163 réponses à ce sujet

[Starwatcher16]

Elanareon wrote...

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...

To really get the most out of the DnD ruleset, you need to Mod the game quite a bit.

Putting a few Mods togethor that would do things such as fixing enemy scripts (Thiefs would actually utilize Invis pots+stealth+backstab now), allowing enemies to chug pots, allowing enemies to instant cast long duration buffs at the start of a fight, adding some new abilties (Like letting Vampires instant cast Insect Swarm), boosting enemy stats to match their level, adding in more difficult level scaling ambushes, etc REALLY spiced up the combat, and showed why DnD rules can make for some excellent CRPG's.

My only complaint about Moded BG2, is it would have been nice to be able to custumize each individual character more (feats), and it would have been nice if melee had a few more activated abilities.

[fro7k]

Noin_dwarf wrote...

For me one of the main issues in DAO - battles and event's there isn't various. I mean, in only one Finkraag's quest we met:
Orcs, half-ogres, whole bunch of undeads, party of cruel treasure hunters, golems, few djinnes with their strange phrases, which though has meaning, one beholder-guard and etc..

You forgot the paladins-in-disguise and the wolfwheres.

[fro7k]

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... =(

You can leave that battle and save whenever you like.  I made the mistake of not doing so and died to him when he had 3 million HP left, and I've never bothered to kill him since.  For some reason I can never muster the energy to take out all the super-bosses in FF.  In FFX I've done all the arena bosses except nemesis, and all the dark aeons but not penance.  The proportion of grinding versus fighting the bosses is too boring to endure.  And FF8 is a hundred times worse for this--Eden with its devouring, all those customizations and items and GF's to collect... and only one superboss, unless you count Ultima which makes two.

[fro7k]

Remember THAC0? AC ratings?

What's wrong with it?   Stupid name, but when reduced to what it is it just describes a possible 5-95% chance of hitting any given monster (5% & 5% being the critical hits and misses.)

[fro7k]

Legion-001 wrote...

I think one of the problems with DA:O is that it has a distinct feel of Kiddies game to it (IE simplified interface, no statistics displayed, no THACO style calculation necessary, no dicerolls, ETC), almost as if combat, ETC was deliberately made simple... Which is rather a stupid thing to do given that the game is 18-rated (at least in the UK).

I disgree, D&D rules are overwrought for the purpose of any video game.  The whole concept was designed for playing at a table with friends, and is redundant in the computer medium.  I see re-creating turn-based combat in a video game to be a retrogression.  Would you play a first-person-shooter with D&D rules, like a game of quake that paused every 6 seconds and you assign a command to your soldier?  If not, why does it suddenly become appropriate when you use swords instead of guns?

[Haplose]

fro7k wrote...

Remember THAC0? AC ratings?

What's wrong with it?   Stupid name, but when reduced to what it is it just describes a possible 5-95% chance of hitting any given monster (5% & 5% being the critical hits and misses.)

Not just the name is stupid. Also the scale is counter intuitive.
Starting positive, then going into negative numbers when your AC improves? To hit based on a specific AC value and comparing whether the enemy has better or worse and then adding or deducting?
The silliness of AD&D 2nd ed. isn't limited to THAC0 though.

[Yevgenii]

BG 1 and 2 are nowhere near as good as DA:O. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Why do people think its better? The OP nailed it on the head : nostalgia. It was a great game of it's day, and people were blown away by it, back then, but the quality of bioware's recent titles blows it out of the freakin planet.

Its like me and Diablo 1. It was one of the first RPG's i ever played, and its one of my favorites, but i have the common sense to realize that modern day games like The Witcher and DA:O are better, i just have memories about my pitch black room, bag of chips in my lap, thwacking away at zombies in D1. But that doesn't make it a better game.

It's like saying that '58 Ford you had when you were in high school is better than a $500,000 Sportscar - its complete ****ing bull**** guys.

Modifié par Yevgenii, 30 novembre 2009 - 08:12 .

[zazei]

fro7k wrote...

I disgree, D&D rules are overwrought for the purpose of any video game.  The whole concept was designed for playing at a table with friends, and is redundant in the computer medium.  I see re-creating turn-based combat in a video game to be a retrogression.  Would you play a first-person-shooter with D&D rules, like a game of quake that paused every 6 seconds and you assign a command to your soldier?  If not, why does it suddenly become appropriate when you use swords instead of guns?

I both would and wouldn't. It really doesn't matter though since some of us don't like shooters that much at all. I think Half-life was the last FPS game I managed to play though. That was 10 years ago and I don't even remember what it was about even though it is said to be the game that started putting serious stories into FPS games.

Some of us don't care too much about action games. It's not the first person view that is the problem but I think the real issue for me is that RPG's these days seems to move futher and futher away from some of the things I loved about them. I can't deny that the interaction gotten better and I love how Bioware is moving closer to being able to do more then just talk in dialog moments (stabbing people up close and the like). However a lot of things I liked about the genre gotten lost in the progress so even though there been huge improvment BG2, Fallout and Torment is still the games of choice I normally play through a few times a year while games such as Mass effect and probably Dragon Age once I'm done will sit on the shelf collecting dust.

I'm not even done with Dragon Age yet but I'm starting to get tired of the combat already. I been playing on hard since I started but I'm consider lowering it. Not because it's too challanging, It's not but I'm simply bored of fighting through group after group of trash mobs to get on with the story. The combat is not hard but it just isn't fun either. Especially not compared to Baldur's gate. In that game it took me a long time to learn to do more then toss fireball spells, it took even longer to learn how to do more then that and make the best of situations. In Dragon Age there is nothing really to figure out or play around with. It's just something I have to do to get to the next part and it's getting old very quickly.

[koshiee]

MingWolf wrote...

Eshme wrote...

lorderon99999 wrote...

I think what made the BG story soooooo good is that we were no superhero trying to save the world...we were a 'someone' trying to figure out who we were and we were thrown in a an increadible world

,
This is something missing from todays games. My wish has always been a game, where you look back and dont see a path of destruction. The Story is always around you.
IMO this is what differs good from bad games.

Agreed.  In BG, it felt like you were someone who is trying to learn what is going on, who you are, where you come from, and why you exist.  The plot actually developed in phases as opposed to the whole of it being given to you right from the beginning.

This is my biggest complaint w/ DAO. The main story was so generic and bland. All the reviewers praised the story which has me perplexed but then I realized for the vast majority of games the story is often something that is tacked on in the last minute. The game as a whole to me was good not great but the story was just plain unmemorable and uninteresting.

[Walina]

GodBeastX wrote...

After beating dragon age, I had to install Baldur's Gate II since my friends and I wanted to play together. Bioware has made phenomenal games throughout the years. 

I installed Baldur gate before finishing the game because DAO had flaws in gameplay or storyline much more than BG2 had, really frustrating, so I was happy to play again BG2.

[fro7k]

Yevgenii wrote...

BG 1 and 2 are nowhere near as good as DA:O. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Why do people think its better? The OP nailed it on the head : nostalgia. It was a great game of it's day, and people were blown away by it, back then, but the quality of bioware's recent titles blows it out of the freakin planet.

Why do people prefer it?  For all the reasons already stated.  Nostalgia is just one of them.  Some people just can't see past the surface graphics--although like I said, I think BG's graphics beautiful when considering the context, they're just not 3D--and I think BG's graphics were WAY better for the time it was released in (1998), whereas DA:O's are a bit poor for 2009.

In what respect do you consider BG to be "not even close" to Dragon Age?

[Walina]

@ Yevgenii : prolly because DAO took a lot of thins from BG, like some name (elves in BG2 are the Talatiens then in DAO they're Dalatiens in french, characters personalites, the gameplay (I am talking about the UI) and other things. So people think that DAO is just an enchanced version of BG but without the story and other things.

[Yevgenii]

Walina wrote...

@ Yevgenii : prolly because DAO took a lot of thins from BG, like some name (elves in BG2 are the Talatiens then in DAO they're Dalatiens in french, characters personalites, the gameplay (I am talking about the UI) and other things. So people think that DAO is just an enchanced version of BG but without the story and other things.

Lol BG story blew, like all forgotten realms type stories. Luckily they didn't inherit the ****ty pen and paper D&D rules. That was the biggest mistake made by BG devs.

and they didn't take the names of the elves, stop trying to make BS connections. Dalish =/= Talatiens.

[Legion-001]

astrallite wrote...

Legion-001 wrote...

Wha?... What do you mean the IWD2 engine 'never implemented dual wielding'?

It means exactly what it says. There was no dual wielding in Icewind Dale 2, which was a modified version of the engine they used in Icewind Dale. Dual wielding was never implemented. Which was one of the problems with the Icewind Gate project, tons of spells and abilities wouldn't run.

I have a Lawful Evil dark elven ranger (not called Drizzt) in Icewind dale 2 that dual wields twin short swords as his primary weapon set.
Are you sure you're playing the right game?... The Dark Elven male voice sometimes comments on his 'incredible dual-wielding capabilities'.

One DA:O BG2 reference is Edwina which is a reference to Edwins unfortunate end in BG2 ToB.

Oh and as I said earlier to the previous idiotic/ignorant fanboy/trolls who said that the only reason people like BG2 instead of DA:O is nostalgia...

No it ISN'T nostalgia, I wish DA:O 'fanboys' would STOP saying that the only reason that people think BG or BG2 is better then DA:O is because of nostalgia... Nostalgia only works if the people in question has never played BG or BG2 in a long time and thus remembers it more fondly then they would otherwise, most people praising BG and BG2 over DA:O have RECENTLY played BG or BG2 thus eliminating any nostalgia.

It doesn't take nostalgia to make the Baldur's Gate series brilliant games... They already ARE brilliant games.

Modifié par Legion-001, 30 novembre 2009 - 04:36 .

[Yevgenii]

No it ISN'T nostalgia, I wish DA:O 'fanboys' would STOP saying that the only reason that people think BG or BG2 is better then DA:O is because of nostalgia... Nostalgia only works if the people in question has never played BG or BG2 in a long time and thus remembers it more fondly then they would otherwise, most people praising BG and BG2 over DA:O have RECENTLY played BG or BG2 thus eliminating any nostalgia.

It doesn't take nostalgia to make the Baldur's Gate series brilliant games... They already ARE brilliant games.

Oh yeah, the reason i said that is because im a DA:O fanboy, nothing gets past you sherlock!

I'm by no means a DA:O fanboy. If anything I'm a Median XL fanboy, and by definition a fanboy of D1 and 2.

Ive played both BG games and DA;O and thought they were both good, but have no emotional connections to either game. Hence my opinion being unbiased, contrary to yours. So in effect youre the fanboy here kiddo.

Modifié par Yevgenii, 30 novembre 2009 - 05:08 .

[Ibian]

I never finished BG2. Or the first one for that matter. Too much save-or-die bull****, and the combat system as a whole was terrible.

On the other hand, i will almost certainly buy a new comp for DA. Depending if i can find a good deal.

Graphics matter. This is not a shooter or a fighting game, this is a story. The facial expressions and voice acting, and graphics in general, is what makes this game for me, not the (let's be honest here) rather standard fighting. This is why millions were spent on turning LOTR into movies, why we keep getting new Batman movies and on and on. Humans are visual creatures. This is also why i never really got into the BG story. There was the (incomplete) voice acting, but the companions, and the world in general, were just sprites.

DA is the better game on the whole. BG may (or may not, as this is an individual judgement call) have the better story, but story alone is not enough. Not on a visual medium.

Modifié par Ibian, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:11 .

[KWMMA]

Baldur's gate was so fun! Played that through with my kids and hubby and we pulled many all-nighters on that game and the follow up. So fun. :0

[Legion-001]

Yevgenii wrote...

No it ISN'T nostalgia, I wish DA:O 'fanboys' would STOP saying that the only reason that people think BG or BG2 is better then DA:O is because of nostalgia... Nostalgia only works if the people in question has never played BG or BG2 in a long time and thus remembers it more fondly then they would otherwise, most people praising BG and BG2 over DA:O have RECENTLY played BG or BG2 thus eliminating any nostalgia.

It doesn't take nostalgia to make the Baldur's Gate series brilliant games... They already ARE brilliant games.

Oh yeah, the reason i said that is because im a DA:O fanboy, nothing gets past you sherlock!

I'm by no means a DA:O fanboy. If anything I'm a Median XL fanboy, and by definition a fanboy of D1 and 2.

Ive played both BG games and DA;O and thought they were both good, but have no emotional connections to either game. Hence my opinion being unbiased, contrary to yours. So in effect youre the fanboy here kiddo.

Yet you said...

BG 1 and 2 are nowhere near as good as DA:O. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Why do people think its better? The OP nailed it on the head : nostalgia.

so your current 'opinion' doesn't in no way match your previous post where you are quite clearly not finding BG's 1&2 and DA:O as 'good' but finding DA:O in some way superior (despite the fact that it's bugged to hell) so your claim to an unbiased opinion is clearly about as reliable as windows 95.

Additionally I'm an Icewind Dale 2 'fanboy'.

Modifié par Legion-001, 01 décembre 2009 - 05:01 .

[jasonirma]

I am absolutely smitten with DA:O (except, perhaps, the rehashed settings in Denerim).  This game amazes me.

So, I heard a lot of love here for BG and I decided to spring the $25 to get a new copy of the compendium (all the BG series).  It'll be here Wednesday, but I won't be playing it until I finish at least one time through DA:O (and currently I'm 50+ hrs in, and nowhere near done).  I would like to ask those in the know:

a) Should I play BG1?
 Should I skip directly to BG2?
c) What mods should I install to make my BG1/2 experience better (not cheats--just mods that improve flow, improve GUI, etc)?
d) Using the BG storyline alone (without additional user-made content), how many years of my life will I lose playing?

Thanks all!

[fro7k]

jasonirma wrote...

I am absolutely smitten with DA:O (except, perhaps, the rehashed settings in Denerim).  This game amazes me.

So, I heard a lot of love here for BG and I decided to spring the $25 to get a new copy of the compendium (all the BG series).  It'll be here Wednesday, but I won't be playing it until I finish at least one time through DA:O (and currently I'm 50+ hrs in, and nowhere near done).  I would like to ask those in the know:

a) Should I play BG1?
 Should I skip directly to BG2?
c) What mods should I install to make my BG1/2 experience better (not cheats--just mods that improve flow, improve GUI, etc)?
d) Using the BG storyline alone (without additional user-made content), how many years of my life will I lose playing?

Thanks all!

If BG1 even works on your computer, play that first.  It is buggier than BG2 and most people prefer BG2, but I'm not one of them.  BG1 is more open, and you will be on top of the story.  On the other hand statistically you're more likely to enjoy the experience and not stop playing if you played BG2 first.

[purplesunset]

fro7k wrote...

jasonirma wrote...
Thanks all!

If BG1 even works on your computer, play that first.  It is buggier than BG2 and most people prefer BG2, but I'm not one of them.  BG1 is more open, and you will be on top of the story.  On the other hand statistically you're more likely to enjoy the experience and not stop playing if you played BG2 first.

I prefer BG 1 also, however, I would warn anyone that Infinity engine games take patience to get the full experience. If you don't like reading  lots of text, or if you don't like a plot that unfolds like a cake baking slowly in an oven, then don't bother.

That said, for those who do like slow cooking plots and lots of text, BG 1 is a dream. There's a lot of funny little bits dialogue to discover, especially the ones that poke fun at the devs like Feargus Urquhart

Modifié par purplesunset, 01 décembre 2009 - 01:49 .

[TobSto]

jasonirma wrote...

I am absolutely smitten with DA:O (except, perhaps, the rehashed settings in Denerim).  This game amazes me.

So, I heard a lot of love here for BG and I decided to spring the $25 to get a new copy of the compendium (all the BG series).  It'll be here Wednesday, but I won't be playing it until I finish at least one time through DA:O (and currently I'm 50+ hrs in, and nowhere near done).  I would like to ask those in the know:

a) Should I play BG1?
 Should I skip directly to BG2?
c) What mods should I install to make my BG1/2 experience better (not cheats--just mods that improve flow, improve GUI, etc)?
d) Using the BG storyline alone (without additional user-made content), how many years of my life will I lose playing?

Thanks all!

Hi
As mentioned before I would suggest starting with BG1 in combination with the mod "BG1tutu". This mod lets you play BG1 with the Enginesettings of BG2. I really liked it and it did work quit good for me. (To get the mod working you need both BG1 and BG2 but I think you do)
So especially for the storyconsistens i would play BG1 and then BG2. Else you are missing quite a lot of an interesting story.

[DarthMuffin]

BG1 and 2 are always some of the first games I install when I get a new computer. Can't say I play them regularly, but they're always neat to have around (I also keep NWN1, Morrowind, KotOR and WoW installed all the time).

Up until a couple of years ago, I would go through the whole series once every summer. Good times. I think last time I played it was last Christmas though. I was with a fighter/rogue in Nashkel mines I think :happy:

[demonitechef]

I haven't read through every post since my last one in this thread, so I apologize if I beat a horse or two here.



**DISCLAIMER** - Not a "BG or DA is better than the other" post.



BG's modern appeal is not nostalgia. That series is literally one of the greatest of all time. DA:O, just like Bioware's modern games, has a formula that's tried and true...for instance, becoming a Grey Warden for DA and becoming a Spectre for ME in order to place a serious prominence on your PC. BG didn't have that pre-set formula, and not >having< to bear that title gives you much more freedom.



Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "romances" start with BG? As well as party member-to-party member chatter? Heck, BG even had party member-to-party member romances. Why do we not see an Allistar-Leliana romance? Am I the only person who finds it strange that more-or-less everybody in the party is attractive, yet they aren't making any serious attempts to mac on each other?



Anyway, many of the tiny things in BG, in addition with all of the major things in BG, make BG a timeless game. That doesn't mean everybody should worship BG because it pawns DA:O...no way. DA will reach a status similar to BG in time, for reasons similar to why BG is such a good game(being, you know, DA is the spiritual successor of the BG series).

[Grovermancer]

To all you BG gurus...


WHICH would you recommend?


Looks like there's numerous packs out there...  Wondering which is the best.  (looks like some come with "Icewind Dale")


Other than Diablo II, NWN (and xpansions), and Dungeon Siege (which I wasn't impressed by) I've not played many fantasy RPGs and I'm ignorant on which to get.