176 réponses à ce sujet

[Loerwyn]

Ulicus wrote...

The BG Trilogy? If only. There were but two games and Throne of Bhaal -- an expansion -- was by no means a fitting conclusion. IMO, anyway.

Two expansions. You forgot Tales of the Sword Coast for Baldur's Gate.

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Only having recently gotten myself to sit down and play through the Baldur's Gate games I've had for years (I'm using BGT too...), I can at least say at least I'm not speaking from nostalgia.



Mechanically, I feel Dragon Age is the superior game. Despite the seemingly small pool of character creation options, I could put together any character concept I wanted (except a Dalish mage, apparently) and have it end up viable throughout the whole game. The AD&D ruleset that BG used, however, made a number of classes nearly unplayable (rolling a Level 1 Mage is practically a death sentence) made a number of character concepts literally unplayable (sorry, no piercing/slashing weapons for your Cleric), and overall I felt railroaded into playing a character that wasn't the one I wanted to play. I mean, I like playing a good warrior character, but I really wanted to play a Fighter/Mage, and it just doesn't work. BG2 is better about this since you start at a much higher level, but if you're playing it continuously, you have to survive BG first.



Talking about characters, I have to give it to DA too. Baldur's Gate had fairly limited interaction with your party, it wasn't until the sequel that character development became a major part. Even in BG2 though, I have to admit the characters are less well developed than DA, though in part that's probably because there are so many of them. In DA, however, the characters you bring with you not only interact with you, but constantly interact with each other in non-combat areas. Yeah, you get a little of that in BG2 if you keep the right pair in your party (Aerie becoming Minsc's new witch, Hael'thas and Aerie's romance), but you have to recruit and keep those characters. Alistair will interact with anyone, not just bicker with Morrigan.



As someone else brought up, where BG truly shines is the story. Yes, the story of BG is fairly stock fantasy. But it's well-written enough that it doesn't matter, it's a convincing narrative, and it's entirely protagonist driven. Not only do you find the villain, learn about him, and unravel his plots, you learn about your character too. In DA, on the other hand, much as I loved Kithias (my first character), he felt entirely replaceable. Part of it is that no one cared to address him by name (nearly impossible in a voice-acted game, I admit), and part of it was just the fact that the whole story seemed to revolve around him just being in the right place at the right time. Nothing was special about Kithias, he was just the only other Warden to survive Ostigar. Any other Warden would have done, would have been better, even. He just lived where everyone else died.

[nYshak]

MindYerBeak wrote...

I think Sten was meant as a replacement for the Boo character (can't remember his name). "Go for the eyes, Boo!" titillated my funny buds every time I heard it. Sten, the replacement Boo, on the other hand, is a character I hate due to his attitude problem. I just can't stand people like that. The only amusing thing I found in DA was the Mad Mage, but none of the characters come across as being amusing, unless Zevran can make the bill. Also Shale looks promising.  I have yet to take them out. I was a third of the way through BG before I realised a Bard could use magic. I thought he was an archer.

Minsc was epic. However I would name a certain dwarf as Minsc's replacement. Sten is too serious by far.

I liked the image of BG being a good book while DAO is a good interactive film. Can't say what I liked better. The world of Dragon Age appeals to me more I think because its darker than what the Forgotten Realms have to offer. TFG basically are standard fantasy. Plus, its the standard setting for any D&D game. That has lead to FG to include everything and anything you can dream of. It lacks a theme. Thats exactly what I like about DA so far (granted we have not seen the hole world yet): simplicity.

[Rzepik2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...


In Athkatla "encountered people" at least walks around

Faerun in 2 ed. is oldchool and it's good at it.
Dragon age desperately tries to be "something different" and it fails at it.

Fails how? Maybe I was wrong about your ideas making sense. I'm guessing it's just that you can't articulate them, though.

According to developers DA world should be something new for the cRPG genre.
- Ancient evil in the basement? Elves in the woods? Dwarves underground? Flaming swords? Oh, that's unexpected.
- "Realistic" fantasy? I saw better in The Witcher.
DA stuck between traditional and "dark" fantasy. It's not really good in both cases. Well... after all it's just a world created for a video game. It can't be compared to the Forgotten Realms - a friggin pillar of "tolkienish" fantasy.

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...
Talking about characters, I have to give it to DA too. Baldur's Gate
had fairly limited interaction with your party, it wasn't until the
sequel that character development became a major part. Even in BG2
though, I have to admit the characters are less well developed than DA,
though in part that's probably because there are so many of them. In
DA, however, the characters you bring with you not only interact with
you, but constantly interact with each other in non-combat areas. Yeah,
you get a little of that in BG2 if you keep the right pair in your
party (Aerie becoming Minsc's new witch, Hael'thas and Aerie's
romance), but you have to recruit and keep those characters. Alistair
will interact with anyone, not just bicker with Morrigan.

In SoA everyone (except Immy and Yoshimo) has at least two conversations with each party member. Maximum 6 or so for one pair. Sure, not much but it's really good piece of writing. Besides dialogues are longer, I bet that amount of words in party banters is very similar in both games.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 22 juin 2010 - 07:02 .

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Rzepik2 wrote...

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...
Talking about characters, I have to give it to DA too. Baldur's Gate
had fairly limited interaction with your party, it wasn't until the
sequel that character development became a major part. Even in BG2
though, I have to admit the characters are less well developed than DA,
though in part that's probably because there are so many of them. In
DA, however, the characters you bring with you not only interact with
you, but constantly interact with each other in non-combat areas. Yeah,
you get a little of that in BG2 if you keep the right pair in your
party (Aerie becoming Minsc's new witch, Hael'thas and Aerie's
romance), but you have to recruit and keep those characters. Alistair
will interact with anyone, not just bicker with Morrigan.

In SoA everyone (except Immy and Yoshimo) has at least two conversations with each party member. Maximum 6 or so for one pair. Sure, not much but it's really good piece of writing. Besides dialogues are longer, I bet that amount of words in party banters is very similar in both games.

My apologies, I haven't gotten all the way through Shadows of Amn yet, so I guess I judged too early.

[Ulicus]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

The BG Trilogy? If only. There were but two games and Throne of Bhaal -- an expansion -- was by no means a fitting conclusion. IMO, anyway.

Two expansions. You forgot Tales of the Sword Coast for Baldur's Gate.

No, you read the sentence incorrectly. I didn't say "there were but two games and an expansion". TotSC was irrelevant to the point I was making. (I should have phrased it more clearly, however: I was simply saying that ToB wasn't a third "game")

Modifié par Ulicus, 22 juin 2010 - 08:19 .

[Domyk]

Well BG definitely did a far better job with their expansion then DAO did which is a key factor between the two games. When players complete an epic journey like they did with the first Baldurs gate and DAO you grow attached to your party and wish to watch them carry on through their adventures as they each grow stronger via levels, equipment and skills.



Baldurs gate expansions allowed your original group to continue as the expansion was an actual expansion, meaning new areas opened up to explore and you can explore freely. Dragon Age on the other hand had you start off with completely new party members and you were locked out of the old world completely.

[KalDurenik]

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad. Now if they add some of these in the 2nd one then maybe Dragon age will be worth comparing. Right now Dragon Age is a must have for a RPG fan. But if you have to pick Dragon Age or Baldurs Gate (atleast for me) i would pick the Baldurs Gate games.

[AlanC9]

Rzepik2 wrote...
According to developers DA world should be something new for the cRPG genre.
- Ancient evil in the basement? Elves in the woods? Dwarves underground? Flaming swords? Oh, that's unexpected.
- "Realistic" fantasy? I saw better in The Witcher.
DA stuck between traditional and "dark" fantasy. It's not really good in both cases. Well... after all it's just a world created for a video game. It can't be compared to the Forgotten Realms - a friggin pillar of "tolkienish" fantasy.

What the devs said prerelese is irrelevant. What counts is how it plays.

And if you think the FR is actually a good fantasy world then our tastes are so radically different that nothing you have to say on the subject could possibly be of interest. Or anything I would say. Though I can tell you why the FR sucks if you'd like.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juin 2010 - 08:36 .

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad.

Could you unpack that? I find I've got as many or more usable spells in DA as I had in the BG series, and warriors and rogues are hands-down superior in DA in terms of having interesting and usable abilities. Your statement strikes me as being not only untrue, but the opposite of the truth.

[KalDurenik]

AlanC9 wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad.

Could you unpack that? I find I've got as many or more usable spells in DA as I had in the BG series, and warriors and rogues are hands-down superior in DA in terms of having interesting and usable abilities. Your statement strikes me as being not only untrue, but the opposite of the truth.

We had this talk once before (or something close to it) we are not going to change how the other person think. So lets just leave it at "We agree to disagree".

[Damicles]

The BG trilogy was a epic story especially the 2nd one the villian in that one was one you could really hate. Planescape Torment also had a better plot than DA.



One of the main problems with DA is that the so called evil that you have to defeat is just some mindless dragon beast, it does'nt threaten you and you can't really relate to it at all.

[MindYerBeak]

I think the bestest way to solve the argument would be for Bioware to do a new version of Baldurs Gate using DAO graphics and speech. Only that way could you rightly compare the two. Georgous drop dead graphics and voiceovers are bound to make DAO seem the superior game, but is it? Methinks Baldurs Gate would have much more depth, places to explore, better looking towns, NPCs that aren't rooted to the spot and never move no matter how far into the game you get, a much better storyline, epic battles and an ending that was difficult, unlike the Archdeamon from what I've heard. Haven't got that far yet, but the consensus appears to be he's easy meat. A shame really, since DAO has such a good storyline. You'd expect a ding dong battle at the very end, not party members hiding behind ballistas from a safe distance, then claiming victory. I doubt Imoen would jump into bed with anyone at the first opportunity as Leliana does, not my Imoen anyway. And Minsc and Boo would outshine Sten/Oghren any day. I'm sure if such a remake were made that those who love DAO would adore BG.

[Swoo]

MindYerBeak wrote...

I think the bestest way to solve the argument would be for Bioware to do a new version of Baldurs Gate using DAO graphics and speech.

That's actually in the works right now but for BG2 instead of BG1, it's on the mod page. Basically it strips the speech files off BG2 on your computer to use in the Origins engine.

[MindYerBeak]

Yes, I've seen the videos. The only problem I can see is it won't have voiceovers as abundant as those in DAO. If they're stripped from BG2 won't the convos be limited?

[Domyk]

MindYerBeak wrote...

Yes, I've seen the videos. The only problem I can see is it won't have voiceovers as abundant as those in DAO. If they're stripped from BG2 won't the convos be limited?

Well I presume they will copy the voiceover and incorporate them into the mod.  There is a Viconia mod for Oblivion.  The author sent an email to Bioware to get rights to ensure it was okay.  He then made an incredible Viconia look alike for the Oblivion engine and carried over all the Viconia recorded speech from Baldurs gate.

His mod is rated top 20 best oblivion mods of all time, well deserved.

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad.

Could you unpack that? I find I've got as many or more usable spells in DA as I had in the BG series, and warriors and rogues are hands-down superior in DA in terms of having interesting and usable abilities. Your statement strikes me as being not only untrue, but the opposite of the truth.

We had this talk once before (or something close to it) we are not going to change how the other person think. So lets just leave it at "We agree to disagree".

I guess we'll have to. I honestly don't remember the earlier debate.

[Domyk]

AlanC9 wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad.

Could you unpack that? I find I've got as many or more usable spells in DA as I had in the BG series, and warriors and rogues are hands-down superior in DA in terms of having interesting and usable abilities. Your statement strikes me as being not only untrue, but the opposite of the truth.

I agree with this.  There are far more viable strategic elements of combat in DAO then Baldurs Gate.  Melee especially as BG is nothing more then auto attacks, I hit, you hit, I hit, you hit, I miss, you miss, etc.  DAO on the other hand there is far greater strategic elements, timing of stuns, stealth based maneuver behind for back stabs, knockdowns  etc.

Modifié par Domyk, 23 juin 2010 - 12:28 .

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...
According to developers DA world should be something new for the cRPG genre.
- Ancient evil in the basement? Elves in the woods? Dwarves underground? Flaming swords? Oh, that's unexpected.
- "Realistic" fantasy? I saw better in The Witcher.
DA stuck between traditional and "dark" fantasy. It's not really good in both cases. Well... after all it's just a world created for a video game. It can't be compared to the Forgotten Realms - a friggin pillar of "tolkienish" fantasy.

What the devs said prerelese is irrelevant. What counts is how it plays.

And if you think the FR is actually a good fantasy world then our tastes are so radically different that nothing you have to say on the subject could possibly be of interest. Or anything I would say. Though I can tell you why the FR sucks if you'd like.

AlanC9, the FR is a great fantasy setting; with interesting lore, legends, a myriad of stories, a deep background and a huge world. I found it far more interesting than what "Thedas" has offered so far.
I'm sure you'd understand it and eventually like it if you spent some more time getting to know it instead of patrolling the bioboards in search of comments to analyze to the bone. "Name me a single game that does it better!" You'd get an answer. And then you'd proceed analyzing said game to infinity and back. You're that type of person.

Oh, and, the D&D ruleset >> DA ruleset.

[AlanC9]

MindYerBeak wrote...
I think the bestest way to solve the argument would be for Bioware to do a new version of Baldurs Gate using DAO graphics and speech. Only that way could you rightly compare the two. Georgous drop dead graphics and voiceovers are bound to make DAO seem the superior game, but is it? Methinks Baldurs Gate would have much more depth, places to explore, better looking towns, NPCs that aren't rooted to the spot and never move no matter how far into the game you get, a much better storyline, epic battles and an ending that was difficult, unlike the Archdeamon from what I've heard. Haven't got that far yet, but the consensus appears to be he's easy meat.

Irenicus was pretty easy too. Standard mage tactics two times, then just handle a couple of demons and a melee creature. I'd put the Archdemon fight up against that anytime.

. I doubt Imoen would jump into bed with anyone at the first opportunity as Leliana does, not my Imoen anyway.

Again, you say this like it's a bad thing. 

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...


Irenicus was pretty easy too. Standard mage tactics two times, then just handle a couple of demons and a melee creature. I'd put the Archdemon fight up against that anytime.

Stop with this BS already. I've seen you countless times repeating this "argument"; "standard mage tactics"... "blabl".. "autopilot". You know - you at least had to use the right combination of spells. In DA all you have to do is pump dexterity, wield two daggers, and steamroll over everything.

[Giantevilhead]

AlanC9 wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...
According to developers DA world should be something new for the cRPG genre.
- Ancient evil in the basement? Elves in the woods? Dwarves underground? Flaming swords? Oh, that's unexpected.
- "Realistic" fantasy? I saw better in The Witcher.
DA stuck between traditional and "dark" fantasy. It's not really good in both cases. Well... after all it's just a world created for a video game. It can't be compared to the Forgotten Realms - a friggin pillar of "tolkienish" fantasy.

What the devs said prerelese is irrelevant. What counts is how it plays.

And if you think the FR is actually a good fantasy world then our tastes are so radically different that nothing you have to say on the subject could possibly be of interest. Or anything I would say. Though I can tell you why the FR sucks if you'd like.

Why doesn't what the devs said prelease matter? If they said that they were making a more original and "darker" fantasy game and they fail to deliver on that promise then of course it matters.

As for comparing Dragon Age to D&D, Dragon Age isn't that original. Half the ideas in Dragon Age are taken from Warhammer, and Warhammer is an amalgamation of dozens of different fantasies and sci-fi ideas from other books, myths, and movies.

[Rhys Cordelle]

What gets me about the whole "modern improved graphics leave nothing to the imagination" argument is that this argument could have been raised against the BG games themselves. Did the BG games really hit some sort of magical point that generates optimal immersion?

For me that's not what it's about. The "modern improved graphics" limit the scope of the game, because each area is very time consuming to create (though a robust and easy to use toolset can resolve this issue. Dragon Age has a great toolset, but creating unique areas is still enormously time consuming), and the modern need for making every line of dialogue voiced restricts dialogue options hugely.



I don't buy that crap about the modern graphics spoiling immersion either. If it were possible to play Baldurs Gate 2 in its entirety with DA quality graphics and full voice acting then that would be incredible, but it's unrealistic.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Giantevilhead wrote...

As for comparing Dragon Age to D&D, Dragon Age isn't that original. Half the ideas in Dragon Age are taken from Warhammer, and Warhammer is an amalgamation of dozens of different fantasies and sci-fi ideas from other books, myths, and movies.

Dragon Age wasn't so much about being entirely original. It was about Bioware freeing themselves from Wizards of the Coast looking over their shoulders and forcing them to stay true to D&D. Dragon Age may draw from other games (though really, how many games can be said to be original these days?), but at least now Bioware have the freedom to create their own lore with it.

[Rzepik2]

Domyk wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

Honestly? Dragon Age lack any kind of "in depth" character skills / talents / spells / feats / weapon skills / weapon types and so on that its allmost sad.

Could you unpack that? I find I've got as many or more usable spells in DA as I had in the BG series, and warriors and rogues are hands-down superior in DA in terms of having interesting and usable abilities. Your statement strikes me as being not only untrue, but the opposite of the truth.

I agree with this.  There are far more viable strategic elements of combat in DAO then Baldurs Gate.  Melee especially as BG is nothing more then auto attacks, I hit, you hit, I hit, you hit, I miss, you miss, etc.  DAO on the other hand there is far greater strategic elements, timing of stuns, stealth based maneuver behind for back stabs, knockdowns  etc.

It is far more copmlexed. In theory. During the game I was using the sam strategy over and over again in 95% of fights.
In SoA you have to use different approachs to beat pack of hobgoblins/shaows/beholder/dragon/lich.

AlanC9 wrote...
And if you think the FR is actually a good fantasy world then our
tastes are so radically different that nothing you have to say on the
subject could possibly be of interest. Or anything I would say. Though I can tell you why the FR sucks if you'd like.

You can't deny that FR had a great influence on fantasy.
DA world, for now, is just a simplified warhammer mixed with medieval Europe. Please tell me, what is so great about this setting. Because IMO almost everything in it is focused on endless war with mindless hordes of zombie-orcs (Okay, okay -sprinkled with a little bit of politics).

Modifié par Rzepik2, 23 juin 2010 - 07:09 .