Most cliched enemies.

[Wulfstand]

Those "I'm a undead, I've been dead for 200 years, but I can still look like Jenifer Lopez/ The Pitt" types of undead/vampyre.
Oh man, it's like whenever I see the word "Forsaken" or the like, I'm 1/2 through thinking on uninstalling the game/ throwing the book out the window.

 

[Hory]

Yes, mondblut, but in those games it doesn't even matter because you always have a huge party to choose someone from that can deal with them. It's a no-brainer. In BG2, some spirits at the start of the game actually posed a problem, when I played in multiplayer with only 1-2 friends and everyone kept getting "This has no effect!".

 

[Imbecile]

The standard JRPG bad guy, who you beat.

And then he starts glowing. And then you beat him.

And then he becomes a giant, flying tentacle demon. And then you kill him.

Then his soul (or possible possession) attacks the life force of the planet and then you beat yourself to death with the nearest blunt implement.

 

[spectre]

Regarding undead, problem with the D&D-ish mutations of the theme is that it only requires two additional bits from the cleric player - a preemptive turn undead beforehand and some restoration afterwards.

Undead become really scary when they have permanent (or hard to get rid of) drains that ruin your stats and xp. Same goes for the aging attack.

I remember in ADOM I would avoid ghouls early on, because the paralysys would be lethal if swarmed, stat drains from liches and wraiths are really brutal, and ghosts can age short lived races, like trools, to death in just a few hits.

I vote dragons as the most cliched. Big loot bags, seldom have real depth of character,they even come color-coded for convenience (if not, just maximise prot. from fire. Hooray, creativity).

 

[mondblut]

Yes, mondblut, but in those games it doesn't even matter because you always have a huge party to choose someone from that can deal with them. It's a no-brainer.

That's why adventurers tend to assemble in parties. To have diverse opportunities. Still, if you don't have a +2 weapon for that spectre, you're fucked no matter how huge is your party. Unless there are 10 mages to spam magic missiles on it.

In BG2, some spirits at the start of the game actually posed a problem, when I played in multiplayer with only 1-2 friends and everyone kept getting "This has no effect!".

Noncorporeal (and otherwise immune to non or low magic weapons) undead is a big problem in many games dealing with low-level adventuring. Like that spectre in library in original Pool of Radiance. Even when one of your guys still can hit him, that is hardly enough to save the day.

Regarding undead, problem with the D&D-ish mutations of the theme is that it only requires two additional bits from the cleric player - a preemptive turn undead beforehand and some restoration afterwards.

"D&D-ish mutations"? I love it when people keep blaming D&D without, like, reading a page or two of it

It takes a *very* high level cleric to effectively turn powerful undead, and even higher level one (at least 13 - 7th level spell) to spam restoration after each battle. In 70% of existing D&D computer games there is no way to restore drained levels at all. Besides, with restoration you still lose all the xp you gained since last level up, it brings your level back and resets the xp just enough for it.

Undead become really scary when they have permanent (or hard to get rid of) drains that ruin your stats and xp.

Just like they do in D&D games.

I remember in ADOM I would avoid ghouls early on, because the paralysys would be lethal if swarmed, stat drains from liches and wraiths are really brutal, and ghosts can age short lived races, like trools, to death in just a few hits.

Gee, I wonder where ADOM ripped it from? Paralyzing ghouls making characters helpless and killable in one blow - check. Stat or level drains - check. Aging attack - check, even if it never made it into computer games (at least it never happened to me, but I can easily imagine it in GB series).

 

[PorkaMorka]

The answer is def. rats.

Zombies and skeletons are overused, but on the other hand, they legitimately deserve a role in many games, and players can enjoy fighting them at times, especially as part of an encounter where they're supporting more intelligent enemies like necromancers/evil clerics.

Giant rats represent a failure of developer creativity in most cases though. First of all, it's pretty debatable if giant rats who are only the size of dogs would attack a party of healthy adult adventurers. Rats are slightly intelligent, and they're scavengers, and even predatory animals are usually not anxious to suicidally attack groups of people.

Plus, nobody wants to fight rats, they're boring as hell in 99% of situations, it just represents the Devs going... "well we need some weak enemy here".

 

[Melcar]

If only you could make rat flails.

 

[Norfleet]

Giant rats represent a failure of developer creativity in most cases though. First of all, it's pretty debatable if giant rats who are only the size of dogs would attack a party of healthy adult adventurers. Rats are slightly intelligent, and they're scavengers, and even predatory animals are usually not anxious to suicidally attack groups of people.

In the real world, natural selection has sort of weeded out most of the animals that tend to habitually attack people, so animals that will launch unprovoked attacks against humans, especially armed ones, are extremely unusual. Not even a tiger is inclined to attack a heavily armed band of humans.

 

[Melcar]

What about rattigers?

 

[Murk]

Gothic 1 and 2 used Undead rather well. I remember Skeletons being one of the more dangerous enemies you could come up against but they functioned exactly as strong humans did.

I'd have to agree that the naturally aggressive and suicidal wildlife is pretty terrible. There is no reason whatsoever why a wolf wouldn't try to flee if it got hurt.

 

[LittleJoe]

Evil little girls.

 

[DriacKin]

super rich people who are EVIL and powerhungry.

 

[LittleJoe]

Necromancers.

 

[Ch1ef]

This:
'Well. Look what we have here.'

'This can't be good.'

'Gentlemen. Surely. There is no need. For trouble.'

'Now stay out of our way, SISTER.'

'You protect these traitors. You get the same as them.'

'I TRIED TO BE MERCIFUL!'

'...?'

'Let me introduce myself. I am Leliana. You will be battling the dark spawn. Yes? That's why I am coming along!'

 

[spectre]

Regarding undead, problem with the D&D-ish mutations of the theme is that it only requires two additional bits from the cleric player - a preemptive turn undead beforehand and some restoration afterwards.

"D&D-ish mutations"? I love it when people keep blaming D&D without, like, reading a page or two of it

It takes a *very* high level cleric to effectively turn powerful undead, and even higher level one (at least 13 - 7th level spell) to spam restoration after each battle. In 70% of existing D&D computer games there is no way to restore drained levels at all. Besides, with restoration you still lose all the xp you gained since last level up, it brings your level back and resets the xp just enough for it.

Unless you hadn't noticed, I blame mostly BG and NWN. In this case none of what you wrote apply, cause it's ridiculously easy to counter undead there. At worst, you have to go back to the temple every once i na while.

Undead become really scary when they have permanent (or hard to get rid of) drains that ruin your stats and xp.

Just like they do in D&D games.

Again, doesn't apply to the main culprits. I am not really blaming D&D here, I am blaming designers who are afraid to use its features to full potential.

I remember in ADOM I would avoid ghouls early on, because the paralysys would be lethal if swarmed, stat drains from liches and wraiths are really brutal, and ghosts can age short lived races, like trools, to death in just a few hits.

Gee, I wonder where ADOM ripped it from?

No shit sherlock, I am giving an example where its done right. Surprise, surprise, it is based on D&D.

 

[Azrael the cat]

That's about it.

I like BG2 a lot, but Irenicus isn't an awesome villain. He just has good VA.

The voice acting is extraordinary, but I think it's also the fact that he's more involved in the story. He doesn't just appear at the end of the game for the boss fight. Also, the writing is above-average, he gives some philosophical justification for his actions. He's simply not as shallow as the foes from other RPGs.

Life... is strength. That is not to be contested; it seems logical enough. You live; you affect your world. But is it what you want? You are... different inside. This woman lives and has strength of a sort. She lost her parents to plague, her husband to war, but she persevered. Her farm prospered, her children are well-fed, and her name respected throughout her land. She lived as she thought she should. And now she is dead. Her land will be divided, her children will move on, and she will be forgotten. She lived a good life, but she had no real power; she was a slave to death. I wonder if you are destined to be forgotten as she was. Will your life fade in the shadow of greater beings?

IMO, BG2 would be the fourth game in a RPG "holy quadrinity".

This, it's good USE of a villain. He and Bodhi get stronger over the course of the game, and between the two of them you fight them about 6 times during the game (3 each). It's just the 'running battle over the course of the game' is so much better than having a boss who sits at the end of the dungeon, waiting for you to kill him, while either doing nothing, or completely ignoring the player like an idiot.

The reveal that dream-Irenicus (ie the guy that gives the speech that you quoted) isn't actually Irenicus but Bhaal getting pissed that someone's stolen his kid's soul, and urging his kid to go use his powers to bitchslap the thief, is also moderately subtle for a bioware game.

But the main thing is having a pair of villains that you actually interact with and face several times (and not just in a multi-stage boss fight) over the course of the game. It's hard to understand why game developers still do the 'boss at end of game' design for rpgs - you'd never do that in a book or a film, and it makes even less sense in an interactive computer game. Even Bioware doesn't seem to realise what made Irenicus/Bodhi work - as the very next game they went back to the 'big bad, waiting at end of last dungeon' model (KotoR), resulting in the very first 'boss' being more interesting than the main one, purely because you at least get to encounter that bounty-hunter guy a couple of different times.

 

[Ammar]

The reveal that dream-Irenicus (ie the guy that gives the speech that you quoted) isn't actually Irenicus but Bhaal getting pissed that someone's stolen his kid's soul, and urging his kid to go use his powers to bitchslap the thief, is also moderately subtle for a bioware game.

This interpretation makes no sense, since you get that dream before your soul gets stolen.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Perhaps Bhaal is expecting it to happen

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

I hate giant spiders the most, especially after playing Dark Messiah. A giant spider parries my sword blow with it's leg. What the fuck?