|
I want to give Vesperia another go, and actually finish it this time. I remember last time I was playing it, someone posted a link to a guide to seeing/getting everything in the game in one playthrough; does anyone know what I'm talking about/where it is?
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
http://ameblo.jp/koulinovesperia/entry-10347292825.html and http://ameblo.jp/koulinovesperia/entry-10343547508.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Ledneh posted:I want to give Vesperia another go, and actually finish it this time. I remember last time I was playing it, someone posted a link to a guide to seeing/getting everything in the game in one playthrough; does anyone know what I'm talking about/where it is? Was it this? http://ameblo.jp/koulinovesperia/entry-10347292825.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
drat, that was quick. Thanks folks, my google-fu is weak apparently 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:I most definitely thought Dragon Age was a "traditional" WRPG. It was a bit disheartening all the same, because it felt to me like a step backwards from BG2 in almost every way. However, I understand that BG2's depth of character customization and battle system was due in no small part to being based on an already existing system. So I was looking forward to DA2 expanding on DA's system and adding some complexity to it, and, well... can you explain any reason at all why da was a "step back" from bg2, a game with absolutely atrocious character building systems that reward only the most arcane and pointless of actions (leveling characters to certain arbitrary points before dual classing into something else, memorizing pointless spells to gobble up precious bonus xp to rapidly dual class up a wizard, entire builds which hinge on specific items) and combat which was either comical or tedious based entirely on which of your encounter-trivializing spellbook the enemies you were fighting were immune to? dragon age had above average class balance, its main problem being that mages are too powerful (which can hardly be held against it when you're comparing it to AD&D) and it had a variety of useful and interesting characters you could recruit, a sharp contrast to BG2 where the majority of characters were basically useless unless your PC was strong enough to solo the game anyway and the unfuckable ones were all really shortly developed i don't mean to rant it's just that BG2 was a really badly designed game from most critical perspectives (forgivable, considering how much worse we were at making games back in those days) and DA was an extremely well-designed one, and contrary opinions get tossed around a lot with little to no substance behind them. literally the only area i can think of where BG2 wasn't more primitive than DA is its soundtrack. the quests gave you SIGNIFICANTLY less freedom of choice than in DA, something massively important to an rpg, and the writing was just not very good, so what exactly are people nostalgic for? NOT PAUL LAYTON fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Every single thing you said was wrong. Hope this helps. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
NOT PAUL LAYTON posted:can you explain any reason at all why da was a "step back" from bg2, a game with absolutely atrocious character building systems that reward only the most arcane and pointless of actions (leveling characters to certain arbitrary points before dual classing into something else, memorizing pointless spells to gobble up precious bonus xp to rapidly dual class up a wizard, entire builds which hinge on specific items) and combat which was either comical or tedious based entirely on which of your encounter-trivializing spellbook the enemies you were fighting were immune to? dragon age had above average class balance, its main problem being that mages are too powerful (which can hardly be held against it when you're comparing it to AD&D) and it had a variety of useful and interesting characters you could recruit, a sharp contrast to BG2 where the majority of characters were basically useless unless your PC was strong enough to solo the game anyway and the unfuckable ones were all really shortly developed And so Dragon's Age streamlined. It streamlined HARD. Dragon's Age didn't really have much variety in its class setup and especially in how you played them. There was usually one (sometimes two when it came to DPS) valid ways to build a character for a respective role, because the skill trees were rigid and not very imaginative (taunt mechanics, etc). The loot in the game was also very boring so you tended to go with incremental upgrades. Note that I'm ignoring the mess of bugs that existed in most of the skills and loot (a sizeable chunk of loot's special effects in the game didn't even work as described, and were never fixed). The magic system had some points of creativity but nothing on the scale of D&D's magic system. Having to spend skill points on magic was also upsetting in a way due to very bad balancing in the magic system. I'm not going to touch the writing/perception that your choices mattered much in Dragon's Age vs Baldur's Gate 2. Both of their plots/stories have their positives and negatives. But in the end, they're both about the same thing that every RPG is about : killing your enemy. Rascyc fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
but a choice isn't a choice when one choice is right and the other is wrong, and though i'll grant you vanilla BG2 is fairly easy even if you don't understand the needlessly elaborate and ill-conceived character building system, throne of bhaal's epic content creates a very serious issue for anyone who hasn't become intimately familiar with the broken magic system. your statement about class variety simply isn't true about da2--the advanced classes create plenty of distinct character options which one can pursue based entirely on the in-game advertisement rather than by looking up an FAQ online and learning the best way to go about it, and whether or not it's even viable because a certain endgame item completely invalidates a choice you made in the building process. your comment about "boring" loot is especially poignant when compared to BG2, since the removal of game-breaking unique artifacts in favor of a more generalized catch-all modern system whereby specific properties (elemental damage upgrades, on-hit proc effects, etc) are applied ubiquitously across base items and placed in the game based on level ensures that no character will be gimped in the late game because of a choice to pursue a certain weapon path. the only "choice" that was removed in the upgrade to dragon age was the choice to unknowingly break your character through ignorance of convoluted systems. for an extremely specific example, note the many items in baldur's gate 2 that set a character's base attribute to a certain value rather than simply augmenting it, like the crom faeyr. foreknowledge of these items completely changes the way a player builds a character, and not for the better. as for the writing, well, we can ignore it if you like, but it's a very easy victory for dragon age. when pressed to identify instances of quality in baldur's gate 2 most players point out one of irenicus's melodramatic monologues, given life by a coincidentally characteristic voice actor and little else. the writing in dragon age is just better, more contemporary, more believable and consistent on a character-by-character basis, offers significantly more choice and consequence in quests (seriously, try and think of the choices you're actually capable of making in quests in baldur's gate--they're entirely linear) and presents far more parallels to real-world situations and people. this is debatable as an improvement, but i think preferring the forgotten realms to a more realistic world with conflicts caused by political and religious differences is a bit... childish, at the risk of being condescending? dragon age is hardly pulitzer material but at least it makes an attempt at entering this century by targeting genre tropes and breaking them (see: the entire dwarven section of the plot) as opposed to embracing them. again, this is simply an issue of time, dragon age has the benefit of being made ten years after baldur's gate 2, and therefore benefits from a lot of collective wisdom about the RPG genre that we didn't have at the time, but this is what makes it a step forward, rather than a step back. are you sure you aren't conflating some issues with dragon age 2, which was indeed a huge letdown in many ways, with the original virtues of dragon age: origins? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:Every single thing you said was wrong. Hope this helps. Uh, care to refute what he's saying instead of spouting one liners?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how any person can reasonably consider DA:O a 'step back' from BG2 in terms of RPG titles. I mean, the only thing in BG2 you really had any freedom over was the mechanics of your character, and to be honest it was a loving spreadsheet nightmare courtesy of the notoriously opacity of the D&D 2e system. Not only that, but it was a minefield of newbie traps and lovely builds, with absolutely massive power disparities between varying types of character, further aggravated by the fact that the items and situations the game presented to you heavily favoured certain weapon styles or builds over others with absolutely no indication that this would be the case. Granted, a lot has been learned about what makes a good game, but deliberately detrimental game mechanics were left in BG2 for no good reason. Nobody was forcing them to put poo poo like Toughness in. When you start looking at the other aspects of the game (writing, influence on the story etc), DA:O pulls way ahead and leaves BG2 in the freakin garbage where it belongs. NOT PAUL LAYTON has covered most of why that is already, though. Conduit for Sale! posted:Every single thing you said was wrong. Hope this helps. where's the rest of your post
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Just got Jade Empire, and despite it being rather short and full of Bioware cliches, I had plenty of fun with it. Honestly, this was the action-packed, fast-paced RPG I expected DA2 to be, and it bums me out something awful that JE didn't get a sequel while Dragon Age 3 is probably still on the cards.  I still think it's one of Bioware's best games. It was really short, though, and the last few chapters felt a little rushed. On the other hand, you can shoot Chinese demons with an old-timey rifle, as well as turn into a giant frog and hop around killing everything by bodyslamming it  CommissarMega posted:Oh poo poo yes. I bought JE looking for a typical Bioware romp, and this moment literally made me go "What the gently caress?!".  Now go play again and see how much foreshadowing there was...
U.T. Raptor fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
This is the most hate for Baldur's Gate 2 I've seen in one place. Ya'lls crazy, and this argument is crazy. The games are so drastically different. Have you guys played Neverwinter Nights 2? That game plays exactly like an early version of Dragon Age, and was much more the predecessor than Baldur's Gate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
but the only non-plot differences between bg2 and nwn2 are a controllable 3d camera and an update of the ruleset from 2nd to 3.5, the three games are all entries into the same canon even the plot and overall game structure in da is more relevant to bg2 than nwn2, nwn2 features a much more linear area progression since it takes place largely in a city, and locks you out of previous areas as you advance through chapters. both bg2 and DA are about a player-created character teamed up with predesigned-but-customizable party members conquering a world map area-by-area in an order determined by the player once you escape the tutorial dungeon before advancing onward into a linear endgame. granted, bg2 has two separate "open" areas, the overworld at first and then the underdark second also it should be noted that i don't hate baldur's gate 2, i was just delighted to see game design evolve for the better with the release of dragon age and it really grinds my gears to see misinformation spouted off about the two games since there's a small chance of someone reading it and actually thinking that DA isn't the direction that video games should be heading NOT PAUL LAYTON fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
And Dragon Age was sold to RPG fans as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2 because they're both made by Bioware unlike NWN2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
brennon posted:Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how any person can reasonably consider DA:O a 'step back' from BG2 in terms of RPG titles. I mean, the only thing in BG2 you really had any freedom over was the mechanics of your character, and to be honest it was a loving spreadsheet nightmare courtesy of the notoriously opacity of the D&D 2e system. Not only that, but it was a minefield of newbie traps and lovely builds, with absolutely massive power disparities between varying types of character, further aggravated by the fact that the items and situations the game presented to you heavily favoured certain weapon styles or builds over others with absolutely no indication that this would be the case. Granted, a lot has been learned about what makes a good game, but deliberately detrimental game mechanics were left in BG2 for no good reason. Nobody was forcing them to put poo poo like Toughness in. Are you maybe talking about NWN or IWD2 instead of BG2? Because unless I'm forgetting something, Toughness is not in BG2 (it's a feat in the 3E system).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
NOT PAUL LAYTON posted:but a choice isn't a choice when one choice is right and the other is wrong It's important to note your created class is really only a small piece of your play experience - there's a reason we tell all newcomers in the BG2 thread to pick whatever class looks interesting. You'll play the game fine simply because of the various joinable PCs who will carry you fine so long as you remember to press the level-up button and remember to equip them. Honestly I'd like to try and discuss a lot of your other points but I have a hard time cutting through the wall of run on sentences, sorry :/ I don't think it's necessarily fair to say DA:O was a stepback from BG2. But it's probably still somewhat of a disappointment to people who bought into the DA:O is a spiritual BG2 successor hype. I think of it more like a lateral and I'm glad it was made too. It was a good single run game for me - I just can't play it a second time due to its pacing problems and lack of variety. U.T. Raptor posted:Hey there Jade Empire-liking buddy Rascyc fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Baldur's Gate and it's DnD system can be pretty confusing, but I thought that made it more fun. It's pretty unique compared to other games, and it's fun to figure out and play around with, and there is a lot of depth to it. DA's character system felt too much like a generic MMO system with your tanks, healers and dps, and all the generic skills that go along with those roles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
NOT PAUL LAYTON posted:but a choice isn't a choice when one choice is right and the other is wrong, and though i'll grant you vanilla BG2 is fairly easy even if you don't understand the needlessly elaborate and ill-conceived character building system, throne of bhaal's epic content creates a very serious issue for anyone who hasn't become intimately familiar with the broken magic system. your statement about class variety simply isn't true about da2--the advanced classes create plenty of distinct character options which one can pursue based entirely on the in-game advertisement rather than by looking up an FAQ online and learning the best way to go about it, and whether or not it's even viable because a certain endgame item completely invalidates a choice you made in the building process. your comment about "boring" loot is especially poignant when compared to BG2, since the removal of game-breaking unique artifacts in favor of a more generalized catch-all modern system whereby specific properties (elemental damage upgrades, on-hit proc effects, etc) are applied ubiquitously across base items and placed in the game based on level ensures that no character will be gimped in the late game because of a choice to pursue a certain weapon path. the only "choice" that was removed in the upgrade to dragon age was the choice to unknowingly break your character through ignorance of convoluted systems. for an extremely specific example, note the many items in baldur's gate 2 that set a character's base attribute to a certain value rather than simply augmenting it, like the crom faeyr. foreknowledge of these items completely changes the way a player builds a character, and not for the better. From a story perspective, my liking BG 2 more has to do with plot (not writing) and atmosphere. While neither series can boast much originality when it comes to setting or plot, I find the BG series to have more appeal in general. In particular, playing as the hero who has to save the world is the most boring plot hook ever, and all the BG games have plot that's driven by things that appeal to me more (revenge/restoration in BG 2, avoiding big bad/finding out who it is in BG 1/ToB). Atmospherically I also enjoy every IE game more than DA (although IWD 1 has the best atosphere, Torment the most interesting/varied). DA has way better writing, and of course the increased interaction with partymembers is much better as well, however I didn't actually like the personality any of the party members. None of them appealed to me, and compared to Torment or Mass Effect they didn't stack up at all, so personally the party interaction didn't really help DA much for me. Additionally, I felt the whole influence system (particularly DA because of the gifts, but I have some similar complaints about Mass Effect) worked really really terribly. It just feels like such a hackneyed system, that I almost prefer BG style 'you don't get to know your party members at all' cardboard-cutouts over DA's 'you now know their entire life history and additionally are best friends because you gave her 3 pairs of shoes and clicked a couple of obvious menu choices'. One big reason I don't like DA as much is simply lack of replayability. I had absolutely no wish to replay DA because I didn't at all feel like there was any interesting part of the gameplay I hadn't seen. For all BG 2's faults in variety in regards to solving quests, DA had as much when it came to different ways of approaching combat. Not that the combat was bad by itself - magic combos were fun and nice variety, and the only real issues I had was with the threat system (being used to both MMOs and single-player RPGs, it felt really half-assedly implemented) and that when controlling thieves, wonky positioning could be VERY annoying at times. However, between only getting 3 classes, and having access to pretty much every spell and ability between all the party members, I had pretty much tried everything in one playthrough. And frankly, fighters and rogues were almost as boring in DA as they were in BG 2, especially compared to mages. I'm sure there were a few spells and abilities I never tried, but never enough to make me interested in playing again (so far at least). Since the IE games are much more limiting in this factor, both through having more classes and multiple races, and core mechanics (XP system, romances if you wanted them) discouraging swapping partymembers. Beyond that, DA's combat system really felt very limiting in terms of different combat playstyles (understandably since they had to make up a new one, while the IE games were built around D&D and had multiple games to try it out on before BG 2). While I agree that several things about the gameplay in BG 2 was not ideal or somewhat archaic, it also provided replayability for me. Simple things like using a 3 character party instead of a full one, or going solo as a rogue using stealth and invisibility, just didn't seem at all like viable playstyles in DA. As for items, unbalanced and ridiculous items are simply what makes RPGs fun to me. They are also, to me, a big motivation for replaying the game. Having a Staff of the Magi or Crom Faeyr to work towards in a solo/2character run, to see what ridiculous things I can do with them, for example, is what makes me fire the game up again. At the same time, the magic system ensures that you can't always waltz through the game with just an overpowered weapon because everything dies in 2 hits. The lack of good weapons for several weapon skills was a problem, (there were probably more 'powergamers' going for Katanas despite them being poo poo from ToB on, rather than 2-handed Swords/Hammers/Staves which was where you'd have good weapons all throughout the game) though at least these days it can be severely mitigated by mods. Also, purely subjectively, Baldur's Gate 2's spell system is my favorite of any game series. It's hardly perfect (too restrictive early levels, which isn't a problem in BG 2 but still, too many spells are bad/niche, too uneven distribution between amazing/ok/bad spells for some spell levels), but the imbalanced spells and the multitude of protection/counter mechanics are super fun (although prebuffing can get tedious later on without scripts). A lot of the stuff I didn't like about Baldur's Gate 2's gameplay is much better in IWD 2, pity the first two chapters of that game are boring as hell. Personally I love the magic system in both BG 2 and DA, with more interesting spells in BG 2 but better balance and fun combinations in DA. From a gameplay perspective, the fact that BG 2 is far too opaque with its stats (many of their effects are either hidden away in a table at the back of the manual, entirely undocumented, or works different than explained), and barely has any use for intelligence (get ~10 and potions of genius for levelup if you're a mage, 11 to avoid intelligence drain (opaque as poo poo) as a fighter, done), wisdom (get 18 if Divine caster or want to cast wish, otherwise dump) and charisma (dump) was most annoying. Insurrectionist fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Saying DA was a step backwards from BG2 was an exaggeration, but as far as I'm concerned, it was a step backwards in character customization and combat. Everything about those that people in this thread are bemoaning are things that I love. I like that they require understanding of the system, I like that they really require me to think about my build before making it, and I like that I can gently caress up if I'm dumb about my builds (but this isn't nearly as easy to do as people are making it out to be). Honestly, one of my favorite parts of the game is building characters. There's just so much more class variety in BG2, even if you eliminate the downright bad classes/kits. The classes in DA:O were streamlined to the point of being boring, although the advanced classes or whatever they were called alleviated that a bit. Honestly I just found nearly every part of DA:O past the origins (which were pretty great) to be boring. DA:O's writing was better, but the plot was as generic as it gets (not that BG2's was incredibly unique, but the awesomeness of Irenicus made up for it), and the only character that I really found interesting was Sten. I thought BG2 had some pretty great sidequests, but I can't think of any in DA:O that stood out (not including DLC, which I never played).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:I'm honestly not sure what wrong choices you have in a game of Baldur's Gate 2 since 2e is pretty rigid except magic. All I can think of is if you pick Sorcerer and pick some really specific-use spells. Honestly, Black Isle went through a lot of effort to give you mostly well crafted characters to choose from as far as a party went. There's one or two sub-standard characters but you can still make them work ultimately for BG2 and then decide whether or not you want to keep shouldering that character in the somewhat harder Throne. as for the rest of my points well, i'm sorry i guess. all my subjects and verbs line up i think, having multiple independent clauses in a sentence shouldn't really affect comprehension since that's sort of how independent clauses work, is english your first language? NOT PAUL LAYTON fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
Speaking for myself, what I played of BG2 was sheer torture whereas I have fond memories of DA (and to a certain extent, DA2). My two cents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
If I remember correctly the game came with a pretty detailed manual that explained a lot of stuff like classes, attributes, and exp. Also I don't find that sort of balance issue to be all that problematic in a single player game, I usually enjoy the ability of break the game once you know how the game systems work. When I first played BG I didn't even know DnD existed, but I still did fine with picking random classes and knowing nothing about the DnD system. Your MC is 1 out 6 characters in your party, you can't screw up that hard. As for ease of reading, capitalizing the first letter of your sentences helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
The manual was pretty big and gave you exp tables. Also, charisma was pretty important in BG1 (some npcs simply wouldn't join you if it was too low), it still affected prices in 2 I believe. I think the best one about BG2 in the wtf meter, was that it never told you that odd amounts of a stat was worthless. 13 was the same as 12, and so forth. It was pretty much one of those games where your first character was going to be bad no matter what. Bioware broke my heart with NWN, talk about a slap to the face after BG2. That also started the "put out half-assed game and hope user content/downloadable content make up for it" started in my mind. Harry fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
NOT PAUL LAYTON posted:You can't dual class during character creation. Dual classing is easy to screw up, sure, but the requirements for it are high enough that you pretty much have to intentionally build your character for it, suggesting that you know what you're doing anyway. It also gives you an explanation and a big warning when you actually choose to do it, just in case. Weapon proficiency is barely an issue. Every class except fighter can only put two points into a proficiency anyway (Edit: a max of two - for most classes it's only one), so you aren't missing out a whole lot if you only put one point in. Fighters can put up to five so there's a lot of wasted potential there, but between the system being fairly intuitive and including explanations of exactly what the benefits are and the fact that fighters get an additional point every three levels, unless the player is deliberately putting points into weapons he isn't using it's hard to see there being a problem. There is the issue of weapons having different amounts of representation, but most weapon types have at least decent weapons so unless you're making a sling fighter or something you'll probably find something to use. Having five other characters again helps because the NPCs will have decent proficiencies. Your problem with stats is also pretty exaggerated. Fighter-type classes have a higher max strength than other classes. It's poorly represented, sure, but the concept is simple enough. Constitution is also very straightforward: fighter-types continue seeing benefits above 16 CON. Other classes do not, but you aren't losing anything when you can just reroll for more stat points. Some stats aren't very useful, but it really is a very straightforward system. Strength for offense, dexterity and constitution for defense, and whatever casting stat your class uses. The sorcerer thing is a glitch, but you're right that that's a problem at least. Also, here's the end of the description for the Wish spell, both in-game and in the ToB manual: "Lastly, the wiser the wizard, the better chance that he will choose the right wording. Wizards with low wisdom will more often than not meet with disaster when asking for a wish." Armor-Piercing fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
To this day I'm still one of those people who raises wisdom thinking it raises saves, then I realize I'm playing 2e!NOT PAUL LAYTON posted:as for the rest of my points well, i'm sorry i guess. all my subjects and verbs line up i think, having multiple independent clauses in a sentence shouldn't really affect comprehension since that's sort of how independent clauses work, is english your first language? Harry posted:Bioware broke my heart with NWN, talk about a slap to the face after BG2. That also started the "put out half-assed game and hope user content/downloadable content make up for it" started in my mind. Rascyc fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Conduit for Sale! posted:I like that they require understanding of the system, I like that they really require me to think about my build before making it, and I like that I can gently caress up if I'm dumb about my builds (but this isn't nearly as easy to do as people are making it out to be). Honestly, one of my favorite parts of the game is building characters. There's just so much more class variety in BG2, even if you eliminate the downright bad classes/kits. The classes in DA:O were streamlined to the point of being boring, although the advanced classes or whatever they were called alleviated that a bit. I'm just going to quote you instead of being redundant. Streamlined classes kill the poo poo out of games for me. I was so excited for Rift, then saw that it was just another crappy skill tree system. Why the hell can't I have rogue and cleric souls on the same guy? Conversely, NWN2 was fantastic for character building. Steam tells me I have 300 hours logged on that game, half of which is probably just loving around in character generators. Only problem is that I lost interest in the campaigns after a couple hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
I hope this a good place to ask this; I looked around and couldn't find a more obvious thread. I've recently started playing Fire Emblem on the GBA, and I've finished the 10 chapter intro story. Now that I've started the proper story I've noticed that my units don't seem ever to do that double attack thing that seemed to happen often in the intro where my guys would often just strike twice when fighting. I guess it would make sense if they toned that down for the main game because it made the intro kind of easy, but the game never acknowledged that is what's happening and I think that's kind of lovely design to put this overpowered thing into the learning stages and then yank it away without telling the player. Am I on the right track or is there a level/stat based subtlety to it that I am missing? (I bought the cartridge only second hand on Amazon so I haven't got a manual or anything, so I lack an understanding of the mechanics that aren't explicitly spelled out in the game itself.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
If you double attack has something to do with your Speed stat, it needs to be a certain amount higher than the enemy you're fighting from what I remember.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:I hope this a good place to ask this; I looked around and couldn't find a more obvious thread. Double attacks are based on attack speed, a hidden stat. In order to get a double attack, your attack speed needs to be at least 4 higher than the enemy's. Attack speed is your speed minus the difference between your constitution and equipped weapon's weight. Say your speed is 10, your con is 5, and your weapon weight is 7. Your AS would be 8. The reason you're seeing double attacks less is because the game starts giving you heavier weapons (and because enemies are just stronger). Be careful with steel weapons - they have high attack, but they're not very good in the early game due to how heavy they are. You'll start seeing double attacks more when your unit's speed stats start going up and you get access to a wider array of weapons. (and don't use Marcus) Troffen fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
Aha, ok. That will take some figuring out, thanks for explaining. What's wrong with Marcus?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Aha, ok. That will take some figuring out, thanks for explaining. He's a promoted (past level 20) character who will hog up exp if you use him too much. He also doesn't have very good growth rates so he'll not be as good as the other characters once they catch up to his level. It's still alright to use him every once in a while if you're in a pinch, just don't feed him too much exp. Also, in the early game I like to take his weapons off him and use him to distract enemies if you feel like doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
Boneless Jogger posted:He's a promoted (past level 20) character who will hog up exp if you use him too much. He also doesn't have very good growth rates so he'll not be as good as the other characters once they catch up to his level. It's still alright to use him every once in a while if you're in a pinch, just don't feed him too much exp. Also, in the early game I like to take his weapons off him and use him to distract enemies if you feel like doing that. Yeah the game's AI prefers to attack units that can't counterattack, so taking Marcus's weapons away will make most enemies go for him, even if they have no chance of killing him. Then you send in your weaker dudes to finish them off. I'm currently replaying the game for the 10th or so time so feel free to ask questions 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
U.T. Raptor posted:
I did, and GOD-drat; it seems like typical fantasy claptrap when you first hear it, but when you know what's going to happen... "It is the armour of a man who knows no mercy," indeed 
CommissarMega fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
Troffen posted:Yeah the game's AI prefers to attack units that can't counterattack, so taking Marcus's weapons away will make most enemies go for him, even if they have no chance of killing him. Then you send in your weaker dudes to finish them off. I do have one quick question - how long is the game after the first storyline? I've heard there are three campaigns kinda? Are they all 10 chapters long or is there more than that left? Also I'm really frustrated that so far I've only been able to buy and sell items during missions, is this the case throughout the whole game? Edit: Oh, and also my friend (who's played it) mentioned characters supporting each other, what's the deal with that? Edit 2: Haha that is a lot more than one quick question, sorry! Edit 3: Just a comment but Wallace from the last two battles of Lyn's campaign is a total dude 
Squibsy fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
To add to the Baldur's Gate 2-debate, I think the writing was pretty alright until Throne of Bhaal. BG2 was fine and I liked it a lot, but Bhaal was basically just a long pipe where you move from one big boring fight to the next, until you're at the final boss and kill it. It was dull and ham-fisted hack'n'slashing with little to no plot in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:I do have one quick question - how long is the game after the first storyline? I've heard there are three campaigns kinda? Are they all 10 chapters long or is there more than that left? 1.Eliwood's story is about 20 chapters, not counting side chapters. After you finish that, you unlock Hector's story which is Eliwood's story from Hector's point of view. It's has a few new chapters and the old chapters have different enemies and enemy placements and such, and it's a little harder all in all. 2.You can sell items at the preparations screen, though this might only be after you get Merlinus (chapter 14 or 15 I think). You can only buy from shops. 3.If you make two characters stand next to each other for a certain number of turns, an option called "support" will show up which makes them have a short conversation. Supporting characters get stat boosts when standing within 3 spaces of each other. This site has more info, like which characters are able to support each other, and all sorts of other good info.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
I got pretty bored of DA about halfway through the game, but what bugged me most about the game was the lovely loot. Oh great, armor with a +1% defense or something. I miss the loot from the BG series, because almost every single piece was awesome, and had you balancing how awesome it was with your other awesome stuff. Finding a +2 sword when you only had a +1 was amazing, but what if that +1 also did +1d6 fire damage? What now? Also robes. And boots of the cheetah, the best item in the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
Yeah the bad loot's the biggest thing I didn't like about Dragon Age too. In BG2 I was always motivated to explore that extra nook and cranny on the off-chance that I would find some crazy good spell or armor. In Dragon Age I just remember the lovely armor piling up to the point that I didn't even want to loot most enemies anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Most non unique and non high level enemies weren't worth looting either in BG2. I think some of you may have nostalgia glasses on regarding BG2. It's not BG1 since you will find your first +1 and even +2 items in the first tutorial dungeon and it's not very exciting regardless. What BG2 DID have were tons of unique named items from named enemies and quests. Also while loot on your average yuan-ti or kobold or imps are dull and not very exciting at all, what was exciting was all those tinkets and toys you see in the bazaars of the first town so you would pick up all loot regardless just so you could sell them all and one day hope to buy those sweet rear end robes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Most non unique and non high level enemies weren't worth looting either in BG2. I think some of you may have nostalgia glasses on regarding BG2. It's not BG1 since you will find your first +1 and even +2 items in the first tutorial dungeon and it's not very exciting regardless. What BG2 DID have were tons of unique named items from named enemies and quests. Also while loot on your average yuan-ti or kobold or imps are dull and not very exciting at all, what was exciting was all those tinkets and toys you see in the bazaars of the first town so you would pick up all loot regardless just so you could sell them all and one day hope to buy those sweet rear end robes. Or use a Potion of Master Thievery to nick everything from under their nose. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 02:35
|
|
