Which combat mechanic is the best ?

[ChristofferC]

Baldur's Gate. There's no question about it. Fallout is basically shoot in eyes -> shoot in eyes -> shoot in eyes.

 

[Fowyr]

Seriously guys, how is shooting in the eyes in FO1 tactical in any way? I can hardly remember even a single encounter where any kind of tactics other than shoot-shoot-shoot or run-hit-hit-hit was employed... Changing weapons midbattle? Nope. Changing party tactics? As long as they live its ok. Even the Master was all about hiding behind columns for me. Please explain Yourselves...

BG's tactic was all about spamming fireballs from wands, hacking with swords, backstabbing and send one arrow after another arrow when you run.
Goldbox's tactic was all about DBF and running around the enemy to spend his attacks.
Divine Wrath the only useful spell in the Disciples of Steel.

See it?

 

[Malakal]

Nope still not seeing it, since I didnt even use fireballs that much (preferred MMM or skull traps), You had a lot of weapons to pick against certain foes (my warriors carried 5 swords, versus undead, demons, dragons, high + and others...), clerics healed, mages casted (over 300 spells for casters), rogues rogued...

I am not saying thah BG tactics were very advanced or that battles were hard or anything. But You simply had a lot more options compared to FO1, a lot more choices for party members and spells, weapons and armor. In tactical comparison BG wins IMO.

 

[Fowyr]

Nope still not seeing it, since I didnt even use fireballs that much (preferred MMM or skull traps), You had a lot of weapons to pick against certain foes (my warriors carried 5 swords, versus undead, demons, dragons, high + and others...), clerics healed, mages casted (over 300 spells for casters), rogues rogued...

Looks like you confuses BG2 with BG.

I am not saying thah BG tactics were very advanced or that battles were hard or anything. But You simply had a lot more options compared to FO1, a lot more choices for party members and spells, weapons and armor. In tactical comparison BG wins IMO.

BG2? Maybe. Of course if hectic RTwP was replaced with turn-based combat.
SHOOT IN DA EYES!!! was always reliable tactic only when you have Sniper perk. Even with 10 luck and four More Criticals probability was only 30%. I used flares, grenades, sometimes melee (advanced power fist very fast and deadly weapon), changing weapons, crippling and so on. And it worked perfectly. People who think what all F1 and F2 combat was only about eye criticals terminal retarded.

 

[chzr]

try soloing bg1/iwd1 with fighter/paladin, now THAT's complex combat-

1: find enemies
2: click between them
3: go make a coffee
4: when you return you are - a: dead , b: alive
5a: reload, try again
5b: find another mobs, repeat.
6: ???
7: profit!111

 

[Malakal]

Fowyr I only played BG1 twice but still I do remember there being a lot of party members to choose from, weapons too, and even spells and items (wands and necklaces especially were useful, scrolls too but not so much).

Dunno about percentages, I recall always having 95% for eyes but I didnt use called shots early game when weapon skills were low and perks not yet avaiable... Still I compelted FO1 few times only using the ebst avaiable ranged weapon (by best I mean best average damage at the time).

@chzr
Oh yes, warrior types in BG1 really didnt have a lot abilities to use, but at least I did change from ranged to mellee weapons and remember using some special weapons against special foes.

 

[MicoSelva]

Seriously, what a shitty poll.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Remove magic from BG, then start comparing. You'll see how "awesome" BG combat mechanics are.

 

[ChristofferC]

Remove magic from BG, then start comparing. You'll see how "awesome" BG combat mechanics are.

The fact is that there is magic in BG so what's your point?

 

[Topher]

Seriously guys, how is shooting in the eyes in FO1 tactical in any way? I can hardly remember even a single encounter where any kind of tactics other than shoot-shoot-shoot or run-hit-hit-hit was employed... Changing weapons midbattle? Nope. Changing party tactics? As long as they live its ok. Even the Master was all about hiding behind columns for me. Please explain Yourselves...

That pretty much sums up my memories but I still had fun. The poll was a real toss up for me because I don't mind BG's RTwP combat but I voted fallout because combat felt more random/dynamic. In all honesty I'd rate combat the same in both games.

 

[DraQ]

FO1. It was flawed but enjoyable.

BG1 was terribad, simplistic and fucking broken by the excessive amounts of micromanagement in RT, most often involving hopeless attempts to reduce party AI self-harm.

NV I haven't played, but I know that it includes a fair share of Beth$oftian mechanics and that can't be good.

 

[commie]

BG1 was terribad, simplistic and fucking broken by the excessive amounts of micromanagement in RT, most often involving hopeless attempts to reduce party AI self-harm.

That's what turned me off the post-blob party RPG's, that shitty micromanagement. Can barely play a game like that anymore, one of the only positives of the solo-centric RPG's of today.

 

[Archibald]

Seriously guys, how is shooting in the eyes in FO1 tactical in any way? I can hardly remember even a single encounter where any kind of tactics other than shoot-shoot-shoot or run-hit-hit-hit was employed... Changing weapons midbattle? Nope. Changing party tactics? As long as they live its ok. Even the Master was all about hiding behind columns for me. Please explain Yourselves...

Because it`s old and is in holy trinity or sum shit.

Praise that some games get here is beyond retarded. Fallout was good for C&C/story/setting/writing, not for fucking combat.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Remove magic from BG, then start comparing. You'll see how "awesome" BG combat mechanics are.

The fact is that there is magic in BG so what's your point?

It is compared to games whose settings don't have magic, so the comparison should be limited to ranged/melee/unarmed combat.

 

[Archibald]

It is compared to games whose settings don't have magic.

Remove modern guns from Fallout then because BG doen`t have them ffs.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

You have bows, crossbows and slings in BG which fulfil the same function.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I enjoyed Fallout's combat more than BG's version overall. It is not a very tactical system, though there were plenty of amusing things to do. Shooting enemies in the groin rarely grew boring, especially with the colourful comments that came from the victim.

A few encounters in the BG series were quite good, and the summoning spells provided some amusement, but I couldn't really enjoy the RTwP system and the lack of options fighting classes had.

 

[Archibald]

You have bows, crossbows and slings in BG which fulfil the same function.

Eye shot with a sling

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

You have bows, crossbows and slings in BG which fulfil the same function.

Eye shot with a sling

Good point. The inability to target enemies body parts was also a minus for the BG series.

 

[Topher]

Crunching little kids nuts in Shady Sands with a five pound rock... WTF is wrong with me?

 

[Fowyr]

It is compared to games whose settings don't have magic.

Remove modern guns from Fallout then because BG doen`t have them ffs.

BG has crossbows and bows.

Spoiler

Slowpoke is so slow

Also you don't have 95% hit in the eye chance most time. Only in close combat or when you excessively train small weapons, sacrificing science, lockpick and other cool skills. FFS! Fallout combat shines in the random encounters. Try burn to cinders pack of floaters, using flamer and called shots to legs to slow them down. Try to kill random raiders in the caves. BG's tactic complexity - combination of party combat and several spells.
If only Fallout have working AP ammo and full party control...

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Remove magic from BG, then start comparing. You'll see how "awesome" BG combat mechanics are.

The fact is that there is magic in BG so what's your point?

It is compared to games whose settings don't have magic, so the comparison should be limited to ranged/melee/unarmed combat.

Remove the extra things and you'll see how there are no extra things

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

you can't compare party-based combat (like BG, ToEE...) with something with single PC (+AI controlled followers), like Fallout. Therefore, this poll is crap.

If codex members were half as clever as they like to think, this should have been the first and only post in this shit of a thread.

 

[mondblut]

OP is untermensch.

Fallout 1 by the virtue of being TB, but it still pathetically licks balls of the likes of GB series, Dark Sun, TOEE, Natuk, KOTC, JA2 etc.

 

[Stalin]

Shitty poll is shitty