so so much harder than once you've hit level 3.

  • ThunderburpThunderburp Member Posts: 51
    edited August 3
    I much prefer perma-death and acute weakness early on. Even as a kid, I've always liked the ruthlessness and realism of being level 1, having to be very prudent about which creatures to engage and how, stupidly untrained that we were by Gorion who knew perfectly well what was in store for Imoen and the protagonist.

    I've only seen the early videos of "Divinity: Forgotten Realms" (yes), but it seemed harsh enough about death. I hope this hasn't softened up since then.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,385
    I also disagree that the game is badly designed.

    There are enough story hints that the outside world is tough, and you get plenty of help along the way. There are three npcs in the first area with prospect to getting two more mentioned in the letter. Plenty of npcs warn you to stay on the road and there are further road signs showing information about the surroundings.
    If you lose a party member you have plenty of alternatives available, up to 25 ish vanilla if I recall the count, with additional options with the EE npcs.

    Some mechanics issues mentioned I have never noticed while playing over the last decades. If they do not work well than they are probably bugs that need some attention.

    Complaints about difficulty; you can turn it up or down. There are several levels of it with small bonuses and maluses.
    Overall bg1 is one of the more elaborate games of its age and I do not think it is fair to expect the best AI coding to the current age standards considering all the npcs within it, but for what it does, it is quite good.

    They improved AI in bg2, but they lost me a bit in that game due to the high magic battles that make it frustrating to know which protection is still up and what inherent immunities each creature may have. Bg1 has very little inherent immunities making it much more approachable in my opinion.

    I feel that mostly current age standards for games are much higher than what was feasible a few decades ago, and that is why one would consider it bad design today, but to that I still disagree. Newer games are not doing any better in that regard.

    Permidion_StarkThunderburpdunbarThacoBell
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 841
    I much prefer perma-death and acute weakness early on. Even as a kid, I've always liked the ruthlessness and realism of being level 1, having to be very prudent about which creatures to engage and how, stupidly untrained that we were by Gorion who knew perfectly well what was in store for Imoen and the protagonist.

    I've only seen the early videos of "Divinity: Forgotten Realms" (yes), but it seemed harsh enough about death. I hope this hasn't softened up since then.

    Gorion wasn't expecting to die on the way to the FAI, and likely was planning on training Gorion's Ward and Khalid and Jaheira all at the same time (it makes no sense that the Harpers would send a pair of untrained anything to help with this if it wasn't also supposed to be a way for them to get better)

  • ThunderburpThunderburp Member Posts: 51
    edited August 4
    The protagonist is 20 years old, same as Sarevok. One is learned and trained to the teeth and owns high-end equipment, the other can be beaten up by a small pack of Gibberlings and is basically naked. Let's face it, we survived through the sheer luck of having been lucky enough to be The One and by being given the convenient opportunity of only having to face opponents whose level of threat was within our reach -- as opposed to the poor sod slaughtered in the intro.

    It's not like Gorion couldn't both provide the protagonist with a stable childhood and healthy education and skills that would help not being overwhelmed in the many combats that would inevitably come. It's not like he didn't know of the full details of Alaundo's prophecy, which was recorded right here in Candlekeep some 14 centuries earlier.

    But I'm glad Gorion was so conveniently oblivious, it's thanks to that the just-out-of-Candlekeep part of the game is fun =D

    Permidion_Stark
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 2,074
    I understand the level progression in the game, letting the PC start at level higher than 1 could be justified story wise but would be inconvenient for a lot of reasons. I do think that balancing is well done after that, though. Stay on the road and only do quests you already got and you will be able to defeat the monsters, go further anywhere and you might regret it. I'm not much into D&D so I do not mind if cheaty stats etc. were used for opponents as long as it doesn't make them unkillable or give them too great of an advantage.
    What I do not like, though, is the
    two assassins in Candlekeep who can be killed by level1 CHARNAME. Not to mention that they needed a book worth 10,000 gold each to enter.
    I understand why they are there, but it's just silly if thinking about it.

    StummvonBordwehrPermidion_Stark
  • SirBatinceSirBatince Member Posts: 870
    After 10,000 hours of infinity engine and nearly a decade of solo runs, I would say only your number 2. is a real issue.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,432
    I much prefer perma-death and acute weakness early on. Even as a kid, I've always liked the ruthlessness and realism of being level 1, having to be very prudent about which creatures to engage and how, stupidly untrained that we were by Gorion who knew perfectly well what was in store for Imoen and the protagonist.

    I've only seen the early videos of "Divinity: Forgotten Realms" (yes), but it seemed harsh enough about death. I hope this hasn't softened up since then.

    I get what you're saying here, and I definitely learned to appreciate the death mechanics of the IE games. But we should acknowledge why all the modern CRPG's that take inspiration from these have moved on. And, as Ammar said, why earlier RPG's that the BG series took inspiration from did it better.

    I definitely like a challenging game and came to appreciate the challenge the death mechanic adds. But, it also doesn't leave the player with interesting choices really. The tedious chore of overcoming a death is a bunch of no-decision clicking, a bunch of busywork. This why most players, when first starting out, will simply reload on basically every single death. If game is channeling players into that, it's definitely worth questioning whether that element was good game design.

    On top of that, because of the low HP totals early on, the game breaks slight from the adage of "easy to learn, hard to master." In many ways BG1 is hard to learn, easy to master. The opening hours of the game, really is an uphill battle for the uninitiated. And this can be tens of hours!

  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 2,170
    The thing to note regarding lethality is that it's not really about computer games. The IE games emulate 2nd edition D&D, which is just that deadly in the first place. The tabletop games mechanically evolved from wargaming, in which death is simply expected and rolling up a new character is cheap. Over the years and editions, the tabletop games have shifted toward character-focused roleplaying and less lethality, and the games associated with the brand have followed suit. AD&D/2nd edition is pretty early in that process.

    If you want a tactically challenging computer game, in which your characters could die for the smallest mistake or even just bad luck, that's still out there. Play something like X-COM. You're just not going to find that as a D&D game now, unless you're deliberately playing older games like this one.

    Incidentally, the best tool for mitigating that early-game lethality in BG1? Ranged attacks. Play a party with two or three archers, and take down foes before they can ever reach you.

    dunbarXDarkStrikerXThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.