163 réponses à ce sujet

[InstantCoffee]

Spaceweed10 wrote...

This is just nostalgia talking - DA:O blows BG completely away.

Stop trolling the DA:O vs BG2 topics already, thanks.

[Loetek]

Your wrong for not having it installed in the first place.

[Elanareon]

Treylinn wrote...

BG > DA
BG Combat > DA
D&D Rules > DA Rules

And I won't compare stories. The point is BG felt more mature in its combat and ruleset while DA feels a little juvenile in that respect. I am not madly in love with D&D rules and prefer other rulesets in my tabletop RPGs but DA needs to add a bit more depth to the classes, skills, etc. to give its combat as rich a feel as BG had. I will say that Rogues feel much better in combat then they did in BG. So in that case I guess

DA Rogue > BG Rogue

I will have to disagree about combat... I think BG2 combat was rather simplistic because all the boss there mage or otherwise always has some spell protection... In the expansion they even gave you tons of dispel rods for bosses Only good battle in BG/BG2 is if your against Mind Flayers and Beholders maybe, others are just hack and slash... 

And dnd rules aint that good...

[Noin_dwarf]

I will have to disagree about combat... I think BG2 combat was rather simplistic because all the boss there mage or otherwise always has some spell protection... In the expansion they even gave you tons of dispel rods for bosses Only good battle in BG/BG2 is if your against Mind Flayers and Beholders maybe, others are just hack and slash...



And dnd rules aint that good...

Bah, in BG you were had to have different spells and tactics for different encounters. On Insane difficulty if you didn't notice something in battle it can be fatal. Rogues which cut a sunder my mages from single stroke, enemy's mages which can kill whole party by one Abi D's Withering. In DAO i have one tactic that works with any group of enemies. Warrior with shield, dog, morrigan and shale. Just control and hurl rocks by shale, fireballs by morrigan and control + dmg by dog, killing mages by overwhelm. And i playing with maxed difficulty + nightmare plus mod with fixed healing pots etc. It's just pretty simple still.

[Legion-001]

Noin_dwarf wrote...

I will have to disagree about combat... I think BG2 combat was rather simplistic because all the boss there mage or otherwise always has some spell protection... In the expansion they even gave you tons of dispel rods for bosses Only good battle in BG/BG2 is if your against Mind Flayers and Beholders maybe, others are just hack and slash...

And dnd rules aint that good...

Bah, in BG you were had to have different spells and tactics for different encounters. On Insane difficulty if you didn't notice something in battle it can be fatal. Rogues which cut a sunder my mages from single stroke, enemy's mages which can kill whole party by one Abi D's Withering. In DAO i have one tactic that works with any group of enemies. Warrior with shield, dog, morrigan and shale. Just control and hurl rocks by shale, fireballs by morrigan and control + dmg by dog, killing mages by overwhelm. And i playing with maxed difficulty + nightmare plus mod with fixed healing pots etc. It's just pretty simple still.

In BG & BG2 you couldn't use MMO tactics IE Tanks, DPSers, ETC no single character could simply charge in without being blasted, petrified or disintegrated.
Then there were creatures that couldn't be killed at all by warriors or could only be killed in a certain fashion... Empathic manifestation anyone?

Modifié par Legion-001, 29 novembre 2009 - 01:39 .

[DarkeTiger]

adam_nox wrote...

really ff8 was better in many ways than ff7.  But it was easily too sophisticated for the age group that usually plays those games.

FF8 was my favourite as well, especially since you could finish it one level 10 or so. =P

FF7, 8, 10 and 12 all had their problems though.

FF7 had unco body proportion and Cloud and Sephiroth seemed to only have one emotion for the whole game. I personally hated the materia system as well.

FF8 had an absolutely terrible Chocobo sidequest. If they kept the same style that was in FF7 (mate Chocobos to make a gold Chocobo to get Knights of the Round) it would have been perfect.

FF10 had the Sphere Grid, this bloody thing can take 30 minutes to fully deck out per character even if you have unlimited spheres, it also made it so that characters weren't as unique anymore (Lulu could become a tank/physical dps instead of a mage). There was also the laughing scene...

FF12 had Yiazmat, a 60,000,000 hp optional boss that takes at least 4 hours of non-stop fighting to kill. While it was optional, no fight should take that long, because if you die 3 hours in... =(


As for Baldur's Gate, my only confusion with the first one was when you first met Xzar and Montarion. Xzar gives you a potion of healing, evil people don't give you potions of healing. Other than that it was a great game, especially because of Daer'Ragh (Darrah) and Prism.

Baldur's Gate II kept dishing out the awesomeness, with truly epic voice acting by David Warner, dual wielding, as well as being able to fight a multitude of dragons (Firkraag, Adalon, Ringreemeralxoth, Abazigal, Thaxxili, Draconis). The romances added a lot of depth to Aerie, Jaheira and Viconia. I didn't bother with Anomen, he's seriously annoying.

The only things I didn't like about BGII was the paper dolls in the inventory, Saradush and Viconia's romance epilogue.

In the end, however the main campaign eventually starts to grow stale, however the massive modding community makes the game's replayability tenfold. I wouldn't be suprised if I had spent 400+ hours on the game.

[Legion-001]

Another thing that DA:O misses out entirely on is the humour of the BG series... Where else can you find the likes of:
Jaheira: If a tree falls in the forest... I'll kill the bastard what done it!
Minsc: Evil round every corner... Careful not to step in any.
Edwin: Elminster this, Elminster that give ME 2,000 years and a point hat and I'll kick his A­rse

Modifié par Legion-001, 29 novembre 2009 - 01:46 .

[Elanareon]

Noin_dwarf wrote...

I will have to disagree about combat... I think BG2 combat was rather simplistic because all the boss there mage or otherwise always has some spell protection... In the expansion they even gave you tons of dispel rods for bosses Only good battle in BG/BG2 is if your against Mind Flayers and Beholders maybe, others are just hack and slash...

And dnd rules aint that good...

Bah, in BG you were had to have different spells and tactics for different encounters. On Insane difficulty if you didn't notice something in battle it can be fatal. Rogues which cut a sunder my mages from single stroke, enemy's mages which can kill whole party by one Abi D's Withering. In DAO i have one tactic that works with any group of enemies. Warrior with shield, dog, morrigan and shale. Just control and hurl rocks by shale, fireballs by morrigan and control + dmg by dog, killing mages by overwhelm. And i playing with maxed difficulty + nightmare plus mod with fixed healing pots etc. It's just pretty simple still.

I wasn't comparing DA:O to BG. I was saying that the combat in that game wasn't that good and that the story and the huge world was the main thing going on. Battle in DA:O is simple but it think its no better than BG. The tactics you are saying is jsut because there are many selections of spells in BG. And insane difficulty was just having high AC to bypass the 200% damage by monsters. And its the same thing basically with the mages in each game! Kill them fast enough to prevent casting spells. The encounters are the same, use CC the even the odds of numbers. Really if you look into it, the only difference is Every encounter in BG is going at you en masse while in DA:O you can manipulate the AI. IF you try playing the game without pulling one at a time you will see that it's basically the same.

And don' boast about playing in nightmare + nigtmare mods... You're not he only one...

[Noin_dwarf]

I wasn't comparing DA:O to BG. I was saying that the combat in that game wasn't that good and that the story and the huge world was the main thing going on. Battle in DA:O is simple but it think its no better than BG. The tactics you are saying is jsut because there are many selections of spells in BG. And insane difficulty was just having high AC to bypass the 200% damage by monsters. And its the same thing basically with the mages in each game! Kill them fast enough to prevent casting spells. The encounters are the same, use CC the even the odds of numbers. Really if you look into it, the only difference is Every encounter in BG is going at you en masse while in DA:O you can manipulate the AI. IF you try playing the game without pulling one at a time you will see that it's basically the same.

I don't trying to pull, neither in BG nor in DAO. And why should i "trying not to"?

In BG we have more abilities, more party members = more possibilities. More possibilities - more tactics. Above word "tactics" i mean not an ai behaivor set of course.

And don' boast about playing in nightmare + nigtmare mods... You're not he only one...

Boasting? Huh! I just experienced in forum-writing enough to know that if i wouldn't write it someone for sure would answer "you playing on easy or so?". Just preventing questions or possible sarcasm. Like you wrote about pulling.

[Elanareon]

More abilities? Yeah, maybe, but the first ones you have won't be used later at higher levels.... Sorry, i like BG2, i think it's still better than DA:O but not about the combat. BG2 combat is simplistic for me. Maybe it has more spells i'll give you that, I still prefer reading scrolls for learing spells actually but that's about it. Warriors just have to have the highest STR then find the most powerful weapon and armor and that's about it. No flanking in combat. Rogues do only one backstab you have to hide again for another.. Is that what you call tactic? Yeah DnD mages are alot better. But that's it...

[Treylinn]

Yes, there are more options in BG/BGII for tactics in combat. If Bioware expand on the classes/skills/talents/spells they already have they may be able to bridge this gap. I also miss the ability to create an entire party from scratch. Can this be added via patch? I know I would miss all the cool NPC interactions, but by my third playthrough I am interested in trying different party combos. Which a larger skill set would also help by giving us more combos.



I've run BG games with a party of druids just to shapeshift the entire party (did this in IWD cause I thought the fire elemental shapeshift looked cool). Ran a pary of thiefs just to try it. I really miss the Druid class and my favorite CC spell Entangle. Casting 3 Entangle spells in one area is three times the fun.



This just gave me an idea. I could build a 'Cleric' type by specializing in Arcane Warrior with a mage and focusing on healing spells and a little 'Holy Smite' (aka fire spells maybe)?

[Legion-001]

Ironically there is one easy way to tell if a game is truly brilliant... If the game remains enjoyable when you're playing it with cheats.
If the game you're playing remains entertaining even if you are cheating(provided you don't go overboard and just cheat to the last part, or just use the kill everything cheat) then the game must have an extremely involving story, excellently written charaters and superb tactics. These kinds of games usually warrant numerous playthroughs and remain just as enjoyable each time, but if the game becomes unplayably boring with cheats, it's clearly relying solely on one or two features and simply isn't involving enough to keep the player in the game, it's highly likely that these types of games will be played through maybe a few times and then forgotten.
Before anyone asks I ALWAYS play through a game WITHOUT cheats the first time... Except Genesis Rising, but that game was so ridiculously difficult it was literally impossible to complete it without cheats.

Treylinn wrote...

This just gave me an idea. I could build a 'Cleric' type by specializing in Arcane Warrior with a mage and focusing on healing spells and a little 'Holy Smite' (aka fire spells maybe)?

All you'd get is a tank with the ability to heal.

Modifié par Legion-001, 29 novembre 2009 - 02:16 .

[Treylinn]

Legion-001 wrote...

Treylinn wrote...

This just gave me an idea. I could build a 'Cleric' type by specializing in Arcane Warrior with a mage and focusing on healing spells and a little 'Holy Smite' (aka fire spells maybe)?

All you'd get is a tank with the ability to heal.

Why?  Because I couldn't 'Turn Undead'?  Please elaborate as I am interested in finding ways to create Clerics, Druids, etc within the limited choices Bioware has provided.

[TcheQ]

In BG & BG2 you couldn't use MMO tactics IE Tanks, DPSers, ETC no single character could simply charge in without being blasted, petrified or disintegrated.

Epic Solo Monk, anyone?

[Noin_dwarf]

This just gave me an idea. I could build a 'Cleric' type by specializing in Arcane Warrior with a mage and focusing on healing spells and a little 'Holy Smite' (aka fire spells maybe)?

You can do it on level 14 - just take both Arcane Warrior and Spirit Healer classes, and add some points to strength and const.

Druid - also healing spells, buffs and shapeshifting (best way is to add shapeshifting mod, original shapes is too weak), + for example electricity spells.

[Noin_dwarf]

In BG & BG2 you couldn't use MMO tactics IE Tanks, DPSers, ETC no single character could simply charge in without being blasted, petrified or disintegrated.

And for me it was goooodd, (especially i loved disintegration spell)

I hate to see mmo tactics in single game.

[Killian Kalthorne]

WHat I like to see is BG and BG2 redone using either the Eclipse Engine of DA or the UNreal 3 engine in Mass Effect. I would also like to see it fully voiced like Mass Effect, but wit the combat styling of DA. Lastly it must use 3.5e rules and not 4e.

[Haplose]

Noin_dwarf wrote...

I fear we won't see another like it until the current trend in development and marketing changes. I do love DA:O, however.

this, +

BG > DA

BG Combat > DA

D&D Rules > DA Rules



And I won't compare stories. The point is BG felt more mature in its combat and ruleset while DA feels a little juvenile in that respect. I am not madly in love with D&D rules and prefer other rulesets in my tabletop RPGs but DA needs to add a bit more depth to the classes, skills, etc. to give its combat as rich a feel as BG had.

This.
History of DDO are good, but ruleset, character creation and treasure hunting just much worst than in BG for this moment. I even prefer D&D 2nd edition to all newer editions. Current ruleset of DAO seems very like MMO's one to me.
I would love to see ruleset overhaul mod in DAO. I love dice system with all this misses, difficulty checks, uncertain damage and uncleanness of battle at all.

My thoughts are exacly opposite. BGII was a great game, sure.
But the AD&D 2.0 system was trash. Terribly dated and illogical already when it was released. Full of terrible, counter-intuitive solutions. Remember THAC0? AC ratings? Stat ratings? Strength at 18 for various classes?
No feats/perks/talents whatsoever?

Sure, DA:O system feels a lot like an MMO. This whole Threat/Taunt/Aggro system is a bit silly. They really should have made combat positioning more important.

But still, it must be nostalgia speaking when someone claims AD&D 2.0 system was better.
DA:O system >>>>> AD&D 2.0

Now if you were comparing it with DnD 3.0 or 3.5, it would be a much tougher choice.

[Haplose]

Nightfish103 wrote...

Personally I found Planescape: Torment a lot better than BG2, especially the first time around. The characters are generally better developed and I found the setting very refreshing. Plus the main story wasn't "save the world", but rather something very personal, which pretty much never happens in CRPGs. I liked that a lot.

Anyway, I like a lot of games, I don't see why I can't enjoy DA:O, PS:T and BG, and a whole lot of other abbreviations as well.

Signed.

I cannot understand why BGII gets so much praise when there was also PS:T, also set in AD&D 2nd ed - a  far superior game IMO.

[Mopreme_]

I dont know if you can download the BG series but amazon.com has a BG1+2 Bundle ( with expansions) for around $40USD. Same for Icewind Dale.

[Legion-001]

Treylinn wrote...

Legion-001 wrote...

Treylinn wrote...

This just gave me an idea. I could build a 'Cleric' type by specializing in Arcane Warrior with a mage and focusing on healing spells and a little 'Holy Smite' (aka fire spells maybe)?

All you'd get is a tank with the ability to heal.

Why?  Because I couldn't 'Turn Undead'?  Please elaborate as I am interested in finding ways to create Clerics, Druids, etc within the limited choices Bioware has provided.

A Cleric is about more then being able to heal or 'Turn Undead' as you know Clerics in BG2 have an entirely different spell list(many of them focusing on defensive aspects), but attempting to create a Cleric in DA:O would be at best difficult... A cleric is reasonably good at fighting but not as good as a warrior which in DA:O isn't possible, an Arcane warrior IS A TANK and will either massacre everything(using AW abilities) or get massacred(without using AW abilities) sadly there is no in-between and while it would be entirely possible to have the defensive and healing aspects of a Cleric the actual physical characteristics aren't possible at the present time.

[Noin_dwarf]

Signed.

I cannot understand why BGII gets so much praise when there was also PS:T, also set in AD&D 2nd ed - a far superior game IMO.

Be cause PS:T wasn't Bioware game. And DAO was claimed "BG spirited" game.
For me PS:T is a best RPG game ever created. I even dare say it's plot has been wrote by genius.

My thoughts are exacly opposite. BGII was a great game, sure.
But the AD&D 2.0 system was trash. Terribly dated and illogical already when it was released. Full of terrible, counter-intuitive solutions. Remember THAC0? AC ratings? Stat ratings? Strength at 18 for various classes?
No feats/perks/talents whatsoever?

For me it was fun to understand the system. Somehow i really like anything new, and for me was interesting to understand all this, definitely partly strange and illogical, system. Usually in rpg it's only some trivial attributes, like attack and defense, hp etc. In BG it was also part of fun to understand mechanics, how spells works etc.

Modifié par Noin_dwarf, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:14 .

[Noin_dwarf]

A Cleric is about more then being able to heal or 'Turn Undead' as you know Clerics in BG2 have an entirely different spell list(many of them focusing on defensive aspects), but attempting to create a Cleric in DA:O would be at best difficult... A cleric is reasonably good at fighting but not as good as a warrior which in DA:O isn't possible, an Arcane warrior IS A TANK and will either massacre everything(using AW abilities) or get massacred(without using AW abilities) sadly there is no in-between and while it would be entirely possible to have the defensive and healing aspects of a Cleric the actual physical characteristics aren't possible at the present time.

I have now something very close to druid in Morrigan. She has only shapeshifts, heals and buffs + primal fire spells. (I'm using No Follower Autolevel mod)
Also, why should arcane warrior be tank? In my party i have dd-tank + melee dd + shale + healer now:) Works excellent.

Modifié par Noin_dwarf, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:15 .

[Haplose]

Seifz wrote...
That's not the point, though.  There's not actually anything special about FFVII anymore.  It's all been done by others, and it's all been done better.  I mean, come on!

Materia?  Anyone can use any spell just because they have an orb?  And your orbs have to gain XP?  Could it get any more simplistic and boring?  And the characters... they're all the same in combat!  There aren't any characters that are clearly healers or clearly melee, or whatever.  The stats are so simplistic that you can make anyone do anything and be totally successful.  The combat was "attack until it's over" for anything that wasn't a boss, and bosses were "attack until you need to heal, then heal."  If you had Knights of the Round, every battle (even bosses) became "KotR, end."  Gah!

Graphics aren't a big deal, for sure, but that doesn't mean that they aren't something to consider.  It's much easier to get lost in a world with pretty graphics, great voice acting, and realistic animations.  FFVII had none of those.  Added with the overly cliche story (come on... bad guy with long hair and a big sword that wants to destroy the world, but really he's just emo 'cuz his momma didn't love him and he finds out he's a clone?), the lack of any real party interaction, and the too simple combat system, it's just... blah.

Like I said, I was a huge FFVII fan back in the day.  It was a great game!  It's just been surpassed by others.  FFVIII was better in terms of combat, characters, story, and graphics.  FFX added to that with a less cliche story, more complex characters, a more advanced combat system, much prettier graphics, and voices (most of which were good!).

I happened to love the Materia system. Considered it very unusual, inspired... and fitting. You know, when you consider how Materia is tied to the story and lore of the game. How it comes to be, what it is.
Never saw such an original or interesting solution in any other game.
Also I loved how enemies had various strenghts and weaknesses that you should have exploited. Felt interesting that you should choose the right type of element for each foe (including changing the elemental aptitude of melee weapons to exploit these weaknesses).

Every character could fill pretty much every role. Sure. But still some characters were better suited for combat, some more adept at magic. Seems logical to me.
Unless you assume that magic is a special gift that can be bestowed only upon a chosen few, with the right aptitude. But in that setting, Materia was magical, characters didn't have inherent magic. They just used it's power - more skillfully or less.
Perhaps there should have been more of a difference in combat between a trained soldier and someone without such background, but these are fantasy games, not reality symulators.

KotR were sure powerfull, but this was a side-mini game (though  not so mini) optional reward, one could argue not even part of the "core" game. You didn't have to get them. Actually, if you didn't give that a lot of special effort, you didn't. Plus at this point of the game if you got Double Slash materia upgraded to 4x cut, there was no reason to waste time on KotR animation in most fights because the enemies were dieing plenty fast enough without it (except hidden optional Weapon bosses).

Graphics was simply fantastic for it's time. Much better then BGII's in it's time, IMVHO. I didn't like the super-deformed anime style avatars that were used for most of the gameplay outside combat, but I got used to it quickly, so it stopped bothering me. And characters were just awesome, even though they had few polygons.

Story was great, I found. Sure linear, but such is the way of narrative games. For the most of the game you were discovering who you actually are, what the heck happend to lead you to this point. The main char was very confused, suffered amnesia, mixed fantasies and dreams with his real past. So in various memory flashbacks you get to see different versions of what happened, untill finally all the pieces of the puzzle fall in their places.
The lore of the world that you also slowly gradually uncover was fantastic too, if with a stong "ecology" theme to it.

Played FFVIII and IX (emulator) also and couldn't see more then 1 thing that was done better in either of them. Only one improvement being graphics - but then the chars were much less interesting and bland, so even that was kinda moot. Character, story, gameplay system and included minigames - wise these games had NOTHING to hold against FFVII. I don't really know about FFX and further, as a solely PC gamer haven't played them.