Interview The Pleasures of Age of Decadence at RPS

[DarkUnderlord]

I think Vault Dwellers arrogance is directed at you and the ones that think that baldurs gate 2 was actually a role playing game.

FYI and the rest of the idiots on these forums who believe so, BG has stats that affect the outcome of many actions.

Examples please.

Skill checks and saving throws. Spell memorizing, potency and casting.

...

We have an image for that now.

 

[DefJam101]

The Bitcher™ strikes again!

Ziiiiiing!

 

[elander_]

Different party members rank on the "choices & consequences" scale somewhere between "I can use different weapons, spells, and class abilities to kill enemies!" and "I can do side quests in any order OR ... not do them AT ALL!!!"

Did you play BG2 a long time ago VD? The game has a party like Arcanum, but you and your party are different things. The only difference between those games is that in Arcanum it's very hard to control your party members. Combat is TB but because of the lack of team control is much worse than BG2 RTwP method. It's impossible to use any sort of positional tactics. Outside combat your companions will unlock doors for you or repair items. They will complain if you do things that go against their moral code in both games. Arcanum doesn't stop being a crpg because of that. Once you get a companion in your team his skills are yours.

 

[Volourn]

"But it's a secret, right? Only a chosen one like you can see it?"

Apparantly, plenty of people say it. But, oh yeah, how convinient of you to ognore the others debating you over this. L0L Nice of you to pay attention to me while dissing them. HAHA!


"I'm afraid they do, Volly. I can't hide it from you any longer."

No, they don't.


"Different party members rank on the "choices & consequences" scale somewhere between "I can use different weapons, spells, and class abilities to kill enemies!" and "I can do side quests in any order OR ... not do them AT ALL!!!""

That's retarded espicially since when doing a party members' quests ther eis different ways to do them, and they have consequences. You can even influence party members' alignments depending on choices you make. Dumbass.

Stop embarassing yoruself with your foolish trolling.

 

[The Feral Kid]

For example, upgrading your health in Prince of Persia allows you to last longer in fights

No shit.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Different party members rank on the "choices & consequences" scale somewhere between "I can use different weapons, spells, and class abilities to kill enemies!" and "I can do side quests in any order OR ... not do them AT ALL!!!"

Okay. Basically what you're saying is that for a choice to be meaningful it has to simultaneously block something else off. Right? So let's take an example from Kotor 2. Handmaiden and Disciple are determined by your character's gender. Since they are mutually exclusive, would you count them as meanigful C&C?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Apparantly, plenty of people say it.

Plenty of people say a lot of things. Not a very reliable source, are they?

But, oh yeah, how convinient of you to ognore the others debating you over this. L0L Nice of you to pay attention to me while dissing them. HAHA!

What can I say, you have a special place in my heart.

That's retarded espicially since when doing a party members' quests ther eis different ways to do them, and they have consequences. You can even influence party members' alignments depending on choices you make. Dumbass.

Influence alignment? Well, that changes everything. I can see how playing with an evil Viconia would be completely different than playing with a neutral Viconia. What was I thinking when I said that the experience is the same give or take few meaningless choices?

As for "different ways" and "consequences", what are those?

Nalia's quest - kill the trolls and liberate her keep. You can definitely kill the trolls in many different ways, so maybe you're right.

Keldorn's quest - from a walkthrough:

"He asks you for advice, tell him to confront Sir William over the matter. William is found in the Mithrest Inn in the Promenade. Talk to Sir William, and he will chastise Keldorn for not being there for his family. Now go with Keldorn back to his estates to get some closure on this one.

Talk to his wife again, and they will realize they still love each other. Of course, now Keldorn wants to spend some time with her. You get 15,500 experience no matter what you tell him, let him spend a day, force him to go with, or release him from your service..."

So, two real choices, after you get 15k (for clicking on several NPCs) "no matter what", is keep him with you or let him go. Decisions, decisions...

Korgan's quest - loot a dungeon you'll loot anyway, with or without him. There are many different ways to loot this dungeon: you can give all loot to one party member, share it evenly, take more for yourself, or even take nothing for yourself. Unlimited options here, basically.

Yoshimo - will betray you no matter what you do. Nice!

Edwin - wants to loot a dungeon, finds a scroll, becomes a female. Funny, funny stuff.

Valygar - the sphere quest. Loot, kill, the usual...

Mazzy - did she even have a quest?

Cernd - kill trolls, fight a druid.

Anomen - finally, a simple choice between him becoming a knight and him failing miserably and not becoming a knight. No real effect on the game because his membership doesn't offer anything. So the choice is basically "do you want a party member with or without a stat bonus?" Hmm, that's a tough one...

Anyway, you see where I'm going with this, Volly?

 

[Vault Dweller]

For example, upgrading your health in Prince of Persia allows you to last longer in fights

No shit.

That was sarcasm reflecting the quality of your argument. So, yeah, no shit.

Did you play BG2 a long time ago VD?

No. Replayed it 6-7 months ago, so it's very fresh in my memory.

Arcanum doesn't stop being a crpg because of that.

Your point being?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Okay. Basically what you're saying is that for a choice to be meaningful it has to simultaneously block something else off. Right?

No.

For example, right now I have a choice between reading a book and playing a game. A mutually exclusive choice. Is it meaningful? No.

So let's take an example from Kotor 2. Handmaiden and Disciple are determined by your character's gender. Since they are mutually exclusive, would you count them as meanigful C&C?

Of course not.

A meaningful choice would have consequences - some kind of effect on the gameworld and/or gameplay.

 

[Joe Krow]

http://www.cyoa.com/

Only a dumbass would define something by a criteria, " choice and consequnces" in this case, that didn't even appear until after the genre itself was well established. Nice logic that.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

http://www.cyoa.com/

Only a dumbass would define something by a criteria, " choice and consequnces" in this case, that didn't even appear until after the genre itself was well established. Nice logic that.

It doesn't matter if the genre is well established or not, new subsets can always be added in.

VD, I read your RPG thread on the IT forum. Makes sense to me apart from the 'classic RPG' business. Why is this type of RPG called 'classic'? Based on what? I tend to take the term 'classic' as 'original', though perhaps you mean 'perfected'?

Also, I noted that you put ROA 1 and 2 in the story driven RPG section. Why not the third in the series?

 

[racofer]

We have an image for that now.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Okay. Basically what you're saying is that for a choice to be meaningful it has to simultaneously block something else off. Right?

No.

For example, right now I have a choice between reading a book and playing a game. A mutually exclusive choice. Is it meaningful? No.

They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both eventually. That's like the analogy you made earlier about the order to do side quests in.

So let's take an example from Kotor 2. Handmaiden and Disciple are determined by your character's gender. Since they are mutually exclusive, would you count them as meanigful C&C?

Of course not.

A meaningful choice would have consequences - some kind of effect on the gameworld and/or gameplay.

And in your view "gameworld" excludes party NPCs?

Okay.

So let's take Marcus from Fallout 2. It's been awhile since I've played it, but I know you can recruit him. Before you do that he is a source of quests and information. So as soon as he enters your party, he ceases being part of the "gameworld?"

 

[Volourn]

"Anyway, you see where I'm going with this, Volly?"

Yeah, that's okay. You are lying, and make shit up. The Codex expects game develoeprs to lie.

Only a blatant retard who is ignorant would claim that BG2 isn't a RPG. One can argue that it isn't a great RPG; but it is a RPG. Just like MW is. Or Oblivion. Or even FO3. Just like POR2 is.

Just deal with it.

 

[The Feral Kid]

For example, upgrading your health in Prince of Persia allows you to last longer in fights

No shit.

That was sarcasm reflecting the quality of your argument. So, yeah, no shit.

Of course. What argument can you make against "upgrading your health allows you to last longer in fight".

 

[Longshanks]

VD, I read your RPG thread on the IT forum. Makes sense to me apart from the 'classic RPG' business. Why is this type of RPG called 'classic'? Based on what? I tend to take the term 'classic' as 'original', though perhaps you mean 'perfected'?

Also clearly lists BG2 as a "story-driven RPG". So why are people whining about VD not considering BG2 to be an RPG?

He does not consider it, what he terms a "classic" (of highest quality) RPG, as it lacks C&C. I don't think there can be much argument about this, it's just not a strong aspect of the game, it's certainly not the main focus.

 

[Volourn]

Nonsense. He's falt out called it not a RPG multiple times. He's even defending the viewpoint in this very thread. So, one way or another, he's lying. Like I said, he's trolling. And, it's fun!

 

[hiver]

As far as i can remember you can get Keldorn to report his wife infidelity which gets her in prison and lover executed.
Depending on your choices he will also stay with the family or go with you.

When you get bards stronghold there is a whole play being staged and you are director and you have to make numerous decisions on the play which all have the effect on how well its performed and received.

When you have to deal with baron ployer who cursed Jaheira you can do it in two ways with different outcomes on that particular fight.
It can be easier or harder because of those choices.

Depending on your interactions and what you say to companions available for romance you will have a romance with one and make the other romances unavailable with all their subquests.

You can choose to side with Aron or Bodhi causing different development of that part of the story.

in Spellhold Asylum you have an option of talking inmates into joining you in a fight against Irenicus.

You have a choice of following Irenicus through the portal or by boat. Whole area missed or not because of it.

In underwater city you have numerous options of who to join or not in a civil war influencing what awards you get at the end and naturally a lot of fights.
You can also double trick them all.

In Underdark numerous choices with dealing with swirfneblin, burried mage and especially during quests in Drow city - Phaere quests, Mother matron and Dragon eggs all with different outcomes.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Like I said, he's trolling. And, it's fun!

It takes a troll to appreciate a troll amirite?

 

[Vault Dweller]

http://www.cyoa.com/

Only a dumbass would define something by a criteria, " choice and consequnces" in this case, that didn't even appear until after the genre itself was well established. Nice logic that.

Glad you like it. Anyway, I think now would be a good time to remind everyone that RPGs had not begun with those primitive dungeon crawlers of the 80's. Never heard of PnP? RPGs have always revolved around players' choices and being able to approach a situation in different ways. Why should we forget that and pretend it never happened?

VD, I read your RPG thread on the IT forum. Makes sense to me apart from the 'classic RPG' business. Why is this type of RPG called 'classic'? Based on what? I tend to take the term 'classic' as 'original', though perhaps you mean 'perfected'?

See above.

They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both eventually. That's like the analogy you made earlier about the order to do side quests in.

I can't. Don't have a lot of time, so 30-40 min a day is all I've got. So, it's either one or the other. Not both. Sure, if you give me several weeks, I'll have enough time to do both, but within the boundaries of a single day adventure, it's a mutually exclusive, but not a meaningful choice.

And in your view "gameworld" excludes party NPCs?

Depends on the execution. In the Fallout and BG games, IWD, ToEE party members didn't have any effect on the gameworld and story. In PST and MotB they had (not all, but most).

So let's take Marcus from Fallout 2. It's been awhile since I've played it, but I know you can recruit him. Before you do that he is a source of quests and information. So as soon as he enters your party, he ceases being part of the "gameworld?"

How does he affect the game? You're confusing giving "quests and info" with affecting anything. Is your gameplay different with Marcus on-board? No, it's not. That's your answer.

"Anyway, you see where I'm going with this, Volly?"

Yeah, that's okay. You are lying, and make shit up.

Just checking.

Only a blatant retard who is ignorant would claim that BG2 isn't a RPG. One can argue that it isn't a great RPG; but it is a RPG. Just like MW is. Or Oblivion. Or even FO3. Just like POR2 is.

Just deal with it.

It's an RPG. Did I just bring some happiness into your life or what?

PS. You owe me one now.

For example, upgrading your health in Prince of Persia allows you to last longer in fights

No shit.

That was sarcasm reflecting the quality of your argument. So, yeah, no shit.

Of course. What argument can you make against "upgrading your health allows you to last longer in fight".

Same as against "BG has stats that affect the outcome of many actions. Like saving throws and spells!" apparently.

 

[Forest Dweller]

They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both eventually. That's like the analogy you made earlier about the order to do side quests in.

I can't. Don't have a lot of time, so 30-40 min a day is all I've got. So, it's either one or the other. Not both. Sure, if you give me several weeks, I'll have enough time to do both, but within the boundaries of a single day adventure, it's a mutually exclusive, but not a meaningful choice.

I am playing an RPG with lots of side quests, none of which cut each other off. (hey Oblivion!) However, due to time contraints, I can only do one side quest a day. Do you see where I'm going?

I mean "mutually exclusive" in the sense of a complete playthrough, not just in a specific amount of time. Something that if you want to see the other option, you'll have to restart and make a different choice.

And in your view "gameworld" excludes party NPCs?

Depends on the execution. In the Fallout and BG games, IWD, ToEE party members didn't have any effect on the gameworld and story. In PST and MotB they had (not all, but most).

So let's take Marcus from Fallout 2. It's been awhile since I've played it, but I know you can recruit him. Before you do that he is a source of quests and information. So as soon as he enters your party, he ceases being part of the "gameworld?"

How does he affect the game? You're confusing giving "quests and info" with affecting anything. Is your gameplay different with Marcus on-board? No, it's not. That's your answer.

Well first let me ask you this: what is a gameworld apart from a collection of NPCs and how they react to you? You were saying that a choice has to affect the gameworld. Well, when you meet Marcus, you'll talk to him and then you can decide to help fix the town for him. There's also other people who want things done differently, who you can side with. Or you can just kill Marcus on the spot. Those are all choices affecting the gameworld revolving around Marcus.

As for what benefit he will bring when in your party, I don't know since I never had him. I was just bringing that up to see if you thought he would no longer be part of the gameworld when he joins you.

 

[The Feral Kid]

For example, upgrading your health in Prince of Persia allows you to last longer in fights

No shit.

That was sarcasm reflecting the quality of your argument. So, yeah, no shit.

Of course. What argument can you make against "upgrading your health allows you to last longer in fight".

Same as against "BG has stats that affect the outcome of many actions. Like saving throws and spells!" apparently.

Which makes perfect sense and derives from the D&D rule system that is based. But probably you don't consider that role playing either. While your reply was as usual a masturbatory Ad hominem. Last time I checked, how you created and played your character still counted as an rpg.

 

[Tigranes]

BG2 does have choices to make, and different gameplay experiences on each playthrough. Going to pass on the retarded BUT IS IT ROLE PLAYING IS IT AN RPG OH GOD crap though.

BG2 is not a freaking Halo. It's got decisions, sometimes with clear consequences, and it does have differing experiences. It just doesn't rank very well in the specific things that VD is looking for, which is, i.e. the decisions you take in Necropolis (if I've presumed wrong just kick me in the nuts *love*).

You can dislike the type of choices / experiences BG2 offers VD, but that is only because you have a particular idea of what role-playing is and you're judging BG2 by that stick. (Which is fair enough. Why shouldn't you do that?)

No point degrading BG2 into a choiceless linear mush in the process though, I think you're being a bit unfair on it. E.g.:

Nalia's quest - kill the trolls and liberate her keep.

Then take her with you or be the keep's protector, or leave her to her fate and basically fuck her over.

Keldorn's quest (...) So, two real choices, after you get 15k (for clicking on several NPCs) "no matter what", is keep him with you or let him go. Decisions, decisions...

Actually, you can persuade Keldorn to put his own wife in jail (which would befit his alignment / religious code), track down the adulterer and kick his ass, or let them reconcile; and if the latter, you can let him retire so he can keep his repaired family relationship going. Not "OMFG AWSUM VARIETY" roleplaying maybe, but it makes sense, there are choices, and you do feel bad about making him come with you anyway.

Valygar - the sphere quest. Loot, kill, the usual...

Yeah, also that bit where there's a story involving him. Crazy, eh? (No C&C here, of course. It just wasn't a 'worthless kill-a-thon'.)

Mazzy - did she even have a quest?

Pretty sure she did. Not sure, because her attitude was bloody annoying and I never took her on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Depending on your choices he will also stay with the family or go with you.

Not a choice really. Not in a combat heavy game like BG2 where only Keldorn can use the holy avenger, one of the very few (or was it the only) +5 weapons in the game.

When you get bards stronghold there is a whole play being staged and you are director and you have to make numerous decisions on the play which all have the effect on how well its performed and received.

Which affects what exactly?

When you have to deal with baron ployer who cursed Jaheira you can do it in two ways with different outcomes on that particular fight.
It can be easier or harder because of those choices.

Hated that bitch, so never had that quest; can't comment.

Depending on your interactions and what you say to companions available for romance you will have a romance with one and make the other romances unavailable with all their subquests.

Surely you're jesting with me.

You can choose to side with Aron or Bodhi causing different development of that part of the story.

What does it affect? The outcome is the same. You get captured and Bodhi's behavior and role are exactly the same. Bodhi could have saved you from the gantlet run and let you go. Wouldn't have cost Bio anything, but would have been a nice reward for siding with her.

You have a choice of following Irenicus through the portal or by boat. Whole area missed or not because of it.

Good design?

In underwater city you have numerous options of who to join or not in a civil war influencing what awards you get at the end and naturally a lot of fights.
You can also double trick them all.

From a walkthrough:

- THE CHALLENGE

You are brought before their King, who soon enough asks you whether you
are the surfacers of prophecy. It doesn't matter what you say as they
think the same thing of you in any case. Accept their challenge to
fight one of their slaves.

You are set to fight an Ettin, nothing that challenging. Kill it (5000
experience) to prove that you are indeed the prophesized one. The losing
priestess is sacrificed, and you are told about the Sahuagin Rebels.
The King wishes the Rebels to be exterminated, while the priestess who
sponsored you wishes them to be negotiated with. Agree to the King's
demands to bring back the heart of the Rebel Prince to him. The
Priestess wishes to speak with you before you leave to go do the deed.

- ENTER THE REBEL BASE

Head all the way north (x 2680 y 50). Then go right until you reach the
stairs (x 4600 y 1200). Don't worry about killing the rebels on the
way there, they're insignificant. Go down the stairs. Go through this
ambush to the doors (x 3700 y 2340).

Here you find the Sahuagin Chieftain who will take you to see the Rebel
Prince (if you have the Priestess' Orb, that is).

- SIDE WITH THE PRINCE

Now you have to make a choice which side to go with. On the one hand you
can go with the Prince's schemes, accept the Fake Heart and give that to
the King. (if you want to do it the other way, see below) If you have
a Monk, I would recommend siding with the King.

Take the Heart over to the King and give it to him. He does fall for it
and would reward you. Then the Prince and his goons attack the city and
you are forced into combat with the king. Kill the king to get his
items:

The Prince then enters and takes control of the city. He then rewards
you for your efforts:

Of course, now you can also double cross the prince and kill him. That
way you can still get the Wave Blade (you could probably also pickpocket
it off him, but Imoen has a horrible Pickpocket rating, so if you have
her, you probably can't do that).

- SIDE WITH THE KING

Or, you can assault the rebel prince and take his real heart. He also
has some treasure on him:

Return to the King with the Heart and he will take you to the entrance
to the underdark. He also gives you a fairly generous reward:

In case you are wondering, you get nothing for turning in the Priestess.
Also, the King vanishes so you can neither talk to him again nor double
cross him and kill him."

Basically, you play this map in the exactly the same way every time, but in the end you can decide whom to kill, the king or the prince. The only real choice is which reward better suits your characters (as illustrated by the walkthrough).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Which makes perfect sense and derives from the D&D rule system that is based. But probably you don't consider that role playing either. While your reply was as usual a masturbatory Ad hominem. Last time I checked, how you created and played your character still counted as an rpg.

Checked where?