Arcanum vs Baldur's Gate 2 (including ToB)?

Try a dwarven mage in Arcanum. That should be... difficult. :smile:

 

First off, on the brand loyalty...sorry mate, but fallout CERTAINLY spoiled me. Look...I, Rosh, Prov...we played Fallout AND BG. We have seen both sides of the fence, and by god, Fallout was the way it should have been. You didn't try a different character because you were probably stuck in the BG 'all characters will have the world react to them in the same way' state of mind. Brand loyalty? Nah. It's called 'knowing better'.


And open ended storyline...welll, Fallout and Arcanum(yes, arcanum! If you haven't completed it) has MULTIPLE possible ending summaries, several for each major 'town'. Your actions will determine the endings you get. The main ending is that, of course, the world is saved and blah blah...but that's not the whole ending, eh?

Now, if a different ending for every single important area, personalised to what YOU did...if that doesn't prove the superiority of fallout and arcanum, I don't know what else will convince you. We've already gone through every single point. Go get fallout again after playing arcanum. You'll see what we mean. Since when was BG a superior game? The BG fans don't KNOW what they're missing, I assure you...and funnily enough, when I talk to all of them, they say they haven't tried Fallout. But hey, BG's great, right? Yeah...sure...if you haven't played Fallout.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sgc_meltdown on 2001-09-03 05:01 ]</font>

 

And just what was the big difference between BG and Fallout? I think Fender said that there is a basic storyline: u are a 'chosen one' who must defeat 'big bad dude.'
You people are talking mainly about how people react to you, and that stats are more important. Int only determines tech and magick (i think) persuasion is important for talking.

 

Please only open your mouth when you have a basis of what you are talking about, okay? (particularly when you are mixing Fallout and Fallout 2)

Yes, all games have a beginning and an end. In Fallout, there is many different ways to complete the game. Same with Arcanum. The fact that BG and BG2 has chapters is pretty well testimonial that you have to complete things in a fairly straight order. Please, go put your lunch money into an investment of Fallout and try it out. You'll have what we call in debate a "practical understanding". No, don't go all combat, or the game will gear itself towards your playstyle and it will seem to be all combat.

Int does affect speech. Go ahead. Fire up the demo or Arcanum itself. Make a high-persuasion character, and low intelligence. Persuasion and Charisma might have an effect on your speech, but when your vocabulary consists of "DUUUUUH!" it only effectively conveys how much of an idiot you are. Try it. Half-Ogre, Ran Away with the Circus. Put all your points into Charisma and Persuasion. Within 30 seconds you will have your answer.

The same thing goes for Fallout. In fact, with Fallout, Fallout 2, and Arcanum, you can get quests and such depending on yout Int and other stats. One chap takes advantage of your lowered intelligence and gives you a message to go take care of some bandits.

The big difference here, is that BG doesn't do that, period. Int of 3 or 18, speech options are the same. Quests are the same. Etc. You don't need to try playing a low Int character because there is no use to, other than scalping points for other stats.

That makes it suffer on the open-endedness of the game, and seriously limits the scope of it too. Not too in-depth either, because it's laughable that someone that according to AD&D rules with that low of intelligence could speak like someone who is near genius. In fact, Int of 1 in AD&D, you're a blithering idiot, period. 3 is not too far off in the scope of things, considering you have to have an Int of 9 to be merely bilingual.

 

First thing I definetly agree with the post above. Secondly I was thinking of putting up another post Arcanum vs Fallout2 But I will take Up space here.
When I first before I seen fallout2 I had my computer sold, for a console. A year passed and games like resident evil series or Metal Gear Solid came my way. Then I saw fallout, it seemed lacking in graphics, seemed like 256 colors. But nevertheles I played at my brothers house. I was consumed suddenly it was all I could think about. I slaved out money to by a pc for that game. Finished part 1 then went on to part 2. The music the atmosphere,Swiching from console based games to something like fallout has it's longlasting effects. I almost played the game for a year nonstop. I became completely different. The game itself was another dimention to me. I could write 10 pages why the game is what I think it is but my vocabulary isn't that big. Then I played BG, Bgtftsc, Bg2 Bg2tob. All these games were cool but they were somewhat lacking, I could not quite put it where. Fallout tactics, after some playing I thought the game has similiar atmosphere, so I was happy if the new fallout rpg came out with it's graphic engine. Then someone told me that fallout3 will be entirely 3d. I lost all hope in the world. After playing some Arcanum I have to admit that the game is good but, It is nowhere near fallout2. for example the music anyone bored yet? with the same maybe 4,5 tunes looping again? The graphics are not bad because the game is 2d isomatric increasing the resolution would only shrink it like in baldurs gate2 I have a 19inch and I can't play it in 1024. too small. The story line is really good and the quests are nice. But there is also something missing.
I played alot of Baldurs2 around 2 month nonstop. All these games have one thing in common. They were made by the same teams or part of them were on other projects. we can find humor, graphics and quests similiar to others in all those games. (I love the 2 headed cow in the museum!) I think comparing BG series to Arcanum is a laugh, you can say Bg went more towards diablo but retaining it's quest plot multiple choice thing. and Arcanum is definetly like fallout But in different grafics same humore similiar quests you can almost feel fallout when playing. But it is not it, it is not the infinite wasteland with it's sand dunes...

 

Didn't notice it in the demo – good to know it's in full version. Do they pick up items during fight too? I liked it in Fallout that NPCs picked up weapons if they lost/run out of ammo for their own.




Now some things that showed up on the last 3 pages.


Open-endedness stuff as referred to plot and stats. As far as a dictionary definition goes “open-ended� means: w/o ANY limits, restrictions or aims set in ADVANCE.

Hence there is NO game that is really open-ended, cause it doesn't just get down to being able to go to a place of your choice, choosing when to do which subquest (there is a possibility to make such choices in all of these games anyway) and a few possibilites for solving a quest (ie usually good/bad way and/or thief/fighter/diplomat style). To me open ended game would be one without necessity to fulfill that main quest/destiny you always get in the beginning (and even this wouldn't go strictly along with definition). Let's face it. In both Fallouts you ended up fighting “enormous force endangering all the wastelands� - just like FenderAxe mentioned. And in open ended game you'd be able to just don't give a damn about it, gather some equip and set off to travel somewhere else hoping that muties/Enclave won't find you there or stay with Brotherhood awaiting their attack. In really open ended game you'd have no main quest at all (in the beginning at least), you might learn about some enormous force/great destiny or sumsuch from a tavern gossip for example – and still you wouldn't have to do anything about it.

So it holds little sense to argue about something being more or less open ended since in all of these games you get your main quest in the very beginning which is “an aim set in advance� which destroys the very core of the open-endedness idea..

In conclusion the only thing you can really argue about is which game gives you more freedom of action and more behaviour possibilities.

Oh and if you're saying about all that Cha, Int influence. It's very good – no arguing about that. Keep in mind however that in BG series you roll your stats in the beginning and you don't add points to them as you gain levels. And referring this to open endedness, such influence is yet another factor limiting number of actions your char take.

And as for being able to go wherever you want. In Fallouts you still learn specific locations in a certain order from villages to advanced cities so that you don't get into a city where everyone is wielding miniguns and you have no chance for surviving even the simplest quest with your mighty pipe rifle. There are also limitations to going where you want even when you know the exact location. In the beginning I wanted to get to NCR with a caravan from Redding. I couldn't. Along the way caravan was attacked by aliens which I couldn't defeat at that time. Of course I could've escaped and run off every next encounter that popped up every second but I realized that programmers didn't want me to go that way just yet.
And I do know that it's still much more than in BG1 where you can't even TRY to reach certain areas without following the game path. It was logic though as you learned about new locations unpon completing earlier chapters. It's also logic in BG2 where you need help to get to know about Spellhold and since you don't have a ship and know nothing about sailing you can't set off for it in the very first minutes of the game.

One more thing about Arcanum that I just remembered. It's those encumbrance stages (light/meduim....). It's logic contrary to being able to carry 100pounds and you feel no difference between carrying 99 and 0. Though I don't like it as I'm a notorious packrat – but as it shows reason I'll just have to get used to it.

 

1. Take the dictionary and CRAM it.
2. Pull it back out and look up "context".
3. Welcome back to the discussion.

 

I don't think it was in the demo. They will pick up weapons during a fight though. More annoyingly, they'll pick up YOUR weapon in a fight occationally.. heh

 

Hmmm, this 'fallout' seems like a good game... i must buy this when i finish throne of bhaal
hopefully i can still find it if its so old.

 

you haven't played fallout!?

 

1. Nay, it's good, it has handy format and most of all I just couldn't damage/destroy any book no matter how bad it would be. It's a book after all.
2. Don't have to look it up I know what it means. Though I admit that after reading through majority of what was written on the last 2/5 pages practically at once I might've mixed up some originally separately mentioned things. However I think I recall open-endedness being mentioned together with doing things in different ways & stats influence as arguments to back it up.

Now something I could find neither in dictionary nor in Acronym Finder. What's JRPG? (AF said it's 'Joined Radar Planning Group' but somehow I doubt it's what people here meant)

I'd like to see this one - Virgil you DON'T have STR requirement to operate my elephant gun. I tell ya won't hold it... BOOM!!! Great, now I guess it'll be MY job to scrap you moron off that tree. :grin:

 

Then perhaps the term "relative association" would make a bit of sense too? As in, games that diverge from linearity do take upon the traits of open-endedness and diversity.

About "JRPG", there's again something where that funny thing called "context" comes into play again. I would have thought that it might have been sufficient with the discussion around it (i.e. sappy love interests) but perhaps not. RPG being "role-playing game". Sappy storylines, love interests, and really drawn-out linear eye-candied storylines are the traits of what kind of RPG?

 

Well, if Virgil has bullets, he may try to use the elephant gun. I have seen him use a flintlock I gave him to hold for me. He picked up some bullets in combat, and started using it.

You can use weapons you don't have the strength for, but it burns fatigue points also. Most likely, Virgil will fatigue himself out trying to use that big gun. :smile:

 

Oh Boy

The question was which one you played FIRST. It's only a theory but I bet you played Fallout first.

Is it just me or are some people taking this discussion WAY too seriously? We are only talking about computer games after all.

I cant compare the BG series to Fallout cause I have yet to try Fallout. When I finnaly do give Fallout a try (after finishing Arcanum) I will be completely open minded to the possibility it might be a better game than BG. I just know that after I was at the same point (time wise) in BG2 as I am in Arcanum, I was enjoying BG2 a lot more. I may change my mind later on (and hope I do) once I get a bit further.

I do also have a problem with the stats in Arcanum. I will say that Arcanum does have an edge in how NPC's react based on character stats. I agree that it would have been better if a low int would have giving different dialog options in BG than a low one. The problem I have with Arcanum is the fact that you can raise the base stats as you level up. In the AD&D world, the basic stats represent the characters inherant abilities. For example; a character with a int of 17 means he has the ability to learn things with a 17 difficulty or lower. So int is kind of like IQ. This high int (18 being the max for most races) gives the character certain bonuses as he gains levels but he can never raise this intelligence except for magical means like items or blessings. In Arcanum you can start your character with an int of 3 but after about 10 levels he can practically be a genius is if you put points into it. Does it really makes sense for someone who could only say things like "duuh" to be a candidate for Mensa within a few months game time? And as for the fact you can increase your physical beauty...what the hell is that about? Since when can winning battles and completing quests make you better looking? I do like the fact you can increase strength and dexterity because these are things that can be improved in real life. I dont like the fact that a practically blind character can have eagle sight just by putting points into Perception.

 

Actually, that's one thing I always thought was stupid about AD&D about stats never changing. Like you said, attributes can be altered in life, such as strenth, constitution, and dexterity.

However, you can increase your leadership ability(Charisma) in real life, with training.

Your IQ goes up and down based on numerious things as well.

Most people gain wisdom through their lifetimes by experiencing things.

Alignment in AD&D is totally unrealistic as well. After all, people in real life can be law biding, good willed people for most of their lives, then go out and shoot up their work places. Likewise, criminals can reform.

 

Actually, getting more and more tired of people talking about things which they do not have any idea upon.


Okay, granted. Battles do not make a person any more pretty. But I think it's even more unrealistic to believe that someone's intelligence, wisdom, endurance, and charisma among others, would stay the same. Strength, for that matter. What happens when you excercise? Exactly. So why does it take (according to the rules) magic items to raise strength in any capacity whatsoever? Silly, it is.

People grow, people learn, people evolve in their own right.

As for playing Fallout or BG first...well, I think another game or three spoiled me. I think it's called GOLD BOX. I somehow still consider it a bit above BG as well, despite graphics. Get Unlimited Adventures, and you're cooking.

 

Check how Fallout Tactics is distributed, in my country they decided to put Fallout 1&2 in F:T box as a bonus. If it's different where you live Interplay is most probably still distributing these on-line. Just don't begin your adventure in Fallout reality with F:T. I think Fallout 2 is the best one.


Roshambo
'Relative association' differs strongly from 'context' taking into account what these terms refer to. Also saying that "[............] takes upon traits of [...............]" is completely different than saying that "[...............] is more [.............] than [..............]" - it's all about degree of intensification. I agree that actions you can perform in Arcanum which influence plot (of what I know about them) take upon traits of open endedness more than those in BG. However I wouldn't say that proclaiming Arcanum being more open-ended than BG, while referring this to plot, is justified.

As for JRPG. I don't know what RPG genres are there hence no word which would fit this abbreviation and begins with "J" comes to mind. Sure if you know what genres RPGs divide into it's easy but as I don't know this I can't guess it from context. So maybe instead of obsolete 'explanation' what "RPG" stands for you could just write what "J" stands for.

 

It's probably cheap enough to get Fallout 1,2 and Tactics. Is Tactics an add-on that makes the F1 better?

 

Nope, it's a seperate game different than F1&2. It's basically a set of missions based in Fallout reality with a storyline. Simply put if you want to play great RPG play F1 or F2 first, if you want a well done squad shooter (or whatever genre F:T is) play it first. Oh yeah F2 has quite a lot of bugs so don't play w/o patching it. And there are LOTS of bugs in F:T w/o hope for new patches from what I heard.

 

FOT is to Fallout as X-Com is to X-Com Enforcer. Interplay needed a quick buck, had a great license, so they decided to make a quickly done spin off.