"Philosophical" questions, What is a cheesy method? Bug or feature? Options

[Vuki]

I created this topic to discuss the "philosophical" aspect of the game. We can discuss here questions like:

- is a modification really needed or not?
- is something cheesy or cheeting or just a clever trick?
- game balance
- is an actual gap a bug or a feature?
- and so on ...

This topic will be maybe a bit too theoretical but I do not think it is a problem. We need such a place - as the discussions from the last 2-3 weeks prove it.

This post has been edited by Vuki: Aug 11 2008, 08:34 PM

[Baronius]

Let's stir the pot then... (just kidding )

- is a modification really needed or not?

If you refer to a particular change of a mod, then it's a too general question IMO (unless it's applied to concrete things).

If you mean "mods" here, generally, then my answer is: to each his own. Several players play BG2 without any mods, because they believe mods spoil the feeling of the original game. Others are eager to play mods, as many mods as possible. Some are choosey, have standards or personal preferences (e.g. about difficulty or mod types), others install a lot of mods.

For example, I had a mod called "Volcano! Pack". (If you type "Improved Volcano Pack" or "BG2 Volcano Pack" without quotes to google, you can still find it.) I see it in the installations of many players, yet it's probably one of the most overpowered mods (yes, I tend to conceal that I made it ).

As I've said, it also matters much what preferences the player has. (This would probably require a whole topic itself.) A few important factors: free time, skills, preferences about the mod's type, what causes the most satisfiction when playing a mod (e.g. light play, no difficult battles or difficult riddles, just dialogues, quests, romances; or hardcore play, hard battles etc.) and so on.

- is something cheesy or cheeting or just a clever trick?

Again, if we examine the question generally, this is also something that depends on the individual player. There are some useful guidelines though:
1. Would this be doable in the reality? (No, I don't mean that a troll can be met and slain in the reality.) For example, is it possible to leave an area and rest 8 hours, and the powerful enemies would also wait 8 hours on the other side of the door when they know you're injured and weak... Of course, I know this "reality" approach cannot be applied completely, e.g. characters "don't have to eat" (this is what the official hint says, more precisely "while your character does not have to eat, remember that YOU do. We don't want to lose any dedicated players"), i.e. you don't have to feed your characters in the game. But this is different from the other "unreal" things: this is something that simplifies gaming and increases gaming experience (and it can simply be assumed that they eat when you are in a tavern or inn, or in the wilderness). On the other hand, exploits which would be unlikely or physically impossible in the world of the medieval age or mythology are a different question. Common sense can be used to realize such exploits (such as periodically unequipping and equipping an item that gives a bonus point to constitution in order to heal to maximum HP).
2. Would this be doable in the world of the game? This is what Ryel and many other players call roleplaying. Identifying with the world you're playing in, trying to be in the place of those people and creatures.
3. What does the exploit mean to me? This is strongly related to the question of player preferences. For example, a player who wants to enjoy the game without thinking much and planning does not prefer difficult battles, and either uninstalls the mod, cheats, or uses exploits ("cheese"). On the other hand, a player who wants to improve his or her tactical skills can be his or her own policeman (these are Sikret's words). It also matters how persistent the player is. If the player says "if those guys at BWL can do it, I WILL also do, because I'm not worse than they!".

- game balance

This is also a partially subjective matter. For example, some people believe that AD&D should be strictly applied to BG2 (despite the fact that BG2 has never meant to follow such a perfect implementation); others believe that AD&D rules must be considered as strict guidelines, so they don't like when they see "illegal stats" in a creature file with editors, or a mod which adds (perhaps balanced but) "illegal" elements to the game. And there are those who believe that total freedom is the best, they have no problems with obviously overpowered elements or irrelevant additions (i.e. additions which don't fit to the world of the game). I find it narrow-minded when people of these different groups start to debate with each other, because they don't realize that "balance" means something totally different for each group, in each viewpoint.

As far as my viewpoint is concerned, I always say that balance should mean relative balance in the world of the game or a mod. As everywhere, all things make sense in their context. So mods should (at least) make sense in their own context. For example, Improved Anvil is not overpowered and not imbalanced at all. On the other hand, a mod which adds one +6 item with 25 special abilities to the game can be considered as overpowered.

So I say that the limit is imagination, and mods should be balanced in their own context. For example, some players say that it's strange that my Grey Clan Episode One mod adds very powerful enemies to the world (enemies with "ToB-levels and powers"). And what's the problem with it? Is the mod doable? It is. For example, the mod's final battle was very easily won by thetruth (one of the most powerful of all tacticians of BG2 and Improved Anvil). Of course, this isn't surprising (it was obviously no match for thetruth's skills), but even those who don't have nearly as good skills as thetruth could won it.

To sum up my viewpoint, I think it doesn't matter what creature, item etc. files hold as long as the game is fun and balanced. I'm sure Bioware developers weren't always just negligent when they gave "illegal stats" to certain creatures; they are there because they are good for gaming experience (a player should normally never learn the values of those "stats"). So, for example, applying "fixes" to these things (and trying to convince everyone that those are bugfixes) is a very narrow-minded approach. And one more argument for "illegal stats"? Who dares to state that a particular powerful enemy didn't gain some special powers during his/her adventures in his or her past? Who are heros? Creatures with "legal stats"? Hardly. Someone could say that powerful creatures were lucky when their "abilities were rolled", but I don't agree with this. I don't really know AD&D and don't care about it (but if it has creatures such as Mind Flayers then it has already become an exclusively business-oriented "industry" like Magic the Gathering, losing all of its good and balanced features, its magic). I just think that imagination has no rules.