On why Bioware's games are so freaking easy.

[DoppelG]

I thought Icewind Dale was fucking hard.

 

[Thrasher]

Especially on heart of winter mode.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I thought Icewind Dale was fucking hard.

Developed by Black Isle Studios

Published by Interplay

no real Bioware involvement.

Those guys were sensible, a combat based game needs to be challenging.

 

[1eyedking]

Icewind Dale II was harder.

 

[Warden]

Icewind Dale II was harder.

Yes, I distinctly remember it was even too hard. I don't remember at which difficulty I played it.

 

[Disconnected]

Rome Total War: Europa Barbarorum - Not really relevant to this group but the point I was making is that no computer AI is going to be a challenge to human intellect unless it’s in a very controlled environment like chess.

I get that, but then why make the games so complicated?

I'm sure there's a viable compromise between AI, slight of hand and complex mechanics, but BG (IWD 2 as well for that matter) didn't come close. Hell, using IWD2 as as an example: the supercharged enemy trick often hamstrung the enemies because they wasted round after precious round on useless, and ultimately suicidal actions.

I may be atypical, but I have a really hard time believing players would rather have half a million combat variables than competent opposition.

I'm also a bit sceptical of the lots-o-junk vs. AI trade-off. The AI in IWD2 was at least as proficient as the one in BG1, yet combat in the latter is far simpler than combat in the former.

Whatever.. Maybe I just need to play more Chess & less cRPGs

 

[Melcar]

The IWD games did not have that much of an AI to speak of. BG2 was better in that regard. What made the games freakishly hard were that you were pitted against hordes of relatively high level enemies from the get go and the lack of "powerful" magical items in the early stages of the games.
But in the end, I think that approach was better, since enemies did not "cheat" in battles like in BG2. Made the game less frustrating and believable.

 

[Volourn]

I don't consider what BG2 cheating. Why? I look at the pre battle buffs that BG2 mages did their version of the PC party buffing themselves when they awake or just before entering combat. But, since, it's likely impossible to have every npc spellcaster in the game that the party might meet to buff everytime the party rests, they did it this way. Why should the party be the only side to buff pre battle?

 

[Beans00]

http://blog.bioware.com/2008/11/20/respect-the-character-p2/

A nugget of gold: "A beginning Druid might only have a “+6 to their Survival skill” but by virtue of the fact that they choose the Druid character to play, their Survival skills should simply have more meaning than the Rogue’s +6 Survival skill."

Is he really telling us a lvl 9 rogue who has spent more than a level of skillpoints in a crossclass skill shouldn't be worth much in the survival department compared to a lvl 3 druid?

hi

 

[Thrasher]

Their contingencies were stronger than pre-combat party buffs.

 

[Volourn]

No.

 

[Disconnected]

But in the end, I think that approach was better, since enemies did not "cheat" in battles like in BG2. Made the game less frustrating and believable.

I don't have a problem with using tricks/cheats to help the AI, that's not what I was trying to say. At all. And it doesn't really make a difference to me whether an enemy caster gets an extra 5'ish levels or a contingency cheat.
What I was bitching about is that it doesn't help all that much when Mr. Retard Caster gets stripped of his last anti-magic/anti-physical, and opts for dispelling a protection from fire spell on a random PC who isn't in any way threatened by anything fiery, instead of refreshing his own protection so he doesn't insta-killed. And similar things.
I'm on the last leg of BG:ToB right now, and seriously.. The AI is fucking atrocious. And it's not just casters either. OK, there's some enemies in the BG series that are supposed to fight like fucking retards. Zombies, for example. But they all fight that way.

The AI can't use support abilities beyond maybe 8 spells and abilities in total. It doesn't know how to cause or exploit vulnerabilities. It can't coordinate beyond "rush the mage". It doesn't know how to maintain its protections nor coordinate protections and buffs. It doesn't know how to prevent or fix vulnerabilities.
Basically, in any given fight about 50% of what the AI does is a more or less serious mistake. Or in plain English: the AI fucking sucks.

I wouldn't want it to be perfect. I'm not. It'd kick my ass every time if it was. But I don't want it to fuck up every other action it takes really badly. That's simply too easy. And the solution isn't to make the encounters incredibly lethal, because with that kind of fuck up rate, upping the challenge by upping the lethality just eliminates the strategy/tactics.

 

[Thrasher]

anti-spam mirror Yes

 

[Melcar]

I just killed Demogorgon (tough version) with a bunch of traps.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

The mage battles in BG2 were a bunch of crap. They just cheaply gave every single high level mage a massive chain continengcy where they would autocast a bunch of buffs on themselves so your magic-user would just do "breach, pierce magic" every battle. It was kind of challenging the first time but it got pretty lame after that.

Which Is why I preferred most of the mage battles in IWD 1. The Malavon battle was the best RPG battle I have ever seen. Malavon Dimension doored around his lair leaving trails of summoned creatures, stinking clouds, and cloud kills. When you finally cornered him he used a unique spell of his own creation that killed two of my characters.

The IWD games did not have that much of an AI to speak of. BG2 was better in that regard. What made the games freakishly hard were that you were pitted against hordes of relatively high level enemies from the get go and the lack of "powerful" magical items in the early stages of the games.
But in the end, I think that approach was better, since enemies did not "cheat" in battles like in BG2. Made the game less frustrating and believable.

True which Is why it puzzles me that Malavon's had better AI than any mage in BG 2.

 

[Thrasher]

Yep definitely memorable. IWD came after BG2 (I think)...

I can remember a tough Lich battle in BG2 and another battle in ToB near then end, but names/locations escape me.

Maybe it's time to play Torment again.

 

[Volourn]

"True which Is why it puzzles me that Malavon's had better AI than any mage in BG 2."

Not true AI. More like following a set script. And, besdies you are a known pussy. While he was a decent encounter, he was not hard.

 

[Melcar]

Yep definitely memorable. IWD came after BG2 (I think)...

I can remember a tough Lich battle in BG2 and another battle in ToB near then end, but names/locations escape me.

Maybe it's time to play Torment again.

Kangaxx!!!! Oh, and who can forget the Twisted Rune? Battles in ToB were unmemorable in comparisons, unless you used Ascension.

 

[ushdugery]

NWN2 was hardly easy. I was raped too many times to count by those goddamned foes. I even dicked around with the difficulty settings but meh. I don't play those games for the combat (which was tiring, fast) anyways, I do it for the SECRET SECKS SCENES ABOUT WHICH ONLY I KNOW.

I think you'll also find that NWN2 was hardly Bioware but was infact Obsidian. Just goes to show eh?

 

[oldmanpaco]

Rome Total War: Europa Barbarorum - Not really relevant to this group but the point I was making is that no computer AI is going to be a challenge to human intellect unless it’s in a very controlled environment like chess.

I get that, but then why make the games so complicated?

I'm sure there's a viable compromise between AI, slight of hand and complex mechanics, but BG (IWD 2 as well for that matter) didn't come close. Hell, using IWD2 as as an example: the supercharged enemy trick often hamstrung the enemies because they wasted round after precious round on useless, and ultimately suicidal actions.

I may be atypical, but I have a really hard time believing players would rather have half a million combat variables than competent opposition.

I'm also a bit sceptical of the lots-o-junk vs. AI trade-off. The AI in IWD2 was at least as proficient as the one in BG1, yet combat in the latter is far simpler than combat in the former.

Whatever.. Maybe I just need to play more Chess & less cRPGs

Half a million half-assed combat variables are what allow companies to use the word 'innovative' in press releases.

Meet chess half way: Battle Chess.

 

[Disconnected]

Half a million half-assed combat variables are what allow companies to use the word 'innovative' in press releases.

Maybe they could hire some Republican PR types, and create some "Innovation=Communism=Bad" and "Shit that actually works=American Flag=Good" mindshare, or something? Maybe pack their games with a cheap ricepaper Bible (I like those, they're great for rolling paper in a pinch)?

Meet chess half way: Battle Chess.

I've been wondering whether I should ever since I saw it on GOG actually. Is it worth a try?

 

[Lurkar]

"Maybe a failed roll by the Druid just means that they get the job done, but it takes them longer than it normally should have. Whereas a failed roll on the Rogue’s part certainly indicates failure."

What, so you literally cannot fail so long as you're a druid?

My god, this person must have the most boring tabletop games imaginable. "I see an orc, I'm goi-" "You're a fighter right? YOU WIN!" "What?" "Just roll to see how long it takes for you to WIN!" "What about me, I'm a rogue?" "All locks around you are unlocked, all traps disarmed! WE'RE ALL WINNERS! HOORAY FOR EVERYONE!"

Actually, I think "WE'RE ALL WINNERS! HOORAY FOR EVERYONE!" is how I'm going to classify most games - Bioware or not - from now on. The only difficulty most games have doesn't come from purposeful in game mechanics meant to increase difficulty, they come from bugs and fuck ups.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

"WE'RE ALL WINNERS! HOORAY FOR EVERYONE!"

Arcanum
NWN
PS:T
Both KOTORs

I don't think I've played any other games that fit that description.

e: Actually, Arcanum is hard in the second half if you don't have a good character.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

"True which Is why it puzzles me that Malavon's had better AI than any mage in BG 2."

Not true AI. More like following a set script. And, besdies you are a known pussy. While he was a decent encounter, he was not hard.

You are what you eat.

I never said Malavon was hard. It only took me one reload. Also how were the BG 2 mages unscripted? It all felt scripted to me. Its just that Malavon had a much better script.

Icewind Dale II was harder.

Didn't seem that hard to me until you had to fight a demigod and the hidden summoner made the final battle an utter pain. Oh that Monk challenge was insane too. Creative range weapon usage handled most of the rest of it. All and all IWD 2 wasnt that hard if you didnt rely on a tank too much. Crap armor and damaging foes took out the tanks. This was right up my alley though cuz I was sick of tanks.

 

[Volourn]

"Also how were the BG 2 mages unscripted?"

I never claimed they were..