I'm at the end of my rope on this one: BG2.

[Gosling]

I mostly play good and have never had to fight Irenicus in Throne of Bhaal. I also can't find any information about fighting him in the pocket plane in Throne of Bhaal either.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgatei ... rtress.php

Also this:

http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/archive ... 18927.html

 

[MMXI]

I mostly play good and have never had to fight Irenicus in Throne of Bhaal. I also can't find any information about fighting him in the pocket plane in Throne of Bhaal either.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgatei ... rtress.php

Also this:

http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/archive ... 18927.html

Cheers. Looks like it's linked to XP.

 

[almondblight]

At least for Baldur's Gate (I've only played a few hours of BG2), the game seems like it would have been MUCH better if there were 1/4 as many enemies, but they were better designed. The reason why I liked IWD encounters better is because they actually had difficulty and I had to think about things - for example, the ogre in the first cave was pretty difficult for a level 1 party.

Another problem with these games is that the D&D magic system doesn't really work so well in them. Because of the lack of a grid and the turn based nature of the game, it's hard to base your tactics on positioning, so it seems like 80-90% of the strategy is in the spells. With a many system that recharges slowly as you go along, you are encouraged to use spells in every encounter, even if you don't want to run your mages too low. In BG, I'm mostly avoiding spells when I don't have to use them, and then using everything I can when I fight difficult enemies. So, difficult fights are fun, and easier fights are monotonous. And there's a lot of them. I suppose if the AI was better it wouldn't be such a problem.

As for enemy variety, I care much more about whether an enemy is interesting than whether or not it has a different graphic and name. Hell, there were very few enemies in Fallout, with probably about 80% being humans and supermutants, but they made them interesting (relatively). AoD will just have humans to fight, but the combat demo was pretty slick and I never got bored with it. I'd much rather have very enemy types with more variety on the individual encounters, then tons of trash mobs with different names and graphics, but being instantly forgetful nonetheless.

 

[Serious_Business]

The reason why I liked IWD encounters better is because they actually had difficulty and I had to think about things

No. Web + rings of freedom + archers. Win every goddamn fight in the game.

I don't see why the IWD games are so praised on the Dex really, it doesn't make any sense. I feel like this thread highlighted at last the issue of poor encounters - these games are bad. Why not play the Goldbox games or something if you want a hack and slash? Because it has swell atmosphere? Look at my cock, want to suck it faggots? Yeah go ahead

 

[octavius]

I mostly play good and have never had to fight Irenicus in Throne of Bhaal. I also can't find any information about fighting him in the pocket plane in Throne of Bhaal either.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgatei ... rtress.php

Also this:

http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/archive ... 18927.html

Cheers. Looks like it's linked to XP.

My protagonist is a lvl 22 Berserker with 3.6 million XP. I'm playing with no XP cap.
This incarnation of Irenicus was no push over, though. Since I rage quit I didn't defeat him, but remember him casting Time Stop and other high level, nasty spells.

At least for Baldur's Gate (I've only played a few hours of BG2), the game seems like it would have been MUCH better if there were 1/4 as many enemies, but they were better designed. The reason why I liked IWD encounters better is because they actually had difficulty and I had to think about things - for example, the ogre in the first cave was pretty difficult for a level 1 party.

Another problem with these games is that the D&D magic system doesn't really work so well in them. Because of the lack of a grid and the turn based nature of the game, it's hard to base your tactics on positioning, so it seems like 80-90% of the strategy is in the spells. With a many system that recharges slowly as you go along, you are encouraged to use spells in every encounter, even if you don't want to run your mages too low. In BG, I'm mostly avoiding spells when I don't have to use them, and then using everything I can when I fight difficult enemies. So, difficult fights are fun, and easier fights are monotonous. And there's a lot of them. I suppose if the AI was better it wouldn't be such a problem.

As I've said before: most of the encounters in BG can be avoided by using a stealthed or invisible character to scout the area first.
Easy fights can be done in a matter of seconds if you equip your party with missiles weapons. use the right scripts, turn on the AI and resolve the battle in real time.
If you want better AI install Sword Coast Strategems. There are limits to how smart Xwarts, Gibberlings and Kobolds can fight, though.

 

[Gosling]

At least for Baldur's Gate (I've only played a few hours of BG2), the game seems like it would have been MUCH better if there were 1/4 as many enemies, but they were better designed. The reason why I liked IWD encounters better is because they actually had difficulty and I had to think about things - for example, the ogre in the first cave was pretty difficult for a level 1 party.

How is that 1 ogre an interesting encounter?

(It was not difficult at all by the way, and besides you get more xp for not killing him)

Just FYI BG1 had an ogre on the second map outside Candlekeep and often by that time you would only have 2 characters in your party. And how is killing goblins and beetles in Kuldahar Pass in IWD is better designed and more challenging than exterminating that xvart village in BG?

 

[waywardOne]

One day I'll release a documented version of the mod me and some cohorts use. It's Codex Approved all the way, but for the same reason, I'm just too lazy to package it for you ungrateful fucks.

 

[almondblight]

How is that 1 ogre an interesting encounter?
(It was not difficult at all by the way, and besides you get more xp for not killing him)

The one in the cave, surrounded by orcs, not the one you can talk to.

Just FYI BG1 had an ogre on the second map outside Candlekeep and often by that time you would only have 2 characters in your party.

Yeah, somewhere. Never did come across it.

And how is killing goblins and beetles in Kuldahar Pass in IWD is better designed and more challenging than exterminating that xvart village in BG?

Well, I haven't played IWD for 8 years so it's possible that I don't remember things that clearly. It's also possible that I didn't use the "make a line of archers" tactic from the beginning (I'm sure I started using it at least 1/5 of the way into the game though). Still, I remember the battles being more difficult and throwing more at you - like a cave with fast spiders that can close in on your archers/wizards quickly, and teleporting ones that can pop up behind them.

Keep in mind, from what I've seen online, most people seem to agree that IWD's combat was more difficult than BG's, so it's not just me. I'll try replaying it when I finish BG so I can compare the two better.

Also, though I haven't played it in a while, I'm fairly certain the maps are at least a lot better, and more interesting to look at.

 

[almondblight]

As I've said before: most of the encounters in BG can be avoided by using a stealthed or invisible character to scout the area first.

Yeah, but in the end that's as much of a hassle as going through the encounters, minus the XP.

Easy fights can be done in a matter of seconds if you equip your party with missiles weapons. use the right scripts, turn on the AI and resolve the battle in real time.

The AI can't do everything. If I'm not babysitting my party and constantly refilling their arrows/bullets (even though they have more in their inventory!), the casters will run out and then start running right at the enemy. Or they'll end up up front for no reason. Or I have to pull my party back to kite the enemy.

And really, seconds would be fine if there weren't so many of the damn things around. Like the gnoll fortress - how many gnolls and xvarts were there? Sure, each encounter only took me 10 seconds or so, but there must have been 30 - 40 encounters like that. How is this good design? Eight well thought out combat encounters there would have been much better than 30 - 40 easy and tedious ones. Sure, the game is big, but a lot of it is just _boring_. Half as much stuff that was twice as good would have made this game much, much better.

There are limits to how smart Xwarts, Gibberlings and Kobolds can fight, though.

Yeah. Which is why it's a pretty bad move to put them all over the damn game.

 

[Surf Solar]

Bros, I am in serious need for your help here, help a bro out of this misery!

Because all the talk about BGII made me curious to look where my last savegame was, I actually loaded it and tada - I was at the entrance of the planar sphere. I fought my way through it, until I reached Lavok. I fought him regularly, then retreated a bit when HP were low and threw a fireball in the chamber. He stopped attacking me, now he's just laying there, almost dead and I can't kill him nor talk to him. Is there ANY way I can revive him, or make him talk with me? Can I even escape that sphere without him, or let alone getting the sphere as a stronghold? I don't have earlier saves than this, so PLEASE tell me there is a way out. :S

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Bros, I am in serious need for your help here, help a bro out of this misery!

hrrmn turn on cheats
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/258273-baldu ... amn/cheats

then ctrl-q to add to party
ctrl-r to heal
then ctrl-k to remove from party

then try again

 

[Gosling]

Bros, I am in serious need

Is your game patched with the latest patch?
Can you exit the sphere and find a demon heart to activate the sphere core?

 

[Surf Solar]

This is the .... how many-eth time you already helped me? It worked. Those fights in the lower sphere were hard as hell for my low level party, but I made it and the sphere is now mine. Let's see how long I'll endure the game this time.

Is your game patched with the latest patch?
Can you exit the sphere and find a demon heart to activate the sphere core?

Yep. The game is patched and I could retrieve those hearts and activate the core, but Lavok was still silent, rendering me trapped in the sphere.[/quote]

 

[octavius]

So, how are Viconia and Keldorn getting along?

 

[Surf Solar]

So, how are Viconia and Keldorn getting along?

Surprisingly, nothing happened yet. The only "fighting" inside the party I had was with Jaheira and Keldorn, because Keldorn says "there is no gray, everything is black and white blabla" and she disagreed. I really hope no one will leave the party, as I find this constellation actually rather good (tried to use the same constellation that I had in IWD :D )

 

[abnaxus]

So, how are Viconia and Keldorn getting along?

Surprisingly, nothing happened yet. The only "fighting" inside the party I had was with Jaheira and Keldorn, because Keldorn says "there is no gray, everything is black and white blabla" and she disagreed. I really hope no one will leave the party, as I find this constellation actually rather good (tried to use the same constellation that I had in IWD :D )

Keldorn will normally smack Viconia after a while unless you have a tweak pack installed that removes NPCs killing each other or leaving the party.

 

[LoPan]

The reason why I liked IWD encounters better is because they actually had difficulty and I had to think about things

No. Web + rings of freedom + archers. Win every goddamn fight in the game.

I don't see why the IWD games are so praised on the Dex really, it doesn't make any sense. I feel like this thread highlighted at last the issue of poor encounters - these games are bad. Why not play the Goldbox games or something if you want a hack and slash? Because it has swell atmosphere? Look at my cock, want to suck it faggots? Yeah go ahead

Yes, if you have played it before. If you play it for the first time, or you are not all that familiar with IE games of any sort, like I was at the time, then the game puts on quite a solid and rewarding challenge.

IWD did encounter design as well as it has yet to be done in the Infinity Engine but even that is not saying all that much. The problem lies in the engine and the implementation of D&D in that engine. Breaking the system of a D&D IE game and power-gaming exploiting it into dust is well-documented and raucously simplistic, but for those of us averse or distant to power-gaming notions that sort of affair seems a right piddle.

IWD does deserve a fair degree of praise, it did good to handle its linearity, the encounters are solid and the art is lovely. It is a good game if you're into that sort of thing and I don't think I've read anyone on the codex, least of all in this thread, who oversold it.

The question here is not whether IWD or BG1 or BG2 etc. has good encounter design but what makes for good encounter design, particularly in a D&D IE game what with its many inherent systemic flaws. Sadly I have yet to figure what makes for good encounter design in these games as so far (though this SCS seems rather promising) I see no reason any notion on the designers part would not end up broken or walking with a limp under the nature of IE.

 

[IdaGno]

Why is BG2 considered anything but a piece of shit, and why in goodness name would anyone give it a shot past the point entailed?

I can't stand it either.

Looking at its popularity as kindly as possible, one can only conclude that on a waterless world, even a jar of piss is gonna look mighty tempting to those dying of thirst.

More likely the case that bad taste simply outnumbers good taste.

 

[Ringhausen]

More likely the case that bad taste simply outnumbers good taste.

Or maybe it offers stuff that you just don't want?


Nah, probably we're all just filthy plebs and you are part of the master race.

 

[LoPan]

More likely the case that bad taste simply outnumbers good taste.

Or maybe it offers stuff that you just don't want?


Nah, probably we're all just filthy plebs and you are part of the master race.

Yes that is a hard card to argue. Pulling the 'each to his own' is fair and always worth consideration but it simply does not hold up under scrutiny. Would you claim the same towards someone who genuinely liked, and would happily defend with argument and perceived logic, the Transformers movies, or Dan Brown novels, or the Star Wars prequels, or Kesha, or Beyonce, or the Twilight series or anything else so obviously atrocious?

I am not comparing BG2 to any of these things mind you. The point I am trying to raise is one raised, I believe, by Immanuel Kant, or perhaps it was John Locke, which is the argument for the refinement of taste; we all must try and understand what is good, why it is good and why we like it as experiences are as likely to lie to us as we are to lie to ourselves about our experiences. Truth is always a point of view and a perspective that is only as good as its expressed explanation, for it can never be self-evident; this is what the 'to each his own' actually argues which is why it may just be a fallacy.

We all play games, we all do anything, for our own reasons and because we, personally, want something specific out of it. But we never know what we want, at best we know we want more of a previous experience. There are things we avoid because we know we have not liked them in the past but just because we did not like them in the past does not mean we cannot be turned around. Taste is not an immovable mountain and what we desire from something is a thing we can never truly know and what we end up liking we do not necessarily like because it is good, we could just as well like something because we have lied to ourselves, misunderstood ourselves or our experiences, or simply do not have the perspective and scope of experience to have any comparison to something greater and more intellectually or emotionally fulfilling.

A higher taste does exist and the attempt to find it or understand it, to try to understand what benefits your existence and why, and if it even does to begin with as it may just as well diminish and damage your character, is a worthy thing to do and to dismiss it with a fallacy is hardly appropriate as it is a broad subject that requires the attention and perspectives of many people.

 

[Sergiu64]

First time I played it I really liked it because of the story and NPC interactions, good encounter design in places and good reward placement (giant exp from completing quests as opposed to grinding through mobs for exp, plus item rewards were well placed).

Further play-throughs I liked because the game can be munchkin-ed pretty well, and I love being a munchkin apparently.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

I never really liked BG 2, I found it tedious. After a while it's just bland. The only good Infinity Engine games for me were PST of course, and Tales of the sword coast to a lesser extent. BG 2 was too sugary, like if you swallowed a whole packet of sweets.

 

[Ringhausen]

...

Your post was fun to read, but it's off.

BG2 always ends up in the Codex top something list next to Fallout and Arcanum so this cannot be simply a question of taste. And it offers material that the former do not, such as large, imaginative dungeons and a party that feels alive. Things stay true to the P&P RPG spirit and are objectively good, not that everyone wants them of course.

 

[LoPan]

...

Your post was fun to read, but it's off.

BG2 always ends up in the Codex top something list next to Fallout and Arcanum so this cannot be simply a question of taste. And it offers material that the former do not, such as large, imaginative dungeons and a party that feels alive. Things stay true to the P&P RPG spirit and are objectively good, not that everyone wants them of course.

A fallacy followed by a form of Argumentum ad populum. What you are saying is that because it ends up on the codex top something lists this makes it beyond a matter of taste. "Nah, probably we're all just filthy plebs and you are part of the master race." is what you are implying you yourself are in this case.

BG2 did something but it was not alone in what it did. BG2 is not a unique game of innovation and brilliance. It is BG1xscale. Large, imaginative dungeons, a party that feels alive, true the P&P RPG spirit goodness Christ man this is the sort of drivel you'd read off the back of the box and not an argument for quality. Just because BG2's name is close to Arcanum and Fallout doesn't mean it is comparable to these games, KOTOR is of note in the timeline of RPG's and often shows up the exact same lists but would you argue it comparable to Fallout and Arcanum?

BG2 is not particularly buggy and it usually doesn't lag, but it is an easy to break system so how is BG2 objectively good especially considering that you just listed a series of things you subjectively consider good? Fallacy, Argumentum ad populum and paradox, we're going nowhere backwards at this point. Elaborate, this is the written word not small talk.

 

[octavius]

BG2 is not particularly buggy and it usually doesn't lag, but it is an easy to break system so how is BG2 objectively good especially considering that you just listed a series of things you subjectively consider good?

What do you mean by "an easy to break system"?