Personally I think that this game is too small

Remove all ads!

This board gets rude and argumentative at times. Anyway, I miss the BG1 style myself, and the free feeling, as superficial as it may have been anda slinear as the game may have been in reality, it conveyed a feeling of freedom and extra-story independence.
I was addicted to BG1, and also to IWD although for different reasons. I wanted to finish B2 before I return to school in the Fall, but at this point I am indifferent to it. I am really not "hooked" on the game, and part of this is because of the "step-by-step" play by numbers feel to it. Games involving a story that are not "hack-and-slash" games need to involve you in a narrative, but this doens't mean the narrative needs to be tightly bound or feel constricting. I think BG1 did a great job of allowing the player to feel free while still maintaining a good story. In BG2 there is some constriction in feel. BG2 is great, I don't care so much for dragons so that is anon issue for me, but I do miss the roaming feel in BG1. I'm not sure I understand the issue on "stacking" items, but you can have five of one potions slot. Only 20 arrows though, that's a bummer.
Just my thoughts.

 

Blackthrone: imho there is no need to be so hard and even rude ("...orant post like that out of you again. Understood? Peopl...") to people in your forum. This actually is the disease of all admins, moderators. But still... Friendly gesture

And concerning 2 following posts:
1. If i have 2 separeate thoughts according to topic: i think to divide them i better post them separately. (Slappy)
2. And sometimes people are speaking to themselves (me, kasio), and that is normal. you do it also by the way.
3. Who moved one my post to "whatnots"? poor choice. it was post relevant to BG2, its graphics, rules, design, philosophy. Pls read it again if you did it. If not to move it back then just to see that i am right.

But i considered your instructions u see, editet twice (layout and logics of this message now sucks by the way, should be 2 posts):
[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 03, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 03, 2001).]

 

The game is not too small. If you want to play in unlimited game, you got yourself a wrong one.


OK, rest is pure spam note. And it's for BTA.

Dear BTA,
I never saw any spam from Slappy in these forums. And you mocked him about one irrelevant mistake. So what if he forgot the rule once in a lifetime? At least his every post is full of information. Yeah, you will probably say: "I warned him so that newbies know what is forbidden...". Don't lie please, if you need to grin on someone, turn your anger over to me for spamming, and leave legendary people alone.

 

ok ok

but concerning 3rd point of my previous post...

[Concerning your 3rd point; it is relevant to BG2 yes, but it is also not about BG2 and relevant to much more than BG2. BTA]

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited May 03, 2001).]

 

It's a trade off. BG2 is designed to allow the player to have some freedom of choice in exploring and advancing the storyline.
There are many subquests (not related to advancing the storyline) that need not be completed in a specific order (or at all).
The designers appear to have made it easy to remember where you are in the storyline, and have some knowledge of what to do to advance it. However, they don't make you. I have been sitting in Chapter 2 for a while, building my party doing subquests. I have had the opportunity to end this chapter for some time, but I have not done it and the game does not make me do it.
With the rich story and chapter structure (which the 2 Fallouts did not have), some steps must be taken to limit availability to areas that could screw up the plotline.
To complete the thought:
In games like the Fallouts (I played both and loved them), the plot was almost secondary to the gaming experience. You could pretty much go where you want, do what you want and eventually, if you complete certain tasks, everything wraps up. It was very open-ended and, in a lot of respects, very repetitious. For example, one of the main ways to build up your party and procure weapons and cash was to cruise around the desert, killing every bad guy you came across. After awhile, every mutant patrol or slaver group seemed the same as the one before. This is typical hack-and-slash.
You didn't buy a hack-and-slash game. If you want an open ended, run all over the map, the storyline is secondary to action, kind of game, then you bought the wrong one.
If you don't mind playing older games, I would recommend Daggerfall. It is an excellent example of the type of game that you are describing (It's everthing that Dia-blow wishes it was).


[This message has been edited by Jack Funk (edited May 03, 2001).]

 

Oh my god.... Diablo is getting bashed here seriously. What did it do to you to deserve this

It gives to the players what they want: to build their own character, find new items and become stronger, hacking and slashing their way through ridiculous monsters with even more ridiculous names.

But that is not the main reason to play that game, don't play it for the 'RPG' content, or realism, but play it in a way to build your own avatar, interacting with other players online and have a good time finding new stuff and new ways to kill things.

Take this game for what it is, and don't bash it for what it is not. A bad game (Dia-blow?!) doesn't sell over 3.000.000 copies

Just wanted to spit out my opninion, even when I don't like it the way the screwed up with their realm servers, the game itself is still the best and deserves more then the little spot it's pushed to here.

To stay on topic here: Kasio, how can even have an opinion about the size of this game, if you just spotted your first dragon some 20 mins later?!?!
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002277.html

You haven't seen much about his game I think. Play this game to it's full potential 200-300 hours and then give us your opinion based on the whole game.

[This message has been edited by Igneous (edited May 03, 2001).]

 

I didn't say that Dia-blow was a bad game. It's good for what it is. Pac-man 2000.
As far as your assertion that bad games don't sell 3000000 copies, explain Myst.

 

Quote:

"I would recommend Daggerfall. It is an excellent example of the type of game that you are describing (It's everthing that Dia-blow wishes it was)."

I was just defending Diablo against this statement, who sais Diablo wanted to be a game like daggerfall? Sorry for my bad descriptions, my sentence structures suck, but I hope this makes my point clear. No offense to anyone.

 

I've enjoyed both Diablos. They were great for what I was looking for at the time (plus the Barbarian's leap attack was awesome ). Actually, I was afraid, at the time, to try the BG/IWD games, because I had read they were so huge. Why would I spend $50 on a game I might not ever have time to finish? So Diablo2 was my choice at the time.

Of course, after buying BG1 in Feb. for $15 just to see what the fuss was about, my opinion has changed. I was hooked, and quickly got BG2 and IWD. (Of course, I still fear that I'll never finish BG2 ) The game experance is a richer and more rewarding one than Diablo2. So, I can see how some here view Diablo2 as a poor subsitute to role-playing on the computer. But remember, D2 also will introduce more people to the RPG genre, creating more demand, and hopefully allow for more games like BG to be made.

Also, getting back to the main point of this message: How can you think a game with over 200 hours of playing time is too small? That's over 2-and-a-half 40 hour work weeks. I try to get 2-3 hours of gameplay in a night, that means it'll be well over 2 months for me to finish if I try to get every quest I can find. What are you expecting? 400 hours? 800 hours?!?!? What's a good size game for you? The average First Person Shooter today can be finished in a weekend of solid play, a week if it's a long one. Count your blessings. It almost sounds like you won't be happy until they come out with a game that will completely replace your life.

And as far as calling the game one dimentional... I'm gonna laugh that comment off and ignore it, if you don't mind.

 

look Kasio, every game has some bad point and the map isn't so bad in BG and BG2,
Personnaly I think that they are ok, for that kind of game, we didn't need a big map!

 

I stand by my statement.
As noted by an earlier poster, Diablo allows the player to build an avatar of their liking by hacking and slashing without being burdoned by too much else.
Daggerfall provides this with:
* more class choices
* better NPC interaction
* more (and more varied) environments
* open ended exploration that grossly exceeds that provided by Diablo

The one thing that Diablo provides is the multiplayer aspect. But, again this is done better elsewhere.

I believe that the appeal of Diablo is it's simplicity and ease of use. It's very accessible to non-power gamers. Which is great. It is also the reason that it gets bashed by BG2 fans. Personally, I think that they are apples and oranges and whenever I see Diablo referred to as an RPG or nominated (or forbid winning) for a best RPG award, I laugh.

 

And I laugh with you Jack. Because simply and shortly put, Diablo is no RPG.

I told that in an earlier post in whatnots:
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000468.html

I don't play Diablo anymore, because it has lost it's charme due to serious server problems and most of my friends stopped. It IS repetetive after a while and it WILL never come close in intelligence to the D&D games, but I just had to defend it for 'my' group of gamers. ( And I still like Bg2 more then Torment )

 

I like Diablo II, when I am in the mood for Diablo II. But comparing it to BG2, is like comparing BG2 to Hoyle's solitaire, or Mortal Combat. Games are divided into genres by marketing people for the benefit of retailers. Diablo created a new genre (3D Realtime Graphical Moria, pretty much), and since there wasn't a marketing category for it got lumped in with CRPGs. Maybe there should be action CRPG and adventure CRPG categories to distinguish the types.

 

Just a quick note about BTA' slap on my wrist

Thank you to everyone who said nice things about me - that is really appreciated.

Also, sorry to BTA, you are right, I should have edited the previous post. My excuse is not being able to keep up with the speed of posts that was happening (too old). However, I don't have a problem with having my mistake being pointed out, especially in the spirit that BTA uses. I also understand how all the moderators are having to be a bit firmer nowadays - I have seen how much the boards have grown in the last few months and realise they are trying to keep things running smoothley. After all they do it for free and provide loads of great advice.

God, I'm now worring that I'm creeping. Anyway, basically all I wanted to say was everyone be cool - I'm just glad to be back among friends.

 

Blackthorne TA get criticized for reprimanding Silver Dragon for his very rude post? What's up with that?

If a rude and pointless post is not reprimanded by a moderator I would have no respect for the moderators on that forum.
IMO Blackthorne showed restraint and good judgement in his reprimand. The kind of posts that Silver Dragon made have no place in this forum.

 

diablo2 is a fun game and it has some RPG tendencies like character development but it's still no RPG as everyone says

 

That 4CD v 6CD is just pure BS.

BG on 6 CDs because it has an expansion and it was made in 1998.
BG2 is on 4 CDs because there is no expansion yet, and of course it was made in 2000, thus, better compression methods to squeeze it all on 4 CDs.

 

at the moment i have both Diablo 2 and bg2 installed i have done this because when i want some good intracetly designed and beutifully rendered strategic gaming then i play bg2. On the other hand when i want to slaughter an abnormal and unrealistic amount of monsters in a not so beutiful and very pixely enviroment then i will turn to the faithful Diablo 2