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

Erm, where can i find these patches for the full game?

 

Kiewts

They're on the Terra Arcanum download page - I'd post a link but I'm a mage not a techie and I don't know how.

Be careful - they're both the same size but you need the 1.0.6.4 - 1.0.7.0 patch cos the first one contains a bug of its own which means that Offensive Magic (harsh language?) doesn't give experience points.

Happy trails

Strider23

 

I have yet to misinterpret what you're saying. In fact, the only reason you insinutate that I'm not is because your own arguments hold no water. You can't argue the points, so you merely slink away from them by saying I haven't read them, or I am misinterpretting them, or some other form of self-serving horseshit.

Isn't that what you've been doing with your whole, "you're not reading" thing?

Those in glass houses..

Hypocracy abounds.

Humans have this marvelous ability called communication. I have, in fact, talked to many people about Baldur's Gate 2 based on what I didn't like about BG and IWD. They assured me that, based on the things I didn't like in BG and IWD, I wouldn't like the game because they're still in there.

Frankly, I don't like RPGs that are too entrenched in a single story. I like the freedom to move where I want, be what I want, and do what I want.

That's the way Fallout was, that's the way Fallout 2 was, that's the way Arcanum is.

Limitations suck.

That's a logical fallacy. In fact, there is no comparason between an RPG and an MMORPG. The only way you could reach that conclusion in the first place is through flawed reasoning, like you said. Now, considering you make the case, then refute the case, I have to wonder why you even brought it up to begin with. It's self defeating.

Of course UO doesn't have a plot, you can't design a plot in an MMORPG because there's way too many people runnng around to have any sort of real quest continuity.

The question was, "Why doesn't the manual mention how to identify items?" I answered that it does mention a way to do it, through that fifth level spell.

Since that spell does identify items, it's a valid answer to the question. Perhaps that's why you're irritated. The question was answered.

Now, perhaps you were trying to ask, "Why doesn't the manual mention that gypsies can identify items?" If that's what you were meaning to ask, then that's what you should have asked instead.

Then again, you're bound to be grasping at straws when you're bashing a game because it's 189 page manual doesn't have an index.

After all, it's a fairly absurd statement to say that BG2 is a better game because of the manual.

You're giving up a heck of a lot more by multiclassing in AD&D than you are by putting a couple of points in a skill in Arcanum.

Just another reason the First Edition was better. Yes, in the First Addition, Charisma determined the number of "henchmen" your character had.

The fact is doesn't in 2nd Edition is silly as well. The very fact that Charisma doesn't influence this really flies in the face of what Charisma is, a rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

In fact, I didn't like most of the rule changes, so I simply stopped playing. First Edition was significantly better.

Wrong. Virgil will heal any follower with a low tech aptitude to a high magick aptitude, this includes Sogg. I've seen him heal Sogg on numerous occations. He'll cure poison and ressurrect party members as well.

So, this Mage, who is not you, can never refuse you?

In fact, in Arcanum, your followers will take orders if they agree with what you're doing. If you do stuff they don't like, they'll leave you.

That's a significantly better model for an NPC than what BG does. After all, like Rosh stated, an NPC should be controlled by the DM, even in AD&D, rather than the player's control.

 

Back again!

Ahh. More debate and another great chance to spend my time.

How do my arguements lack water? In your response you have failed to cite a single instance where I am clearly wrong in my statements, whereas I have already pointed out the numerous flaws in your own arguments. If you gave me some ground on which you were actually pointing out grievous error in my point of view, then I could at least garner a modicum of respect for your position.

You base your arguments based upon rumour, what your friends have said. This still leads to the fact that you have not played the game. Commuication is a wonderful thing but, like chinese whispers, is subject to interpretation and is hardly a basis of a valid viewpoint. If a historian were to examine this argument your evidence on this basis would actually be disregarded, since it is secondary and therefore unreliable.

I have no qualms with your opinion that BG2 sucks, it is a valid viewpoint, but without playing it you still claim to be able to criticise it because you have played a game that predates it by several years and that your friends have said it isn't good. If I were to criticise Arcanum if I didn't own it you would make the same argument.

On terms of my comments on UO. It is an example of logical reasoning. The logical reasoning you put into this thread by claiming that Arcanum had a better storyline since it was much more open-ended. In many debates this is a way in which someone can point out logical flaws in an argument. Logic is scientific, and the logical progression is used to point out that if you carry the same reasoning further (ie that more freedom means better plot) you can end up with a ludicrous statment. The fact that the logical reasoing ends up withthe stupid statement points out the flaw in your argument. It is not self defeating, since I did not bring the original statment into play, you did and so it defeats your reasoning.

Your accusation that I should have stated my question with that much accuracy really does show that it is you flaling at straws. Of course the way you answered my question is a viable interpretation of the question. I'll admit that much, but if that was paramount in your mind you could have just as easily asked for clarification (gypsy or spell) instead of accusig me of not reading the manual. The fact that the identification question has been asked on this (and other) forums multiple times should have leant itself to the meaning of the statement.

But since you desire clarity:

"Do you agree that it was a mistake by the manual writers that the prescence of gypsies was not mentioned?"

You also chose to omit the following sentence from your quote and the make the point that arguing whether or not the manual makes a better game is pointless. Whether deliberate or not it might be conveyed to those who skim-read my post that I was in fact saying BG2 is better because of the manual. That's a VERY nice touch. But you seem to glaze over the fact that I've already mentioned this point, deliberate or not would you not agree that this is something that is clearly open to interpretation as your point.

Continuing on again you say you are using the first edition rules and that you no longer play AD&D. Since BG is based on second edition rules doesn't that mean you have already attempted to misguide others in this thread? You are simply wrong in this point, why not admit it? First edition may (or may not) be better, but that is an irrelevant fact once again, they are out of date, the rules that people abide by now have changed, the first edition was updated in 1989! That's some 11 years ago! BG2 abides by the AD&D rules which were present during it's development, why should abide by rules that were removed some 7 years before development even began? And you say I'M flailing at straws....sheesh!

Onto virgil (again). I've only seen him heal sogg on a much rarer level than he will heal myself or himself, and I've had sogg die when virgil could have at least cast a minor heal spell on him. I believe his priorities are slightly mis-aligned in his AI scripting, since he cares more for minor wounds on me that major ones on sogg. However this is one thing neither you nor I could prove or disprove.

Onto the mage who cannot refuse me. I've seen your posts on the fallout board and recognise that you *really* hate the way this works. Actually since I am roleplaying and I play properly (ie If I'm evil, I don't play with good characters) I'm not going to ask him to do things that are grossly against his nature, so I see little reason for him having problems with what I ask him to do. However for the record in BG2 if you do have a party with good characters and you select to do something evil they complain and butt in during conversations, also some party members will attack each other since they dislike each other so much or will leave if your reputation differs to their alignment.

Also you have contradicted yourself once again. Are the people in BG followers or party members? You see by arguing that the should be limited by your charisma you are indicating that they are followers. A follower is TOTALLY under character control, that is according to AD&D rules and so therefore it's okay that they should do what you tell them since you are their master. Before you state this is unrealistic, 20 million people i the first world war died since they were doing what they were told by their commanders, so in real life people will go to their death because of an order, and there is nothing that conflicts your own interest more than your own death. If they should be NPC's then there is no rule that applies to charisma since it is at DM's discretion. It would also be at the DM's discretion to say that these NPC's will obey the party leader.

Now continuing this for a second. The people in BG make up a party and a party is a group of adventurers rought togeher by a common goal. By doing something that is out of character, ie making a good wizard go on a killing spree you have stopped roleplaying. I'll admit it is possible to go on a killing spree in with good wizards in BG2, but because it causes such a huge reputation change when you do so after a few deaths they will attack you, as will any good or neutral members of the party. It is admittedly a slightly delayed response but not as black and white as you have portrayed that the mage cannot disobey you. Also these guys do say that they will die for you, so if you want a blunt idea, if they'll die for you why wouldn't they cast a spell when you ask them to?

Realised I missed out your comment on sacrifice. It's a big one, but that is the point. It has much larger consequences on your game than placing a single point into lockpicking does in Arcanum. Because of the huge sacrifices you would have to make if you were a fighter/mage/thief is partly why you play as a party and not as an individual. It's just a difference of styles, but you did say that wizards can't pick pockets, but they can. Just because it requires a larger sacrifice it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I shall end by saying you are yet to answer some points I brought up. If you would can you please point out for everyone to see where my arguments are flawed. Don't simply say that they are flawed. If I am to rethink my evaluations I need to know where my arguments are based on groundless statements, and I would appreciate statements saying why they are groundless.

To summarise:

1) You are basing you ideas on rumour and heresay in plotlines. This does not give you anywhere near the experiance of someone who has played the game. Communication is a fine thing, but it rarely can convey emotions in a satisfactory manner.

2) The logical fallicy I have made is based upon your original statement. Drawing on the logic you have used to prove one statement, I have proven another. If you don't like multiplayer UO play it single player (perfectly possile), it is still an RPG since it still fulfills criteria you gave in another post on this board as to why Deus Ex isn't an RPG.

3) I actually stated that the manual was not a suitable debating ground in my above post. Your response acuses me of bashing the game because of the manual. This is not what I said. I resent the implication you have made.

4) You agree you give up a heck of a lot by multi-classing. In that we agreed. Your orignal complaint was 'why cant my wizard pick pockets'. He can. This is mentioned in the quote you use, but not responded to.

5) You argue many points based on a rulebook that is 11 years out of date. You criticise my logic about UO, yet believe it is perfectly acceptable to argue on the grounds of a textbook that is not in use by anyone except die-hard first edition rules people.

6) Virgil. I doubt there is any reason for continuing this debate, it can't be proven.

7) I've talked about the mage. In my original post I simply presented a reason why he will obey you. That reason still holds, it might allow you to do out of character things, but to do that you have to stop role playing. If you stop role-playing then what exactly have you bought a role-playing game for?

I look forward to your reply, I'm quite enjoying this -- no offence. :smile:

~JK~

 

WRONG!

Try reading again. For reference, the updated 1995 version of the Second Edition rules which is said to be the background for Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine in general.

Check on page 25 or in the section for Charisma effects, and page 151 for the definition of a Hencheman (which the characters you pick up follow the literal definition of).

YOU are completely and utterly wrong, as it IS in the Second Edition, and Henchemen ARE based upon Charisma as they always have been. Either that, ot "Maximum # of Hemchment" is a mirage and the page 151 entry is a load of wash. Of course, that would be kind of silly because it's also mirrored in the DM's manual.

Now as for the open-endedness, do you like to blow things MORE out of proportion? Baldur's Gate is fairly linear compared to other CRPGs out, namely Fallout and Arcanum. Twice over since your stats in BG have very little influence upon the world aside from equipment and skills. As for the UO remark, that was a complete bucket of tripe and you know it. Open-ended is usually better than linear, but too much open-endedness is a problem. UO isn't open-ended, it's defined as "Aimless". There is no set objective, period. Gain some perspective and don't use gross exaggerations or those straw men will be burnt too.

WRONG AGAIN!

Page 150, Players Handbook:

"An NPC is any person, creature, or monster that is controlled by the DM. ... In the course of their adventures, player characters will be most concerned with three groups of NPCs: hirelings, followers, and henchment."

Without sending you a link to Hooked-On Phonics, what might you gather from that? Followers = NPCs = you don't control them. Damn, I would have hated to get into a game with you, as I'd have to be one to pull out the book too frequently...

Let me put this across again:
The only person(s) you controll in AD&D are PLAYER CHARACTERS. That's IT, period, finitio, end of line. Hell, even look in the Glossary if too hurts to do too much reading.

Okay, quit trying to blow smoke up our arses. You've been proven a documented liar twice by myself now. Kind of hard to pontificate when you're using false information.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Roshambo Warrior on 2001-09-01 23:16 ]</font>

 

Actually, I just took the time to dig out some old, old character sheets that were from 2nd Edition AD&D. These are the official ones that you can buy. Under Charisma, there's a little box for "Max. Henchmen".

I wonder why they'd put that there if it wasn't in the rules? Hmmm?

I guess that'd be because you're flat out WRONG!

Okay, first you say Virgil never heals Sogg, which was flat out wrong, now you're saying he just rarely does it.

Point goes to me.

HUGE Logical Leap Error!

First of all, people in the army are literally trained to obey rules from superiors during months of training. Adventures who join up with you AREN'T.

Secondly, even with all this training, soldiers have still been known to disobey. Armies still break rank and flee a battle if things are going poorly, despite orders to advance. Soldiers still walk away from units and go AWOL.

The fact of the matter is, even the army, with all it's means and training, still can't have total control over it's people.

I have been, you just don't like the replies. So, rather than actually arguing with most of my points, you claim I'm not reading.

It's a poor man's excuse for not conceding, Mr. Gore.

Funny, it works well enough for our judicial system. In fact, you can't have a jury of people who were at the scene of the crime.

Communication is definitely a wonderful system. In fact, one of the great statements in history would have to be, "Ogg, don't walk off that cliff, it will suck." Now Ogg doesn't have to walk over the cliff to find out he won't like doing it.
_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-09-01 23:42 ]</font>

 

liar is such a *stron* word

Hmm. Okay. I conced to you on that point. I accept that this part of my post is therefore invalid. I'm not a D&D fanatic.

Your accusation of me being a proven liar is rather excessive. Henchmen is a small part of the post, not the entirety of it and not the basis of it. At least you point out the actual error and give reasoning. How about the rest of the post?

Undermining one part of an argument does not undermine the whole thing. I am no liar, merely misquoted. If you continue to react so strongly when someone makes a mistake I'd hate to work with you possibly as much as you'd hate to play D&D with me.

Also D&D is always played at the DM's discrestion, it's Black Isle's interpretation of the rules.

But I concede your point, which is far more than saint is prepared to do. Is he right attacking the rules of BG when he never played 2nd edition? He would have never had a clue as to whether his origianl comment is true or false, but he still made comments based on in in his earlier posts. I didn't know I was wrong, but he knew he was using an out of date source. Does that still means that I, and only I, am at fault?

As for the logical progression, I fail to see it's logical failing. The original comment was on Arcanum's open-endedness means it has a better plot, UO is more open-ended, logic does not stop just because you have used it to make the point you are arguing, you have to consider extremes in order to guage whether the logic is of any value. Open-endedness is nothing to do with the plot, which is the point I am trying to make.

And seriously, I think you need to chill out a bit. Okay I'm wrong, I've said I can be wrong and so you've proven it. Nothing to get so stressed out about.

~JK~

"humility is dish I have eaten myself today"

 

um

The guys in WW1 were mostly forced to fight and were mostly untrained civilians. Their training constituted a few weeks of byonetting sacks before being shipped off to fight in France.

Still, some 20 million people died because they were told to go attack a fortified sites. Every one of them went and did what they were told, along with the guys who survived. Yes there were revolts (most notably the one in Russia), but these occured after years of fighting. A long time of doing things against their nature, similarly in BG if you spend a long time doing things against the nature of the other characters, they will break too, until then they obey you, just like the men in WW1.

This is fun, but it's now gone midnight, so I'm going to bed. G'Night.

 

http://www.hop.com
http://www.learntoread.com

Go to both NOW!

Kind of funny how SP has character sheets if he's "never played 2nd edition" as you claim. Any other unfounded and BS remarks you wish to make? Are you done assuming what people are saying yet and will you please make an effort to read what people are writing? Or am I going to have to constantly and continually debunk every inaccuracy you wish to use? I'm sure you'd rather not make such inaccuracies than have me ram them down your throat.

The only misquoting that is going on is yourself and all your false "claims" and "proof".

Open-ended has a LOT to do with plot-progression. Duh. Instead of having the same linear plot, how about a plot that flexes according to how you play? Infinitely better than a linear one that responds the same way no matter how you play.

But that's different from a game that has NO plot, NO relevence, because it was used as an example with NO reason behind it. The faults with UO lie in a much larger area than just "open-endedness". In fact, a game that *might* have been relevent would have been Daggerfall, whose failing was the bugs and that not all like FP and real-time. And still, with Daggerfall, you could be whatever 'class' you wanted and join whatever guild if you met the requirements. UO doesn't have a 10th of what true CRPGs offer. You truly are comparing apples and colonoscopies.

_________________
"To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Roshambo Warrior on 2001-09-02 00:07 ]</font>

 

The rest had been covered elsewhere. Of course, you claimed I hadn't read that part, so you ignored it.

It sure as hell does when the argument is based on that part which was undermined.

Apparently, since they totally disregard a huge chunk of the rules in order to make it easier for them to churn out a half-assed RPG that doesn't require a hell of a lot of thinking.

Umm.. I said I didn't like 2nd Edition, so I stopped playing. Where in that statement does it say that I never played it?

Who's not reading now? Or jumping to erroneous conclusions based on misinterpretations?

My, my, JK.. Perhaps it's time for you to spend a little time on practicing what you preach.

Sure as hell does, Chief.

Failure, you're soaking in it.

Hey, public schools are great.. so let's have FULL COMMUNISTIC GOVERN!

Bob said he liked beer.. HE SHOULD BE A GUTTER DWELLING ALCOHOLIC!

That's your reasoning behind the open-ended UO/Arcanum bullshit. Just because open-ended is better than a totally limited system doesn't mean it's okay to take something to excess.

What's the matter, JK? Not so smug now, are you?


_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-09-02 00:21 ]</font>

 

this is getting interesting

This little debate of ours is getting more and more interesting. So, to keep things rolloing I have a few things to say about the latest posts.

First of all the whole issue about the game manual since I was the one who brought it up in the first place. I in no way meant to say that you can judge a game based on the manual. The only reason I brought it up is becase I was so frustrated with the manual for Arcanum. The result of bad reference material means that I have to stop playing this great game to surf through a 189 page book to find information that might not even be there. What was so nice about BG2's manual was that it was so packed with specific info and was oragnized well with a great index and contents pages, that I only had to stop playing for a few secons to find the info I wanted and it would be there. The other nice thing about the BG2 manual was that with the spiral bounding you could lay it open flat so you could leave it open to what ever you wanted to reference while still playing. I wish more game manuals were as good as BG2. Is BG2 a better game because of the manual? Not at all. It just makes for a lot less frustration when trying to learn how to play a game and take advantage of all the features.

The next thing I want to touch upon is the whole AD&D rules controversey. Now I dont own any of the AD&D rule books and it has been several years since I have played so I cant say whether or not BG2 is properly following the henchmen rules or not. Does it really matter? AD&D wasn't designted for PC games, it was designed for people sitting around a table. A few rules were changed for BG to accommodate what the devolopers wanted to do. If you read the introduction on pg3 of the original Baldur's Gate manual, David Cook (who contributed to the writing of the 2nd Edition rules) makes reference to this

I believe there is a similar quote for the BG2 manual but I dont know where I put it at the moment and I dont feel like lookinf for it at the moment. The point is that some of the rules were changed to make it more computer friendly. In BG2 there were even some 3rd Edition rules added to make it more fun. So if you dont like these changes feel free to criticize these changes. But any debate about whether changes have been made is a bit pointless.

NowI want to clarify my opinion about the "story" of the games. What I think of as the story is whether or not I can take the text and events of the game and imagine them as a book or movie. Would this be something I would want to read about or watch on the big screen if the computer game had never been made. I thought BG2 had a great story that involved a personal struggle with the main characters heratage and had many sub plots directly tied to this struggle. There was even a love interest (which could have developed with several of the possible party members depending on your character and how he or she acted). Some party memebers added to these sub plots incuding a betrayal. I would be impossible to truly decribe how great the story was without writing a novel and posting it so I hope this short description will do. In contrast, a book about the Diablo 2 story would read "a good guy tracks a deamon trough a few locations, kills a lot of monsters along the way, finally finds the deamon and kills him". Not exactly Tolkien. I hope Arcanum has as good a story (I would probably know by now but I restarted cause I wanted to change my character).

Finally, I have to say something about the linear vs open ended arguement. I really dont see how this applies to BG and Arcanum. I realize that I havent had as much experience with Arcanum as I have with BG but I dont see how Arcanum is more open ended. Some have argued that wiht Arcanum you could talk your way out of fighting, go on side quests, and break into houses and buildings that have nothing to do with any of the quests. The same thing applies to BG there were many times I was able to talk my way out of fighting in BG. Granted it applies more to stats in Arcanum which I can understand if people like more. That doesnt mean it cant e done in BG. There is a plethora (sorry, i just like that word) of side quests in BG which are totally optional and are often based on who you have in your party. There are even "stronghold" quests based on what type of character you play. I often broke into peoples houses and stole things that had nothing to do with quests. So, how is Arcanum so different? I ask this not only in defence of BG2 but also so someone can tell me what I'm missing in Arcanum. I would appreciate anyone who thinks I'm wrong to give specific examples of how I'm wrong so I dont play the rest of this game missing out on option I never knew I had.

Well, This is enough for now. I look forward to this debate continuing.

 

Some excellent points, indeed there, Fender.

As for the AD&D rules, there is still relevence to that here. Of course, there is continually designs and alterations made upon P&P systems so they are adaptable for computers.

However, it's just been up until recently that some clueless dev has taken to redefining things that is blurring the hell of the definitions.

As currently, the system in BG and BG2 (and PS:T and other IE engine games) can be EITHER a party of PCs OR a PC and NPCs. That is, if you solely let them run off the scripts, they can be NPCs (aside from minor points of equipping and such like that - look at Fallout and Fallout 2 for a better portrayal of NPCs). If you manually control them, they are PCs, even if cameo or story-intervening PCs. I've got a LOT of experience as both a player and DM in these regards.

While they can be one or the other, or sometimes both, it's really important to understand which is truly which for matters of discussion like this.

Linear vs. open-ended DOES have a good deal to do with this argument. Compared to Fallout and Arcanum, Baldur's Gate is really linear. PS:T has too much of a linear progression at times, but it's still more open-ended at times.

Baldur's Gate basically runs in a linear progression at times, even BG2. I personally don't have enough experience with Arcanum to tell, but if it's like Fallout (the original) at all, it sure is more open-ended than BG. Here's the reason why:

Not only considering how you can accomplish quests and pass areas, get info, whatever - there is still much more to open-ended than this. The epitome of this can be seen by how well the game responds to you. In Fallout and likely Arcanum as well, you can play good, evil, balanced, whatever. You DO set your 'alignment', like in PS:T as well. In Baldur's Gate and BG2, the only effects alignment has is with few things, mostly dealing with what class you were. Hell, you could be a chaotic evil thief and play a goody-two shoes. The reputation system was a laugh due to how you could pump money to a church or whatever, and evil will supposedly hate it, and good would like you more. That was the most ironic thing about Baldur's Gate, as they really botched the alignment definitions and guidelines. I'm not sure if BG2 has still the same back-assward system, because it's been a while since I've played it. It was a little too dry at times with repetitive crack-rat combat that I didn't have much interest in replaying it or playing it to the end.

But the bottom line is that what you do in BG 1 & 2 often doesn't feel like it has consequences. Kill someone over here, who cares. Steal something over here, who cares. It feels essentially the same no matter what you do, the end result usually ending up in combat. BG2 was an improvement over the original, but it still does feel a far mark from the choices and character development of Fallout, PS:T and Arcanum - and the sappy JRPG-esque love interests thing is often getting a bit cliche for some people. I've seen it in too many games, and it seems to start infecting many more.

Now, if you've made it through all this winding, you'll understand the basic point. It's a matter of perspective. Some do like the plot and environment to change depending on how you play, some don't like there to be long-term consequences on your actions here and there. I also do feel that both games do have some faults, but then again - personal preference.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go edit the AI scripts for PS:T so I can have real NPCs. :smile:

 

Allow me to put it in simple terms, then...

The 'stat' thing is important here because if not for it, ALL PLAYER CHARACTERS WOULD BE THE SAME DIALOG WISE. Therefore running a high int melee fighter in arcanum would be perfectly fine and have a DIFFERENT feel to playing than a more sturdy fighter char, while it'll mean wasted stats in BG.

And classes...I can run a neutral good mage, say, and say a certain set of things.... I can also run a lawful evil thief character, say, and say all the SAME things mister mage did. So you can talk your way out? Was it actually applicable? I sure know that if my fighter of int 3 wisetalking his way as well as the 19 int mage would kinda defeat the purpose of statistics, eh?
Lets face it, beyond combat, you have near zero chance of actual roleplaying. Your character stats determines YOUR character's abilities, not YOU. That also goes for dialog options. I went and smurfed my int and chr for my fighter, because I knew I could just use other boyos, which I always COULD recruit anyway, to go buy stuff...in fact, the only real drawback of setting int to 3 in BG2(lets not talk about BG...ugh) was the mind flayers.

Hrrm. There's the 'looking for a master teacher' quest, which gives you specific quests according to what kind of character you play. And the fault is not with the availability of subquests, it's the way in which you can complete them. Likewise, breaking into people's houses openly can also be done in Final Fantasy, if you want to state it that way...it's the way in which you can break in that gets me(I have already gone through that), and the realistic dangers involved.Refresh my memory, but were patrolling guards in BG2? And could they catch you? Guards in arcanum can hear the sounds of combat, and will MOST DEFINATELY object to you relentlessly pounding on a steel door with a glowing axe at night...and that's not counting the sleeping occupent if it's at night. Or if you're a real stealthy bastard, you can fleece them in bright daylight, and empty their drawers without them objecting.

Like it or not, if you're a moronic half-orc barbarian, you SHOULD NOT have the choice to talk your way into completing subquests. Or main quests. Or hell, past drunken people who want a fight in bars. However, most all dialog options are available to ANYONE in BG2, like you have already stated.

That means BG2 is dumbed down, folks. I don't particularly like using Prov's term for that, but hey, it fits.

 

----------------

NPC: "This man's not too smart...maybe he can help us. BAD MEN ON BRIDGE. YOU GO GET RID OF, I GIVE YOU MONEY. OKAY?"

Dialog Option: "Money! Lottsa money! How many?"

----------------

NPC: "By the gods! I cannot believe the Living One has been reincarnated in the body of an imbecile!"

Dialog Option: "Whut?"

----------------

Whereas in Baldur's Grate 2, you get...what? Same old thing, despite stats or whatever.

 

"Egads! It would seem this man is mentally retardant! Oh, the tribularaties that this man must have suffered because of his lack of intellect. Even Lukan the Witless is moved to sorrow!"

 

Actually, the most distressing part about BG2 was the reference to hamster buggery....

_________________
"To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Roshambo Warrior on 2001-09-02 08:24 ]</font>

 

And the debate continues

I aprreciate the examples that you all have given so far as to how Arcanum is more open ended. So far, I have not tried using a low int characteralthough I have see some difference when you have put some points into the persuasion skill. I guess I'll have to play through the game using a completely different kind of character than the one I'm usuing now to see more of what you're talking about.

I did have one thought about this whole debate that might put a different spin on things. I think what is forming most of our opinion is really just a sort of brand loyalty. For peaople like me who played BG before Fallout (I actually have yet to give Fallout a try) we've devoloped an affection for how things were done in that game. So when BG2 came out we all rushed to get it and absolutelly loved it. I get the feeling things were the same for people who played Fallout first. I may be completely wrong with this idea, but I do wonder if I would be on the same side if I had picked up a copy of Fallout insead of Baldur's Gate. Whichever side your on though, just remeber that both of these are quality games and while you may have a preference, both are worth the purchasing price.

 

jaimeann

One more thing I forgot to add to my last post. I still go get how Arcanum is open with BG2 being linear when it comes to story. Most games progress ralatively the same way. For example, a basic plot progressin might go like this:

Start at point A, solve problem B, defeat monmsters C,D,E then move on to solve prolbem F and so on before finally vanquishing the big bad dude at G.

Most RPG's include various side quests during your progression from A to G and like Arcanum can offer different options for solving problem B, you still progress to C and cant really change the way the story progresses. If there is a way to branch off at point B and end up going through points H, I, and J to end the game at K, I would say that it was an open ended story. I played a space sim for playstation (the name escapes me at the moment) where there were all kinds of branches to the story based on how the mission ended. You could even fail some or all of the missions and get completely different missions and story than if you had been more successful early on. So can it really be said that Arcanum has an open ended story line?

 

I probably would have enjoyed BG more if I hadn't played Fallout first, truthfully.

Fallout showed what a CRPG could do. Having good skills in certain areas opens up new paths to take in the game. High repair people in Fallout can do things differently than non-repair people. Doctors can have different quests and more dialogue options than non-doctors.

In Arcanum, since it has races, it opens up many more opportunies. When I'm playing a dwarf, people treat me differently. Dwarves tend to like me more, elves are fairly rude to me.

 

SP is right. Fallout has spoiled a lot of supposedly CRPG games for me as well. If you have the chance, try Fallout and just go through it playing different ways, and some places you can indeed skip altogether or go through a different way entirely. The responses and the environment interactivity between NPCs and yourself is really nice. Junktown, enough said. If Arcanum is even 90% of how Fallout was (and I hear that they've actually pumped it up a bit), then it is of note. Hell...playing different races and intelligence/speech levels is a challenge from what I played in the demo, and quite funny too.

As for brand loyalty....I do believe it's more like being spoiled. After playing Fallout, Fallout 2, PS:T...then playing Baldur's Gate, I nearly took it out skeet-shooting. Almost the same for BG2. So with the inclusion of PS:T, it's not just all either IE vs. SPECIAL-like games. Right now, I'm playing through BG2 again, trying something that would stick out like a sore thumb, and that's a dwarven fighter with 3 charisma and int. So far, not much of an effect at ALL.

PS: The PSX game you're thinking of FenderAxe, is called "Sentient". Perhaps one of the few decent non-JRPG games for consoles at that time, but people wouldn't count it as a CRPG because it didn't have a Final Falsity stat system.