What would people like to see?

[Lauriel]

3 hours ago, ithildurnew said:

Tom Bombadil? 

I love Tom Bombadil!  It kept the story alive and interesting when he put in all these extraneous characters to help or hinder the quest.  And they weren't flat characters, either.  They each had their own history and language and OMG the man was a genius!  He had me so immersed, he could have said the sky was green and I'd have believed him.  And how he split 'the quest' into various quest lines that you followed separately and together.  You just couldn't get bored.  But he also spent his whole life on the story and game producers just don't have that sort of time.

But, it was still one big quest.  Each part was a necessary part of the whole.  That's the big difference between Tolkien's story and this story.  The story we play in is a bunch of fragmented calls for help that distract you from your real goal.  It worked much better in BG1 because you had no real purpose other than surviving and trying to figure out who is trying to kill you, but you should have no clue that what's happening in the mines has ANYTHING to do with your problem before you take out Mulahey.  And then solving the iron and bandit issue begins to become a lot more personal.  It's a good story, although I always have a tough time justifying the whole Durlag's Tower thing.  It's so outside of the loop.  "Hey everyone, I know this has NOTHING to do with what everyone wants to accomplish, but doesn't a good dungeon crawl sound like fun?"  In fact, after I'm finished with my Transitions mod for EET, I'll be doing it after I'm finished with Sarevok and before SoD kicks in (there's a few weeks time in there) or if I decide to tell the Dukes to go...ahem...find someone else to manipulate, there's even more time before Irenicus snags you.  Perfect time to gather a new group (or perhaps keep the old-depending upon who's in your group) and to take a sea voyage to Lycanthrope Island, visit an isolated island, and clear out Durlag's tower.

13 hours ago, ithildurnew said:

How? The oldest trick in the book for adventure/action plots -  Mcguffins. In chapter 6 you're racing against the clock supposedly because your soul is missing and you need it back; plotwise it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time chasing after the quests you didn't get to in ch2/3... But what if in order to get your soul back, you NEED to chase those quests to fetch Mcguffins that are required to be in your possession to ensure you'll get your soul back? I mean, CHARMAIN doesn't exactly have a plan for HOW to get the soul back once he catches up to Jon anyway - give him one. Have him find content in Jon's journal that hints items/regeants X, Y, and Z are needed to make the soul exchange. Irenicus with all his power and knowhow needed tons of dead Shadow Thieves and intricate machines/rituals in order to extract Charmain's soul - yet Charmain expects to get it back just by stabbing Jon? Let's make it a little more interesting and sensible, and give a credible reason why we need to chase down the quests we didn't get to in earlier chapters - Jon's journal gives clues where these items might be found, script said mcguffins to be in the inventories of boss types from unfinished ch2/3 quests.

I really like this idea.  It would help unify 'the quest'.

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

There are really two issues: 1) the 'OMG I can't sleep knowing Imoen is imprisoned!' thing, and 2) the 'Imnesvale, hm, sounds interesting, I think I'll go learn about its history' thing.  I think the urgency to rescue Imoen is adequately addressed by the "Imoen is Stone" mod - she may be in the clutches of unfamiliar powers, but they seem more or less lawful, and as a statue she won't even notice what's going on.  So it's okay to gear up and take the time to make a good plan.

A Macguffin mod would handle the 2nd issue: tying the motivation to do side-quests and gallivant around the countryside a bit more closely to the motivation to do the main quest.  Of course the player wants to do both, and of course the player wants to get the most XP and loot for Charname.  But within the story itself, it would be nice to bring those two parts of the game more into alignment.

  This too.

I think anything that ties BG2 into a cohesive unit is a good thing, either before or after Spellhold.  It doesn't really matter to me.

Then there's the 2nd dungeon crawl, can someone please put a request to go there via Helm's temple?  Please?

Edited February 5, 2020 by Lauriel
Just fixing typos and grammar...

[Lauriel]

20 minutes ago, Lauriel said:

I think anything that ties BG2 into a cohesive unit is a good thing, either before or after Spellhold.  It doesn't really matter to me.

Or both!

[Lauriel]

5 hours ago, Skitia said:

My preference is some mod expanding Throne of Bhaal instead or adding quests or unique content specific to its chapters. 

Oh yes!  Please!  ToB is painful for me to complete because I just don't care at this point.  "Someone tried to kill me?  Oh well...how unusual.  I must do something about that because that's never happened before..."  At this point, I'm more like, "Oh bring it!  But y'all better bring it all at once or else you're just wasting my time."  And ToB is so linear that I feel like a fish on a hook.  I hate feeling like a fish on a hook.  It isn't fun.  I play games to have fun.  Ergo..yes please, someone give me some purpose other than killing off some siblings just because they MIGHT cause problems in the future.  I don't mind putting out fires, but I feel like I'm murdering folks just because they own matches.

[Lauriel]

3 hours ago, ithildurnew said:

After seeing @Subtledoctor's posts I think I'd amend my initial mod suggestion to introduce McGuffins in both ch2 and ch 6:

1.  McGuffins in ch2 would help justify delaying the trip to Spellhold a bit, especially for people who easily and quickly hit 20k/40k gp. Alleviates the need to raise the amount asked by Gaylen Bayle to a comically astronomical amount. However, delaying it for too long undercuts sense of urgency which I fear would make it feel like an artificial extension (which is why I'm adverse to using the SCS option to raise the fee to some silly number...  40k, maybe even 60k doesn't seem too crazy, but 'ONE MEELLION GOLD PIECES MUHAHAHA'  feels clumsy. This is probably a fine balancing act - add real urgency, consequences for delay that I suggested, but still make it feasible to finish several quests so you're not cramming them all into CH6.
2. McGuffins in ch6 in order to get soul back, unfinished quest bosses possess the needed Mcguffins -  believable motivation for pursuing chapter 2 quests that were skipped or unfinished because of the urgency of getting to Spellhold. Gameplay-wise, content like Twisted Rune, Kangaxx also probably makes more sense in Ch6 than cheesing/savescumming those encounters in Ch2 right out of Chateau Irenicus.

 

Sorry - yes, I missed this.  Just make all the bits optional so in case someone doesn't like doing 'quest xyz', it won't be necessary for them to do it.  And don't make it obvious which quest is needed for which part.  I hate being led by the nose...

[ithildurnew]

Silly random thought: LOTR has Tom Bombadil as a pretty significant and extremely powerful 'side character' who doesn't seem directly central to the main quest/plot, but is a memorable, mysterious 'chance' encounter that leaves room for a lot of questions and speculation.

BG2's Tom Bombadil: Twisted Rune, Kangaxx, the Guarded Compound, Temple sewers Mindflayers. Think about the first time you found these guys, leaving you to wonder why are they there? Are they tied to the main plot? Holy smokes they're powerful!

The difference is BG's Tom Bombadils are all bundles of juicy XP and loot.

Which leads to... re-imagining LOTR as a typical CRPG (in the tradition of DM of the Rings) ... the 4 hobbits try to find all kinds of ways to cheese kill ('Frodo, use fake-talk on Bombadil!') jolly Tom for his stuff and XP... so they can be better prepared to take on Sauron of course ('Oh yeah, I beat Sauron with fake-talk too')! 

Edited February 6, 2020 by ithildurnew

[Lauriel]

11 minutes ago, ithildurnew said:

Silly random thought: LOTR has Tom Bombadil as a pretty significant and extremely powerful 'side character' who doesn't seem directly central to the main quest/plot, but is a memorable, mysterious 'chance' encounter that leaves room for a lot of questions and speculation.

He's only not directly central to the main plot other than he saved their collective asses. LOL  But I understand what you mean.

12 minutes ago, ithildurnew said:

Which leads to... re-imagining LOTR as a typical CRPG (in the tradition of DM of the Rings) ... the 4 hobbits try to find all kinds of ways to cheese kill ('Frodo, use fake-talk on Bombadil!') jolly Tom for his stuff and XP... so they can be better prepared to take on Sauron of course ('Oh yeah, I beat Sauron with fake-talk too')! 

  Yeah baby!  I soloed the entire quest as a sorc!

[Shin]

18 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Don't really see what the problem is... what need is there for "optional content" if all of the content is used toward the progression of the story, and it all integrates well with the story... plenty of games work that way and it can be done really well. 

...

And anyway anyway, that why I advocate a chapter 2 Macguffin mod that allows the player to decide how high that global variable needs to go - set it at 5 and you'll need to do 5 major side-quests before being able to proceed in the main quests (but there will still be others leftover and those will still be optional, and every time you play the game the 5 side-quests that are "mandatory" can be different); set it at 1 and you are basically in the same situation as the vanilla game, where you only have to do a single quest to get the money and other requirements to proceed to Brynnlaw.

In other words, the mod wouldn't hurt people like you; and it would help people like me and ithildurnew.  I'm struggling to understand a point of view that doesn't think it's a good idea...

Don't misunderstand, I don't oppose such a mod, and I personally also wouldn't mind if much of the side content became main content (or hell, if you had to play all of BG1 in order to start BG2, even), but I still don't see it as an uncomplicated design decision, had it been made that way. If all the Athkatla branches became part of the main quest, my bet is that it would generate complaints, e.g. of how it ends up being linear kind of like ToB, where your only choice is in what order you do all the mandatory things.

Anyway, my main point with posting was to reason around this and put forward a point of view much like your own (that going to Brynnlaw late can easily be supported by RP), which should be clear from my first post on the matter.

[subtledoctor]

22 minutes ago, Shin said:

 I don't oppose such a mod, and I personally also wouldn't mind if much of the side content became main content (or hell, if you had to play all of BG1 in order to start BG2, even), but I still don't see it as an uncomplicated design decision, had it been made that way. If all the Athkatla branches became part of the main quest, my bet is that it would generate complaints, e.g. of how it ends up being linear kind of like ToB, where your only choice is in what order you do all the mandatory things.

Right, that's why my suggested implementation is to require a global variable to reach X in order to proceed with the main quest, and have every major side quest bump the global variable by 1.  E.g. if there are about 8 major side quests, you could set the required variable value to 4.  The beauty of it is that no side quest is required content.  Running a warrior-heavy party?  You don't have to do the Planar Sphere.  Ever.  Running a Lawful party?  You don't have to do the Thieves' Guild quest.  You have to do a certain amount of the side-quest content, and the mod would given a basic explanation as to why; but which content you do is still entirely up to you.  And of course nothing is stopping you from doing more than 4. 

You wouldn't be railroaded any more than you already are (i.e. almost not at all), but you would have a bit more reasonable justification for your out-of-town gallivanting, for people like me who don't think it's so easy to justify taking your time in chapter 2.  (I hear your RP arguments... but I reject them.)

[Shin]

17 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Right, that's why my suggested implementation is to require a global variable to reach X in order to proceed with the main quest, and have every major side quest bump the global variable by 1.  E.g. if there are about 8 major side quests, you could set the required variable value to 4.  The beauty of it is that no side quest is required content.  Running a warrior-heavy party?  You don't have to do the Planar Sphere.  Ever.  Running a Lawful party?  You don't have to do the Thieves' Guild quest.  You have to do a certain amount of the side-quest content, and the mod would given a basic explanation as to why; but which content you do is still entirely up to you.  And of course nothing is stopping you from doing more than 4. 

You wouldn't be railroaded any more than you already are (i.e. almost not at all), but you would have a bit more reasonable justification for your out-of-town gallivanting, for people like me who don't think it's so easy to justify taking your time in chapter 2.  (I hear your RP arguments... but I reject them.)

Yeah, again my objections weren't against such a mod, but came in regards to comparing story flow to e.g. Lord of the Rings. My point was that game developers have to make decisions regarding main and side content, and a lack of balance there can easily have a negative impact on the perceived quality of the game, which I believe the case might well have been if BG2 shipped with most of what you can do in chapter 2 and 3 as mandatory content.

[subtledoctor]

I think the way BG2 was designed, there in fact has been a negative impact on its perceived quality.  One of the things you hear constantly about it is that the pacing is off, that the tension between the urgent need to proceed in the main plot vs. the ambling pace of side-quest/stronghold completion in chapter 2/6 tends to damage suspension of disbelief and is generally mildly unpleasant.  Plenty of games did it differently, and in many cases were better off for it.  I mean the best case in point is BG2's own predecessor, BG1.  It sends you south to Nashkel, northeast to bandit-held territory, and northwest to the Cloakwood, then north to the city and then back to Candlekeep.  All in a set order, all mandatory. (I mean parts of the map are literally unreachable until to have done earlier dungeons.). But I've never heard a complaint about BG1's story or pacing or lack of freedom or content.  If anything, I've heard a lot of people wish that the overall design of BG2 was more like BG1. 

At the end of the da a game has to decide whether it's a Skyrim-y sandbox, or a story-driven adventure.  BG2 tried to split the baby and the game's story suffered for it.  As you say, the developers had to make decisions about main and side content... and I submit in this case they made some poor decisions. 

[Shin]

Well, it's all speculative. The game is as it is, and that's what's critiqued; I don't see it as certain the criticism had been less if it were all mandatory (and just to be clear again, I personally wouldn't really mind this, but I know that my preferences aren't exactly what all players would prefer). As for BG1, I also don't really see it as such a clean case as you appear to. There are some people who wish BG2 was more like BG1, yes, but as far as I've seen that's because BG1 feels more open, not because it railroads you with more mandatory stuff than BG2 does. Still, for all the people who might prefer BG1, even today with engine conversions and EEs available, BG2 is still the more popular choice, where the question put forth is usually whether it's worth it to play through BG1 or advisable to just edit in the tome bonuses.

I also don't see the sandbox/story division as that black and white; it's part of an RPG (in the role-playing sense) to have elements of both -- it's difficult to get that balance right in a computer game, yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong by definition.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Shin

[subtledoctor]

I think you more or less made my point about BG1: it has a compelling, fairly linear story, but it feels more open than BG2. BG2 gets bogged down and distracted, and can feel almost listless at times, even while it tells you you are supposed to feel urgency; and yet it feels less open than BG1. 

The point is not whether the game should do more of X or more of Y; the point is that both X and Y can be more enjoyable. BG1 shows that it can be done better overall.

[temnix]

On 2/5/2020 at 2:35 PM, Lauriel said:

Speaking of motivation - I'd like reasons for good characters to break into every house on the every block in every town.  Seriously?  I just don't do it and miss out on SOO much.

Those old games assumed that the world is there for the taking for all of us - something people don't think these days. Hence magic potions in vases and spell scrolls in cupboards. You are supposed to go out and explore everything you can. However, if you want a "good" reason to come in, maybe I can give you one.

[Lauriel]

1 hour ago, temnix said:

Those old games assumed that the world is there for the taking for all of us - something people don't think these days. Hence magic potions in vases and spell scrolls in cupboards. You are supposed to go out and explore everything you can. However, if you want a "good" reason to come in, maybe I can give you one.

Cool!  Looking forward to it!

[Shin]

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I think you more or less made my point about BG1: it has a compelling, fairly linear story, but it feels more open than BG2. BG2 gets bogged down and distracted, and can feel almost listless at times, even while it tells you you are supposed to feel urgency; and yet it feels less open than BG1. 

The point is not whether the game should do more of X or more of Y; the point is that both X and Y can be more enjoyable. BG1 shows that it can be done better overall.

I've never doubted that things could have been done better, though -- every game can be improved upon in some way, especially after the fact. But my point about BG2 risking negative impact from that kind of design still stands: sure, it may have come out like BG1 but better, with subtle hints guiding you through the various mandatory locations at your leisure while still appearing to set you free, but it could also have ended up more like ToB, essentially presenting you with a list of locations you have to go to, where you at most get to choose the order of a few of them.