when i bought Icewind dale 2 i played a little and it was just as before no npc talk like in baldursgate so the party didnt feel alive and what was so special about it i played it for about 8 hours and after that i quit and i have put it away it wasnt fun at all...is something wrong with me? i love baldursgate planescape torment fallout 1-2 arx fatalis
but in my homble opinion this sucks

Icewind Dale II definitely doesn't "suck"; you shouldn't blame the game for not being to your taste. ;) In its genre, IWDII is actually quite good, and a lot better than IWDI in my opinion. The Icewind Dale series are mostly focused on more and more challenging battles and battle tactics, and less storyline than the other Infinity Engine games, and is therefore a little more multiplayer-friendly than Baldurs Gate II was - running errands, solving minor quests and having a lot of party interaction doesn't really work in BG2-multiplayergames, trust me on that. ;)
It's just... different. There are people who prefer a bit more hack n' slash than BG2, but a little bit less mindless than, say, Diablo II (no offense to DII-players, of course); and that's what Icewind Dale basically is. I think IWDII is also a lot more balanced than BG2 ever was, but that's more of a personal opinion.
Now I have to say I prefer BG2 (or PS:T) over IWDII, but that doesn't make Icewind Dale II a bad game; it just makes it differently than the others. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yep I agree with Groj [img]smile.gif[/img] . It's just a game, it doesn't 'suck' or 'not suck', you find it to your taste or don't. Of course there's no party interaction - you made up all the characters which you should have known in advance you were going to do. If there had been you'd probably be complaining that the personalities the game gave your own personal characters wasn't what you had in mind. You could always roleplay your own interactions you know ;) . I liked it fine - for what it was designed to be, it did it very well - lovely graphics, music, I loved the 3rd edition rules, lots of tough battles.

yeah your both right im gonna give it another try and i really liked those mage spells graphics^_^

the spells are cool, the plot is cool, and it does not suck. IMO

I sort of feel the same way that Cristian does, I mean the graphics, the character creations options, and the difficulty of the battles make the game more fun than it is boring.

But, it still doesn't have the feel that BG and TotSC has.

Why can't BioWare, Interplay, and or Black Isle create a game that has the 3rd edition rules, all the nice spells, improved enemy AI, nice graphics, and yet still have a NON-LINEAR plot similar to that of the BG series?!?!

Even if the story doesn't turn out to be as interesting as the 'Bhaal Spawn' series, atleast try and make an attempt at designing a game in which you can take on the plot and other quests on your OWN time-line!

The way that they have IWD2 set up, it almost forces you to be a powergamer since every enemy and battle becomes progressively harder.

Now I know that some of you are going to snap back and say that, 'I like this dungeon crawling stuff', and that may be so, but you can't honestly say that you wouldn't prefer to have a non-linear game.

Under the assumption that 90-95% of you agree with me, then why couldn't the developers see the same damn thing. GGgRRrrRRRrrrrrrrr!!!!

Oh well, like I said, I still enjoy the game for what it's worth. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Because the engine is obsolete. The future of gaming lies in 3d and for that we have NWN's.

You cant say a game as good as IWD2 sucks. Don't just look at the storyline which i think is good, but the graphics, the new weapons, the new enemies....... Its a world of posebilities.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Honestly! I HATE 3D!!!

It's nothing personal, but a "Tomb Raider" camera angle is just not suitable for RPGs or Real-time strategy.
And it looks bad! No matter how hard they are trying to convince everybody that very soon 3D-Games will look like real life, they don't and won't, and even if they did I wouldn't like it. Putting RPGs in 3D is like replacing the artworks in a Fantasy Book with Photographs of bad B-movie actors dressed up as Elves and Dwarves.
I have seen many a good game series going down to bad gameplay less story but more action and more sales: Monkey Island, X-Com, Ultima, etc.
I really love the graphics of BGII and would be content with any sequel that featured no more than BGII or Icewind Dale II (where I miss the Artworks in the weapons detail display).
I could ramble on endlessly but to tell the truth I'm getting a little tired as I have given similar speeches to all of my friends (who mostly agrred) and a lot of strangers (who were mostly afraid).
So if anybody feels alike just give me some positive feedback and if anyone wants to be the stern defender of the new technology (which quintupled the prices of VGA-Cards faster than you can say "Backstab") don't be surprised if I call upon my old friend Melf

What does three-demensional have to do with taking the time and effort to design a game that is not linear?

I have to agree with Faceman about the Infinity Engine.

I think it's graphics look just... peachy, but that shouldn't be the issue.

I mean, the VAST majority of people who buy the infinity games, play them all the way through, then play them again and again and again, not because of the graphics, but because of the superb roll-playing atmosphere and experience.

Now I must concede that they did quite well with incorporating a roll-playing atmosphere with 3D graphics into Neverwinter Nights.

But I think they screwed up big time by not allowing for a full party, or atleast the ability to stop your mercenary from running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

But that's an entirely different topic.

As for as IWD2 goes, I think the game is about a 7.5 out of ten.

As they should have designed it so that atleast a 1/4 of the game can be spent doing side quests, so that you can take a breather once in a while and strengthen your party.

Alright, I'm done quiping! ;)

I has to be vastly more difficult and involved to build a non-linear plot that that still has balanced game play.

I've heard an argument, and I think that it has some validity, that the so-called non-linear plot in BG2 had some logical holes in it. The argument goes like this....

OK, you've escaped the dungeon and you've got to find Imoen. Sure, you have to earn enough gold to pay off the shadow theives. But after that are you REALLY going to go on all of those side quests (for whatever noble or mercenary reasons) or are you going to go rescue Imeon?

Sure, from a game-playing perspective, the vast number of side quests were really fun and they really helped build up your XP and levels so that you were tough enough to rescue Imoen and take on Irenicus. But from a strict story perspective, they were conceptually weak. Oh, sure, you could have gone right after Imeon ASAP with the minimum of side quests. But then what's the reason for doing the side quests after you've escaped from the Underdark? I want to take a couple months off my Irenicus quest (and the hunt for the Rynn Lathorn for the elves) to go do some side quests?


Plot issues aside, the side quests do add considerable playability since there's no requirement on the order in which you do the side quests.


Regarding playable NPC's. They add another large level of complexity to the game. Every one of those in-party NPC's has to have all of the various conversations scripted and placed on timers so that they occur at the proper time, and if the right combination of NPC's exists. Blah, blah, blah. It's a tremendous amount of work.

Furthermore, there's a LOT of players that simply like to create their own characters and will never be happy with the NPC's that the game provides. Think about it. How many people griped that there wasn't a monk NPC in BG2? Or a decent thief to add after Yoshimo's treachery? Or a sorceror? Etc., etc., etc.


Personally, I wish that they have given a middle course a try. Perhaps a small number of joinable NPC's that had no conversations between each other (to simplify matters). Only a small number of conversations with the party leader or while talking to certain non-joinable NPC's. Any of the little home bases that you use along the way would be good places to add such NPC's (Targos, Wandering Village, Drow camp, Kuldahar).

Another alternative would have been straight out of the old gold box SSI DnD games. The temporary, joinable NPC. This NPC would only join and stay with your party while you remained in a certain area. For example, maybe Nathaniel would join you while you cleaned up the Kuldahar problem, but after you head off for Dragon's Eye, he says that he cannot leave Kuldahar. Perhaps such a character should be controllable in battle, but you cannot remove any of his equipment.


These are just a few thoughts and ideas on the matter. Take them for whatever little they're worth. ;)

Well your sentiments seem pretty sensible to me, it's just too bad that they could not have thought of these sorts of things on their own.

Or maybe they did, but felt that they couldn't implement them.

Who knows, maybe they were simply worried about their 'bottom line'?

For me, I couldn't care less if they needed to create 3 or 4 extra CDs in order to fit all the various scripts and code into a non-linear IWD2.

And for that matter, I wouldn't care if they were forced to spend another two years so as to develope a quality game, then on top of that, to jack up the cost to about $70-80.

If they make a game that mirrors the variables found in the BG series, then I would venture to say that most gamers would be willing to pay the big money for that game.

But obviously they didn't see it that way.

As I understand it, IWD2 was supposed to be a somewhat quickly produced game that was intended to be a nice little money maker. Trying to make an IWD2 that was similar in concept to BG2 would have not fit this definition.

As much as I enjoy the 3rd ed rules, I could have enjoyed an IWD2 that was still 2nd ed based if they had spent all the time needed to convert it for 3rd ed rules to produce a more involved story, etc.

IMHO, as enjoyable as complex intra-party NPC conversations are, I understand that they are incredibly time comsuming to add. I'd have been very happy with either of the simplified joinable NPC's that I mentioned above with a few more areas and maybe some simple side quests.

The only "side quest" in IWD2 is the final retrieving of the Holy Avenger. Finding the Medallion of the Lost Followers was no side quest. It was simply embedded into the main line of the basic plot. You were going to find it witout having to go out of your way.

Come to think of it, I suppose that finding that plant for the village healer qualified as a side quest, but it was really pretty pathetically small to justify calling is a "quest". More of a little errand. ;)


Perhaps, Suomo could have asked you to do some other "quest" without actually requiring it to get thru the Fell Wood.

Or perhaps, Iselore could have asked you to go over to the Vale of Shadows (an area from IWD1) for some reason or other. Heck, maybe Lysan's ghost is over there and is really PO'd at you for killing the Aurilites way back in Chapter 2 and is raising a little army of undead to take out her fury on Kuldahar. ;)

Heh, you just spoiled me!
Ah I'm gonna survive it. Just staying at the Ice Palace Battle game. Now I'm really excited about the Holy Avenger (but don't tell me).
Anyway IWD is not as plot-based as BG,SoA and ToB.

Concernign the 3E Rules: I like 2nd ed. better - just not comfortable with everybody being able to become and use everything. I like restrictions: mages not able to wear armor, cleric weapon code, ...
Anyway I'm just glad that there is still another Infinity Engine game around else I would be playing SoA all day long.

I guess that I'd have to disagree on 2nd ed restrictions. I hated them BIG TIME. From the moment that I discovered DnD, I thought that the restrictions were totally stupid.

If your cleric has a moral code against edged weapons, then roleplay that morale code. Don't expect the rules (or the game engine) to do what you should be doing.

Mages can wear armor if they are willing to take the huge risk that their spells will fail. I can live with that. I just never have a mage wear armor.

Hey Faceman! Gotta agree with you on the 3D issues. I just can't get used to it! The hundreds of dollars you'd need to spend on a video card to make the game run great isn't worth it to me. IWD2 is going great for me so far! Too bad there won't be any more like it. :(

It will be a sad day when games go to 3D. I am quite happy and so are the rest of my friends playing these games. I have been playing since Ultima came out for the Commodore 64 (tells you how old I am huh??).I bought the first Baldur's gate on the recommendation of the guy at the electronics store. Haven't looked back since and have bought every expansion and game that came out in the IWD BG series. Damn the obsolete infinity engine (doesn't seem obsolete to me)