Which RPG is as good as BGII?

gblthrmnuk · Post by **gblthrmnuk** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:31 pm

Hi all,

I've played this game and it's fantastic, I liked everything about it.
So the question is: Is there another RPG as good as this one?

Because, after finishing BGII, I've played Icenwind Dale II, and The Temple of Elemental evil, and I didn't like them at all!!

I want a RPG in wich the NPC's in your party talk to each other just like in BGII and one with a good story.

Thanks.

Numinor · Post by **Numinor** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:41 pm

You could try Vampire:The Masquerade - Redemption.
It has a very good storyline, though it's quite different from BG2. There is somewhat less party interaction and it's fairly linear, but nonetheless I enjoyed it very much.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:07 pm

I'm really thinking about moving this discussion down to--where else?--Game Discussion. It's the proper area for it.

In the meantime, consider Planescape: Torment. It's got fascinating party members, two modes of play (one favoring combat, one with quests involving more conversation--so there's still plenty of fighting), and a lot of very intelligently written dialog. Great game.

FilipeTeles · Post by **FilipeTeles** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:46 pm

fable planescape torment is the one wich you can only play as a fighter?

also

You said in that there is a thread about wich fighter is better minsc,keldorn,koregan but I dont find it.

Balthazar-LOM · Post by **Balthazar-LOM** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:57 pm

HIa

hmm... do u have bg1 and totsc(taleOfTheSwordCoast) and throne of bhaal, if not i'd try them there good to my fav is bg1 but thats my option....

Numinor · Post by **Numinor** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:31 pm

Though you start as a fighter in PS:Torment your class can change later in the game, I think you can be a cleric, a thief or a mage.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:42 pm

Originally posted by Numinor
Though you start as a fighter in PS:Torment your class can change later in the game, I think you can be a cleric, a thief or a mage.

Close: you can switch at any time among being a fighter, thief and mage, repeatedly, during the game, though it makes sense to push one. The thief nearly really takes off, but the fighter and mage produce entirely different games.

@FilipeTeles, read the "Whose Ur Fav?" thread in the BG2/ToB forum.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:07 am

Originally posted by FilipeTeles
fable planescape torment is the one wich you can only play as a fighter?

Planescape: Torment is a great game. But there seems to be a misconception about the nature of the character you play.

He starts out as "just" a Fighter with amnesia. His stats aren't very good--but that changes. When you meet potential trainers, he can switch to two other classes--Thief and Mage. He can switch back and forth between classes at will, as long as a trainer is nearby. But that's only part of the story.

The Nameless One is thousands of years old, and he has acquired the skills of many, many lifetimes. His amnesia prevents him from using all of that knowledge. But as you play the game, he recovers lost memories and regains a lot of his old skills. His stat points increase when he levels up and when he uses special items. Recovering his old self is a big part of the game. He's not a typical D&D character; he's a lot more than just a Fighter or a Thief or a Mage.

You can kill as many creatures as you like in PS:T, but the way I play, it's not a very combat-oriented game. You get a lot more experience for talking to people than you do for killing them. The Nameless One doesn't wear armor or carry a big sword; he wears tattoos and wields a knife and fists. Only one member of your party (if you recruit him) can use missile weapons. And if the Nameless One dies, he gets right back up, since he can't be permanently killed. That in itself turns the old conventions of D&D on their head.

PS:T is not like any other RPG you've played before. You have to think of new ways to cope with the game's challenges. It's a very intense roleplaying experience, and there's enough dialogue to fill a novel. If you didn't like a game like IWD2 that consists mostly of combat and very little interaction between characters, you might find PS:T very refreshing.

I did enjoy IWD2 and I think it's a great game, but it was just too much of a good thing, and I felt like it would never end. I'm a little hesitant to try IWD (the original), but I suppose I will one of these days.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:05 am

Planescape: Torment is one of the very few games I consider to be better than BG... but it's not everybody cup of tea. It involves less action more thinking and much more reading.

Currently I'm also enjoying Morrowind a lot.

Loki 65t · Post by **Loki 65t** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:36 pm

It seems that BGII is... well second to none.

PS:T was an excellent game - I mean the sheer scale of rpg was incredible - there were actual benfits if you have spoken to someone about particular thing and losses if you haven't.
The difference between "brains" and "muscles" type of playing was amazing. Basically all the rpg aspects of the game were perfect. Nevertheless the game lacked the usual combat/encounters. Everyone was shocked to learn that NO had no armor throughout the game. If only they made PS:T 2 i'm sure it would be a blast. Just as bgII was.

IMO none of the games we've been having lately can match those 2 titles. IWD series was all combat , no party interactions.NWN is a completely different game then bgii.
Temple - well the game seems a bit wierd to me.

Ehh I would sell my soul for Bg III or PS:T II.
Hmm ? Did I hear someone's knocking on the door ?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:23 pm

Originally posted by Loki 65t
PS:T was an excellent game - I mean the sheer scale of rpg was incredible - there were actual benfits if you have spoken to someone about particular thing and losses if you haven't.
The difference between "brains" and "muscles" type of playing was amazing. Basically all the rpg aspects of the game were perfect. Nevertheless the game lacked the usual combat/encounters.

Not so: the game had plenty of combat encounters. But if you configured a mage, raised your INT, WIS and CHA, you managed to get around many of those encounters (at least, in the first half of the game), and could deal with them through dialog, instead. It was not unlike the Fallout series, in that respect. Want conflict? Go for a large, dumb, extremely sturdy fighter: STR and CON, maybe CHA if you want to get a few goodies, as well.

Idioteque · Post by **Idioteque** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:57 pm

You might want to check out Star Wars: Knights of the old Republic

Loki 65t · Post by **Loki 65t** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:39 am

Originally posted by fable
Not so: the game had plenty of combat encounters. But if you configured a mage, raised your INT, WIS and CHA, you managed to get around many of those encounters (at least, in the first half of the game), and could deal with them through dialog, instead. It was not unlike the Fallout series, in that respect. Want conflict? Go for a large, dumb, extremely sturdy fighter: STR and CON, maybe CHA if you want to get a few goodies, as well.

Well sure - there was some fighting in PS:T - but still nowhere near the amount found in BgII (and what we love the most - fortified mages , dragons , greater malison + death spell for those mangy thieves

). The only place that had the kind of "action " as in BgII was in the later stages - the modron maze for example. The rest was basically thugs , rats , lesser deamons.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:28 am

Originally posted by Loki 65t
Well sure - there was some fighting in PS:T - but still nowhere near the amount found in BgII (and what we love the most - fortified mages , dragons , greater malison + death spell for those mangy thieves ). The only place that had the kind of "action " as in BgII was in the later stages - the modron maze for example. The rest was basically thugs , rats , lesser deamons.

I see your point, but as mine concerned the quantity of fights, I don't understand how what you've written contradicts me. If you go with a dumb fighter, you'll have plenty of battles on your hands, many of them ingeniously constructed, with zombies, ghouls, skeletons, ghosts, rats, wererats, thugs, and lesser demons, as you point out, in the first half of PS:T. Basically, that makes sense. In PS:T, you're an unknown quantity, then, while in BG2, you've already attracted attention, welcome and unwelcome, by your exploits in BG1.

So if you want a combat-heavy PS:T, it's within reach.

Loki 65t · Post by **Loki 65t** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:50 pm

Well it's just I got the feeling while playing PS:T that you really had to look to find some worthy opponents (thugs were a joke) - fights worth working for the xp were few to say the least. Instead of testing my party in battle I was occupied with let's say giving birth to a street

; .

In Bg2 however even a friggin circus tent was a death trap , illithids and cultists underneath the peaceful city , and later it just gets more cheesy.

Maybe it's also because the spells in PS:T were somewhat less of a overkill then what you see in bg2.

To sum up - BgII has imo more encounters , tough fights and definitely more means to face them. PS:T was shifted from combat to rpg.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 3:23 pm

Originally posted by Loki 65t
To sum up - BgII has imo more encounters , tough fights and definitely more means to face them. PS:T was shifted from combat to rpg.

More varied fights in the first half, and a greater variety of spells, yes. More encounters, no. Again, you could have just as many fights for the quantity of game PS:T provides as that of BG2. It's all a matter of how you configured your character. If you didn't follow the usual recommended line of INT/WIS/CHA, then you'd have a lot more fights on your hands than would otherwise prove the case.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 3:33 pm

Also keep in mind the level difference. In BGII, you were known, and you were tough. In Ps:T, you're unknown, for the most part, and you just came back from the dead.

To sum up - BgII has imo more encounters , tough fights and definitely more means to face them. PS:T was shifted from combat to rpg.

That is one reason why the core RPG community loves Ps:T so much. Because it is an actual RPG, that doesn't focus on the combat purely, but everything that makes an RPG an RPG.

Anyway, if I continue, I'll end up moving into my hatred of hack and slash, and how Blizzard ruined the genre.

Loki 65t · Post by **Loki 65t** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:55 pm

My point exactly Aegis - I simply can't place BgII and PS:T at the very same shelf when it comes to combat. I love the game for it's story and rpg-dialouge options with much depth.

I know Fable that without considerable "dyplomatic skills" I'd face more combat - but in most cases that would only mean yet another portion of thugs. So when you say quantity - that may very well be. However - as there were no stoneskinned mages , no clay golems , no dragons , no mind flayers I consider bgII more combat challenging.

Let's not forget what parties in both games were. In BgII after a while we had a real assault sqad , with roles , specific skills and gear , capable of anything from dragon slaying to breaking a city siege. In PS:T we had a freak show including burning psycho , some alienated swordsman , hot demon chick , even hotter tiefling chick , a broken tv and all under leadership of well - we can't even call him undead... Hell he doesn't even have a name.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:24 pm

You misunderstand, Loki. I think Ps:T Owns BGII seven ways from sunday

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:44 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
You misunderstand, Loki. I think Ps:T Owns BGII seven ways from sunday

Now, that's well put.