Good thing, too. X-Box is beginning to approach a gamecube-esque scarcity of good games.
quote:
Sent-uh-oh's account was hax0red to write:
X-BOX only? God damn it.
Baldur's Gate, BG2, Icewind Dale, Knights of the Old Republic - I hated them all.
I hate the combat system, I have (so far) hated any game that used a D&D ruleset, I really hate partying in a single player game, and if I must party I really really hate being interrupted every five minutes by in-party dialogue, and I really hate thier combat systems.
Let me reiterate that: I really hate thier combat system. I hated everything about Baldur's Gate, BG2 and IwD, I hate the melee in KoTOR and I've never used the spell casting system in it.
quote:
Maradon! spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I've really never played a Bioware game that I liked.Baldur's Gate, BG2, Icewind Dale, Knights of the Old Republic - I hated them all.
I hate the combat system, I have (so far) hated any game that used a D&D ruleset, I really hate partying in a single player game, and if I must party I really really hate being interrupted every five minutes by in-party dialogue, and I really hate thier combat systems.
Let me reiterate that: I really hate thier combat system. I hated everything about Baldur's Gate, BG2 and IwD, I hate the melee in KoTOR and I've never used the spell casting system in it.
Tell us how you really feel there Mara =p
quote:
A sleep deprived Maradon! stammered:
I've really never played a Bioware game that I liked.Baldur's Gate, BG2, Icewind Dale, Knights of the Old Republic - I hated them all.
I hate the combat system, I have (so far) hated any game that used a D&D ruleset, I really hate partying in a single player game, and if I must party I really really hate being interrupted every five minutes by in-party dialogue, and I really hate thier combat systems.
Let me reiterate that: I really hate thier combat system. I hated everything about Baldur's Gate, BG2 and IwD, I hate the melee in KoTOR and I've never used the spell casting system in it.
Not all RPGs can be Diablo clones, thankfully.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Sakkra:
Not all RPGs can be Diablo clones, thankfully.
Yes. And I'm glad.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Sakkra booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Not all RPGs can be Diablo clones, thankfully.
You say that as if it were at all relevant to what I was saying.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Maradon! was all like:
You say that as if it were at all relevant to what I was saying.
Which PC-RPGs do you like?
quote:
Tarquinning:
Which PC-RPGs do you like?
Fallout 1 and 2, literally any "Adventure" style game, I liked Grandia 2 on the PC, but most of my RPG's are either MMO or on the console
quote:
Maradon! Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Fallout 1 and 2, literally any "Adventure" style game, I liked Grandia 2 on the PC, but most of my RPG's are either MMO or on the console
If you like Fallout and it's sequel I fail to understand how you can dislike Baldur's Gate.
Anyway, I really loathe Diablo and I've heard it's quite popular. 
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Tarquinn booooze lime pole over bench lick:
If you like Fallout and it's sequel I fail to understand how you can dislike Baldur's Gate.
The half-baked combat system where even high level characters seemed to have a miss ratio around 80%, the wide variety of spells, most of which are completely useless, having to control a party in a real-time combat system (my party members in Fallout were walking banks), and being constantly harassed by in-party dialogue.
Not to mention the fact that your party could find itself irrevocably stuck in a quest much too high level for them, forcing you to load an old save or start over entirely.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The half-baked combat system where even high level characters seemed to have a miss ratio around 80%, the wide variety of spells, most of which are completely useless, having to control a party in a real-time combat system (my party members in Fallout were walking banks), and being constantly harassed by in-party dialogue.Not to mention the fact that your party could find itself irrevocably stuck in a quest much too high level for them, forcing you to load an old save or start over entirely.
Lets see:
1) You must have had crappy equip. At lower levels I had a hard time hitting, at higher levels there wasnt much problem.
2) Variety is bad?? Even then, there are only a few worthwhile spells, the others are memmed before a big battle.
3) Use the pause features. Its alot easier to control that way.
4) Thats part of the BG series. Its part of...yanno...that whole story crap. Worthless stuff, I know 
.It wasnt in IWD though, so why do you hate that game again?
5) Nothing says you have to complete every quest that you take immediately upon taking it -- its not like you can only have a single quest at one time, you can have multiples. And they all stay in your journal, so you can see about what you need to do when you ARE ready for it.
Maradon, you need to go play Wind Waker. Go on. [ 09-28-2003: Message edited by: Falaanla Marr ]
quote:
We were all impressed when Snoota wrote:
When will you people learn to just ignore Maradon when he talks about games? He doesn't like anything.
I dunno, he seemed pretty excited about Master of Orion 3.
quote:
A sleep deprived Falaanla Marr stammered:
Maradon, you need to go play Wind Waker. Go on.
That game owned
quote:
Snoota painfully thought these words up:
Now now, that was just low.
And thats why it was so funny.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I really hate partying in a single player game
I gotta agree with Maradon here. If I want to play in a group, I'll play multiplayer. That's why I liked NeverWinter Nights so much better... In Single player, it was just you. You could use a henchman, but I was always able to get through on my own. I would play Multiplayer BG2... But I can't find any goddamn games. Not only that, but I'm downright *TERRIBLE* at playing mages, and in BG2 you need to control your casters as well as your fighters. So I always end up getting slaughtered. This problem could be fixed by playing multiplayer, and just controlling the party's tank(s), but again, no one plays.
I also liked NWN better than the BG series because 2nd Ed D&D is horribly complex, but that's another thing entirely.
quote:
We were all impressed when Ruv wrote:
I gotta agree with Maradon here. If I want to play in a group, I'll play multiplayer. That's why I liked NeverWinter Nights so much better... In Single player, it was just you. You could use a henchman, but I was always able to get through on my own. I would play Multiplayer BG2... But I can't find any goddamn games. Not only that, but I'm downright *TERRIBLE* at playing mages, and in BG2 you need to control your casters as well as your fighters. So I always end up getting slaughtered. This problem could be fixed by playing multiplayer, and just controlling the party's tank(s), but again, no one plays.I also liked NWN better than the BG series because 2nd Ed D&D is horribly complex, but that's another thing entirely.
...NWN was like D&D meets Diablo. If I wanted a single player game, I wouldn't play a game based on D&D rules, which to me says that there WILL be a party -- without one, its not really D&D. D&D is more than just killing -- its about the interaction between the party among many other things.
If you don't want to control a party in BG2, DONT. you don't have to, you can go through the game solo, as many people HAVE DONE.
quote:
Falaanla Marr had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
...NWN was like D&D meets Diablo. If I wanted a single player game, I wouldn't play a game based on D&D rules, which to me says that there WILL be a party -- without one, its not really D&D. D&D is more than just killing -- its about the interaction between the party among many other things.
Which is why I play NWN multiplayer, on servers that *REQUIRE* you to group otherwise you get slaughtered. 
To me, controlling an entire party by yourself just isn't fun. There's too much micromanaging you have to do- Not only for your "main" character, but for all your party members as well. If I want to micromanage troops, I'll play WarCraft 3. D&D isn't about min/maxing an entire party, it's about creating a character, playing with friends, and above all, having fun.
Controlling ONE character of that party, whereas other people control the others, IS fun. On all the servers I've played on, there was plenty of party interaction- From roleplay to OOC jokes to battle strategy planning. And it all felt kind of like- Oh, my god- I was actually playing D&D. You just can't get tht kind of stuff in BG2 single player. Besides, in D&D, the ONLY time you control multiple characters is when there's not enough people. Also, you aren't forced to control each type of character in your party. In BG2, I have no trouble with my Fighter types. I also, however, have to control the mages, priests, and sneaks, and those are all my weak points. In NWN, and D&D in general, you only have to focus on your strong point(s), in my case Fighter types, while leaving your weaker points to those who can play them better.
Oh, and about going through BG2 SP solo? Unless you're hacking, or imported your level 40 character from BG2: ToB (Would this qualify as hacking? Because it technically isn't), that's bullshit. It's impossible. A solo character in any good D&D game will get torn to friggin' shreds in a heartbeat, unless the DM's a complete dumbass. That, or the d20's loaded.
I'm not saying BG2 sucks ass. It's a great game with a great story. What I AM saying, though, is it would be far better multiplayer, the problem being no one plays.
This is primarily gonna focus on the respective styles of combat systems from IE games and Fallout. All of these games (except the two hybrids i'll discuss) are examples of the best story telling/making you can get outside of reading a book or sitting around a table with a bunch of friends rolling dice.
On the one hand, i loved Fallout 1 and 2 (favorite games ever) for the sheer mass volume of story and Cool Shit (tm). The fact that it was possible to go hours without a combat made up for the fact that, targetted shots aside, the Fallout Combat system was really subpar when you compare it to other systems in comparable games (BG for instance, but that's point 2). In fact, in the large combats which often took place were outright glacial in pace. Having to wait 30+ seconds for your turn sucked major donkey nuts.
On the other hand, the Infinity Engine (IE) games took up where Fallout's combat left off. The pace off battle was quick, but hardly uncontrollable. I'm not even going to try to argue that IE games used turn based combat. They were real time with a pause feature and auto-pause options that could simulate turn based or help to manage combat. From my view of it, these games were not meant as 100% D&D simulators like NWN was meant to be. They were meant to be good games that used the D&D ruleset, and that's what we got. IE battles were about party management rather than just managing a single character.
As a note before i get to my third point i'd like to say that i never played NWN online. Just didn't catch my fancy. Same with Fallout: Tactics so i'll be discussing both of these from a single player viewpoint.
Now on to the "hybrids" of the two different styles of combat, Fallout: Tactics and NWN. FT took the party management aspect of IE and combined it with the turnbased flow of Fallout. When played on Party Turnbased (where your whole party got one combined turn rather than each person in the party moving individually) this worked quite well and made for a combat experience that, while still a bit on the slow side like the Fallout's, was quite enjoyable.
The rest of my post which i hadn't saved was eaten by the board when the board wouldn't load right. i don't feel like retyping all of it either.
