vivec
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,149
Sensuki
Are you all of a sudden admitting that BG's were good due to their " world design" and not due to their gameplay?
Exploration is part of the gameplay. I enjoy the low level feel of the BG1 encounters as well. The combat is pretty simple and easy once you get the hang of it, but I still enjoy it. It goes without saying that it is for the most part better in BG2 and IWD:HoW. In BG1 they got the baseline right (even if by accident), unlike Pillars of Eternity.
I am interpreting your thoughts here based on your previous opinions. So correct me (and beg pardon) if I go astray. I understand you like the RTS aspect of the gameplay, right? I liked the combat in IE games *despite* the RTS aspect. the mechanics feels awkward as it was originally implemented for the TB D&D as you obviously know. I felt that the presentation of the game, i.e. the way spells were implemented and interacted with the characters in the game, was the *real* strong-suit of the gameplay. It was definitely not the movement and thus the RT that comes along with that. Moreover, I would be hardly be opposed in saying that the game would be much much better as TB. It would have a two fold effect: a reduction in the trash in either game, as it would (again) obviously slow the pace of the game to a crawl even by the developer standards; also, the TB would confirm much better to the melee combat which in the IE games was the worst implemented part of the gameplay. Melee simply meant tanking the enemies while the archers and mages made short work of the enemies.
Personally, I never liked the 2nd edition. i don't even like the third edition, but at least it has more RP aspect that the second in the mechanics via the skills. I do not like the level system and what it implies along with its linear ugly effect of HP scaling and sticky AB. I do not like the skill progression of third edition.
However, my love for D&D is due to its monster and spell variety and what a DM can do with that.
In my opinion this is what made BG series so good. It managed to exploit the real strength of the D&D system, the spells and the monsters. This is what PoE fumbles in. Its spells are all very 'samey' and have terrible mechanics. its monsters are samey and scaled versions of each other. PoE borrows the worst aspects of D&D: the leveling, the scaling of HP and skills and drops its best aspects: the variety and uniqueness of spells and monsters. Of course then to a P&P enthusiast it feels dead inside.
Unfortunately, it comes with an added minus: its story. BG at least had a decent story that was about a bunch of good guys trying to stop the bad guy from becoming a god. Or maybe a bunch of a**holes trying to stop an even more a**hole and usurping his ambitions. It used the setting to the full effect and made sense in the context of the game.
PoE fails to make sense in its own setting. First it posits that soul power is the reason why the PC is a hero. Then everyone seems to have the same skills as the hero. So... there are a lot of people with soul power??! Then we have some strange stuff that does not fit anywhere: Guns. Why are they in the game? The make zero sense in the setting which offers no explanation for having that stuff. I could go on and on but this is neither the place or time for that rant.
The point I wanted to make is that you need to tell me why exactly do you not like PoE compared to BG. In my view, the reasons are outlined above. However, I feel that yours are not justified. I am specifically targetting you, as I seem to recall from the obsidian forums, you tend to have opinions backed not by blind fanboyism, but with clear reasons that made sense. So I would hear from you more.