this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
58 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30563 readers
98 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I finished Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, it was ok. I kinda brute-forced my way through the game, basically only doing physical damage, only using one or two healers (who were shooting at range most of the time). The game had a bunch of really unfun mechanics, that I didn't like at all, so I'm not sure if I'll play any of the other Infinity Engine games.
I also finished the Quake 2 base game and started with the first expansion. Like I said last week, I definitely like the sci-fi environment more than the medieval one in Quake 1 and the weapons are better as well.
Despite being a bit disappointed with BGEE, I still want to play a CRPG right now, so I was going back and forth between a few different ones. In the end I started Pillars of Eternity again, hoping to finally finish it, at least the base story. This was actually my first RTwP game, and I played it years ago, the last time in 2018, when I actually made it to the final dungeon and I think the actual last boss fight of the (base) game, but stopped for some reason. Anyway, I'll give it another shot, and so far I like the gameplay a lot more than Baldur's Gate 1. The game is much more recent of course, although it was only released three years after the Enhanced Edition. Everything feels just much smoother. For a change, I'm playing a wizard this time (BG3 and BGEE I mainly used physical damage, either melee or ranged, 80% of the time).
I just played through Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and the game is incredibly straight forward until you come across some weird thing that nullifies all of your damage; or AoE stuns your entire party; or requires a +3 weapon in order to land a hit; or de-levels your characters; etc. I don't think it's the Infinity Engine to blame so much as the encounter design. It's been about ten years, but I remember having a much better time with Planescape: Torment.
I'm not blaming the Infinity Engine, just the systems that are used in BG, although I have no idea how much comes from the D&D rules, and how much was Bioware. I would have thought all those games use very similar rules, but I don't really know.
At least in the first game, I didn't encounter too many problems. Of course there are a bunch of mages, that just regularly cast Feeblemind or another "stun" on my whole party, but that's where the brute forcing came into play. I'd either reload a bunch of times, until I got lucky with the rolls, or occasionally split up the party, so just the unimportant characters would get hit, and my main character would clean up the fight. Three fights were a bit harder, so I chugged potions and used buffs (the two demons from the Durlag's Tower story and the final boss).
In the mid 2000s I played the beginning of Neverwinter Nights, and remember liking it, but not really anything else about the game. Back then, I definitely didn't know what D&D was. I always wanted to try it again, but now, after BG, I'd read up about it a bit before I give it a shot.
Planescape Torment was also something I regularly thought about playing, mainly because I read so much about how you can just talk yourself through most conflicts, so if you play your cards right, you can get away with little fighting. But just like Neverwinter, I'd have to read up on the systems they use before I decide.
I have less experience with BG1 than BG2 since I don't find myself itching to replay it as often. I did do a full playthrough of it five or so years ago, though. Not Enhanced Edition, though.
The encounter design really does feel aged and it can often be a case of the developers unfun/poor encounter design versus your attempts to cheese it. Line of sight/Fog of War abuse, stacking Skull Traps etc. There is also the tried and true method of blocking physical access to your team by a horde of summons and pelting away with arrows. Arrow of Dispelling is particularly powerful.
They actually don't! Because each of the D&D games used whichever edition of D&D was current at the time, and the rules of D&D varied a lot between editions. So Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 used 2nd edition, while Neverwinter Nights uses 3rd edition, and Baldur's Gate 3 uses 5th edition. So it's not so much an issue with Bioware or the Infinity Engine, as much as 2nd edition D&D is... not as intuitive as some of the later ones. Just as an example, in 2nd edition a lower armour class (AC) score is better than a higher one: without that knowledge, it's very easy to use the wrong gear.
That said, a lot of BG/BG2's encounters are really, really tough if you're relying primarily on physical attacks. Having a wizard in the party with the right spells makes a huge difference. While there's a lot of party configurations that can work, a solid mix would be 3 fighter/ranger/paladin/etc, 1 wizard/arcane spellcaster, 1 cleric/divine spellcaster, and 1 thief.
With Neverwinter Nights, because it's based on 3rd edition, if you've played either of the Pathfinder games, you'll find the ruleset pretty similar. Pathfinder as a system forked from D&D 3.5, so while there's some differences in the finer details, most of it will be very familiar and will largely do what you expect it to.
I'm mostly chalking the dated design of BG1 and 2 to the designers at BioWare rather than the D&D rules, but there are definitely things about the old rules that are just horrific. AoE stuns that last for 10 rounds may as well be instant death when they hit your party (5e versions of the same spells only target 1-4 opponents), and then you get to things like Energy Drain that semi-permanently drain entire levels in 2e but only temporarily drain one stat in 5e; the things that remedy or counter those spells basically require you to know what's around the corner, and the game doesn't foreshadow them.
Agreed with the lack of foreshadowing in BG1 and BG2! While sometimes fights are foreshadowed, either by the details of the quest or the terrain (hmmm, it's a long, wide staircase with a long, wide hall at the bottom - is there a dragon at the end? Yes, yes there is), there are definitely some really tough fights without much warning about what's coming. I probably underestimate this in my own playthroughs, because I've played it enough that I know from experience what enemies each fight has, but it's definitely a lot harder for new players.
NWN being based on a different D&D edition definitely makes it more appealing, so I'll try to check it out someday.
I have the two Owlcat Pathfinder games, but haven't played them yet, but I've heard good things about them (also they have a turn-based mode I think, which is nice).
I'm going on a rant here, but my biggest gripe with D&D video games, and part of the reason I didn't really use them in my BGEE playthrough, are the limited spell slots for casters (especially since you fight constantly). In theory (I think) the best way would be to just go all out, each and every fight and just rest afterward to recharge. I think that's just really dumb. Why even have the limited slots in the first place? BGEE definitely felt like this, since resting is free, only coming with a chance to get ambushed (which you can just save scum, but these small fights aren't difficult anyway). It's probably more fun that way as well, since you can actually do stuff, and not just play a really slow hack-and-slash game. BG3 was a bit better, since you get the cantrips, that you can freely use. It incentivized Long Rests anyway because of all the events, but that's another story. Pillars of Eternity is pretty nice, since it has a bunch of Spells and Abilities, that you can use per Encounter, so you get the fun of actually doing things, but don't have to constantly worry about the limited slots.
Yeah, the limited spell slots are straight up just a mechanic from D&D, so that's something you'll find in all CRPGs using 2nd and 3rd edition. It gets easier at higher levels, as you have more spell slots, but in BG at low levels, you do just have to rest often. It is fine to have wizards using, say, a sling for the easy fights and save their spells for when they really need them. If it helps, though, with most quests there's no actual time pressure, so you can't fail it if you do have to do one fight, then rest, then the next fight, and rest again. If you like turn-based, BG and BG2 have settings for auto-pausing with each turn, which replicates a turn-based system by allowing you more time to plan out your next move.
Do you not feel like cantrips in 5e (Baldur's Gate 3) are the perfect solution to this problem? They feel like it to me.
In theory, yes, but maybe not all cantrips are created equal.
For some reason, in my playthrough I ignored Wyll for the most part, so I didn't really play as a Warlock, and didn't experience Eldritch Blast. I only took him with me for the resolution of his quest at the very end, and was very pleasantly surprised how potent it can become (when you buff it during level ups).
Compared to that, stuff like Sacred Flame and Fire Bolt can feel a bit lacking and boring, although they can work for mopping up the goons everywhere and saving spell slots for the bigger fights.