Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragonage vs Baldurs Gate (series)


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
54 réponses à ce sujet

#26
Kalcalan

Kalcalan
  • Members
  • 459 messages

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I could list a few but that would be a waste of time).


I prefer no level scaling (hence my point about BG).

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Baldur's Gate had the advantage of having nothing that compared with it. There's a broader spectrum of RPG approaches now, and any game produced will not satisfy everyone as a result. One thing that Dragon Age has going for it is a system designed from the ground up as a computer game. The D&D ruleset didn't always translate well into a video game, as great as the game was in totality.


There were games before BG you know. Betrayal at Krondor for instance.

I agree though that the D&D ruleset is probably not perfect for a CRPG. That being said, DAO could have benefited from more classes, Rogue Mage and Warrior certainly cover the basics and work well with specializations but other classes could have been interesting (that being said the problem with adding new classes is knowing where to stop, you start by adding Clerics and Druids and before you know it you have strong arguments for many other classes making their way into the game).

#27
Paromlin

Paromlin
  • Members
  • 260 messages

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I could list a few but that would be a waste of time).


I prefer no level scaling (hence my point about BG).



I also prefer no level scaling. Maybe that's not the right expresion... I despise level scaling would be better.

But yeah, I also can't agree that it "works" in DAO. People forget that those level ranges in DAO are wide enough that you (almost) always fall inside the range, thus having exactly the same situation as in Oblivion; everything is scaled to your level.

Let's cross fingers and hope they won't ruin DA2 with the inclusion of level scaling. :hopes hard:

#28
kaotician

kaotician
  • Members
  • 806 messages
Baldur's for me too, mostly because I felt with that one the sense of scale to the world, a certain vastness not just to the tale but to the place the tale was told in. I don't get that feeling from DA sadly, much as I like the game. Also, the design of the Codex in DA is just awful, simply a long, long list of stuff - they should make it look like a book library or something.

#29
orpheus333

orpheus333
  • Members
  • 695 messages

kaotician wrote...

Baldur's for me too, mostly because I felt with that one the sense of scale to the world, a certain vastness not just to the tale but to the place the tale was told in. I don't get that feeling from DA sadly, much as I like the game. Also, the design of the Codex in DA is just awful, simply a long, long list of stuff - they should make it look like a book library or something.


The big problem wuth Faerun is that it can be really inconsistant, its had so many writers over so many years its sort of become a mess of fantasy troupes and cliches. Bioware did a good job of removing the majority of the dross and focusing the story. I think BG is better its a far more personal story than DA. DAs combat and character progression is alot better though IMO. Far more interaction throughout the whole game.

#30
Kalcalan

Kalcalan
  • Members
  • 459 messages

Paromlin wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I could list a few but that would be a waste of time).


I prefer no level scaling (hence my point about BG).



I also prefer no level scaling. Maybe that's not the right expresion... I despise level scaling would be better.

But yeah, I also can't agree that it "works" in DAO. People forget that those level ranges in DAO are wide enough that you (almost) always fall inside the range, thus having exactly the same situation as in Oblivion; everything is scaled to your level.

Let's cross fingers and hope they won't ruin DA2 with the inclusion of level scaling. :hopes hard:


To write that DAO is in "exactly the same situation as in Oblivion" is erroneous.

Oblivion: I go straight for the main quest, my character is level 3 when he first closes a gate and of course he only meets low level monsters, it's a walk in the park. Later on, my character is level 20 and he walks down the road just to run into bandits with Daedric armours and weapons (which are supposed to be rare).

DAO: my character has to go through the origin and Ostagar before getting to Lothering and being allowed to travel like he wants. It means that by the time I get to Lothering the character has acquired at least some levels. Despite level scaling there is a point in gaining levels as characters really get more powerful with levels (think about fighting a Revenant or a Dragon with a low level party or with a high level party).

You may find it silly if you compare the Proving in the Dwarf Origins and the Proving later on in game to notice that the fighters have gone up in levels with your character. I think that it is an example of a flaw that is related to level scaling in DAO but that is nowhere as bad as in Oblivion in which guards kept levelling up with your character and which forced you to powergame to retain an edge over NPCs.

I can't think of any game that is as bad as Oblivion when it comes to level scaling. They fixed the gear issue in Fallout 3 but the levelled lists are still there -meaning that you run into creatures that match your level. Actually the very idea of enemies matching your level is from D&D and it's been defined further with Challenge Rating. What it means is that any party is only going to be facing enemies they can defeat. This is preposterous but it's one of the things that CRPGs have inherited from D&D. I myself prefer the way old games like Might and Magic VI dealt with this issue, you never knew if a dungeon was going to be too hard before running into a monster who could kill one of your characters with a single hit. Then you could either leave to come back with a few more levels or try and come up with ideas to defeat the threat no matter what. That was challenging but also a lot of fun.

#31
Foune

Foune
  • Members
  • 156 messages
As much as Dragon Age is my favorite game ever, it can never compete with Baldur's Gate in terms of roleplaying, I think nothing ever will beat it. Baldur's Gate isn't much linear at all, it has this amazing depth and just this feeling that ''this is roleplaying''.

#32
Paromlin

Paromlin
  • Members
  • 260 messages

Kalcalan wrote...


To write that DAO is in "exactly the same situation as in Oblivion" is erroneous.

Oblivion: I go straight for the main quest, my character is level 3 when he first closes a gate and of course he only meets low level monsters, it's a walk in the park. Later on, my character is level 20 and he walks down the road just to run into bandits with Daedric armours and weapons (which are supposed to be rare).

DAO: my character has to go through the origin and Ostagar before getting to Lothering and being allowed to travel like he wants. It means that by the time I get to Lothering the character has acquired at least some levels. Despite level scaling there is a point in gaining levels as characters really get more powerful with levels (think about fighting a Revenant or a Dragon with a low level party or with a high level party).



What you're describing here is non-linearity/linearity and that has nothing to do with level scaling.

Not only does DAO scale levels, it scales items you get as well.

Anyway, alright, DAO is almost in the exact same situation as Oblivion is, regarding level scaling. In DAO it can happen, sometimes, rarely, that enemies won't be scaled to your level because they hit the bottom or top of their scaling range. "Scaling ranges" don't make level scaling any better, maybe 1% more tolerable if we stretch it.

#33
RunCDFirst

RunCDFirst
  • Members
  • 563 messages

Grommash94 wrote...
It was also a harder game.
 


No it wasn't. You had to get mods to make the AI even remotely threatening to anything but the most poorly prepared wizard. 

They're both about equal. BG2 included, the Trilogy is ahead but was also three games. BG vs. DA:O I'd give to DA:O in a heartbeat. The story of the first is so poor and most of the characters were incredibly shallow.

#34
therewasatime

therewasatime
  • Members
  • 60 messages
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of the best games ever made, though it beats DA:O (although it is an awesome game, too).



BG2 had Viconia, DA:O Morrigan, so in romance both games rock :D

#35
Kalcalan

Kalcalan
  • Members
  • 459 messages

Paromlin wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...


To write that DAO is in "exactly the same situation as in Oblivion" is erroneous.

Oblivion: I go straight for the main quest, my character is level 3 when he first closes a gate and of course he only meets low level monsters, it's a walk in the park. Later on, my character is level 20 and he walks down the road just to run into bandits with Daedric armours and weapons (which are supposed to be rare).

DAO: my character has to go through the origin and Ostagar before getting to Lothering and being allowed to travel like he wants. It means that by the time I get to Lothering the character has acquired at least some levels. Despite level scaling there is a point in gaining levels as characters really get more powerful with levels (think about fighting a Revenant or a Dragon with a low level party or with a high level party).



What you're describing here is non-linearity/linearity and that has nothing to do with level scaling.

Not only does DAO scale levels, it scales items you get as well.

Anyway, alright, DAO is almost in the exact same situation as Oblivion is, regarding level scaling. In DAO it can happen, sometimes, rarely, that enemies won't be scaled to your level because they hit the bottom or top of their scaling range. "Scaling ranges" don't make level scaling any better, maybe 1% more tolerable if we stretch it.


It can be argued that linearity (like in DAO at least until Lothering) helps with level scaling as it allows for a more sensible balance between characters and enemies. My point is that you can't just skip quests and stuff to rush to one of the high moments of the main quest like in Oblivion and still be at a low level.
In DAO going through the Lothering part will take you to level 7 (roughly and that's if you don't rush towards Bodhan -I should give it a try in my next game just to see how it would play out to rush through Lothering and go to Denerim directly). The fact that Lothering is not accessible later on tends to lead us to complete it first thus getting a few more levels.

There is a major difference between playing a level 4 and a level 7 character in DAO and the game is designed in a way that encourages players to reach the level 7 mark before wandering around in Ferelden. At level 7 or 8 you can get through any of the treaties quests without dumbing them down like it happens in Oblivion if you run through the main quest.

I never argued that items didn't scale with levels. But that can't really be compared with the way items scale in Oblivion (facing common bandits with high end gear is just silly, and that is something that Bethesda fixed in Fallout 3).

I'm not a fan of level scaling either but for it to work the game has to force some linearity in the early stages. Otherwise it just leaves too many things open for abuse.

If you rush to Orzammar after Lothering you have at least two encounters before getting to the city that serve as deterrent for lower level parties. Last but not least, in DAO levels tend to make a difference especially when considering the Treaties. The last Treaties quest that you'll complete will probably be much easier comparatively because of your party's higher level (at least that's what I noticed when playing the game). All in all it certainly makes the level scaling infinitely more bearable than in Oblivion.

#36
Rzepik2

Rzepik2
  • Members
  • 467 messages
Another BG vs DA?
http://social.biowar...ndex/167808/13 
http://social.biowar...index/2936750/8
- - -
BG II wins.
One of the reasons: DA combat is extremely repetitive. Terrible disadvantage for a combat oriented game.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 15 juillet 2010 - 12:17 .


#37
Xondio

Xondio
  • Members
  • 34 messages
I found DA combat repetitive as well Rzepik2. Especially when doing Orzamaar.


Also a bone to pick.  Why can they not make an epic series of games with unique stories... or at least half way decent ones.  I've played through Baldurs Gate probably 10 to 15 times.  I've played through Dragonage twice and I could just barely get through it as I was extremely bored. 

It's going to be interesting what they do with Dragonage 2 with all the complaining.  I wonder if they will switch anything or not.  I am a HUGE fan of Bioware, and have been every since the beginning.  I just wish they could get the original crew away from EA.  I just can't shake the feeling EA is behind this shennanigans.

Bioware, please leave EA, or pull an infinity ward and start a new company away from the EA Dark Spawn.

Modifié par Xondio, 15 juillet 2010 - 05:49 .


#38
Paromlin

Paromlin
  • Members
  • 260 messages

Xondio wrote...

I found DA combat repetitive as well Rzepik2. Especially when doing Orzamaar.


Same here.

There's a mixture of factors that made it so: combat ruleset, encounter design, level scaling.

#39
jjkrogs

jjkrogs
  • Members
  • 173 messages
There were quite a few difference, obviously, but for me character customization (and leveling) didn't seem to matter much in DA due to their apparently infinite stat system and sparse customization options. Without getting this topic into a AD&D discussion, I had a problem with my PC being basically the same at strength 20 as he was at strength 50. I had to keep plugging in numbers only to wear better armor and never really felt more powerful at the end of the game. BG (and most other AD&D games) give you that feeling that you're getting suitably better as you advance.

#40
Onyx Jaguar

Onyx Jaguar
  • Members
  • 13 003 messages
*jumps out of the foreground*



Journeys was more interesting than Dark Alliance



*dives into an Abyss*

#41
CoM Solaufein

CoM Solaufein
  • Members
  • 1 578 messages
The BG series floors DA in every respect. The only plus with DA, and this is with all the games I played, they finally got the elves to look perfect.

#42
Haexpane

Haexpane
  • Members
  • 2 711 messages

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I could list a few but that would be a waste of time).

I prefer no level scaling (hence my point about BG).


I know Oblivion level scaling is the worst, what I was saying is DAO also has level scaling that is broken.  It's just not broken quite as badly

#43
Onyx Jaguar

Onyx Jaguar
  • Members
  • 13 003 messages
DA has level scaling?

#44
jjkrogs

jjkrogs
  • Members
  • 173 messages

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

DA has level scaling?



Perhaps not.  Maybe there is 1000 point cap on each skill, so if you go from, say, 15 to 50 strength during the course of the game, it's basically like you didn't improve much.   So it would appear is if there is level scaling when in fact you just sucked just a little bit less by the end of the game?

#45
Haexpane

Haexpane
  • Members
  • 2 711 messages

Paromlin wrote...

Xondio wrote...

I found DA combat repetitive as well Rzepik2. Especially when doing Orzamaar.


Same here.

There's a mixture of factors that made it so: combat ruleset, encounter design, level scaling.


and Map design.  Orzamaar maps are horribly annoying.   Dead ends, ugly textures, weak lighting, endless caves.   It's the one part of Origins I really hate, doing anything in dorf town

#46
Kalcalan

Kalcalan
  • Members
  • 459 messages

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane
wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is
that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How
did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in
DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I
think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling
actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I
could list a few but that would be a waste of time).

I prefer no
level scaling (hence my point about BG).


I know
Oblivion level scaling is the worst, what I was saying is DAO also has
level scaling that is broken.  It's just not broken quite as badly


I've
got the feeling that any level scaling would be broken for you and I
must say that I share that sentiment somewhat. At least in DAO the flaws
are not glaring. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

jjkrogs wrote...

There were quite a few difference, obviously, but for me character customization (and leveling) didn't seem to matter much in DA due to their apparently infinite stat system and sparse customization options. Without getting this topic into a AD&D discussion, I had a problem with my PC being basically the same at strength 20 as he was at strength 50. I had to keep plugging in numbers only to wear better armor and never really felt more powerful at the end of the game. BG (and most other AD&D games) give you that feeling that you're getting suitably better as you advance.


You know that the difference between 20 and 50 points in Strength is actually quite significant? 15 points in attack and physical resistance alone and quite a lot damage wise (depends on the weapon type and talent of course).

Of course if what you're saying is that a low level character with 20 points is more effective against low level foes than a high level character with 50 points against high level characters then there is some logic behind that argument, still you may be overlooking a few things as you have to take into account the wide array of talents a high level character has at his/her disposal (and I'm not even considering higher tier weapons and armours).

Taking out a Revenant is easier at level 20 than it is at level 8, that's for sure.

#47
Polemists05

Polemists05
  • Members
  • 279 messages
To compare the Dragon Age Series to the Baldur's Gate series is rather unfair no matter how you dice it. They were made in different times. Baldur's gate had only 2 games, and a third expansion which some at bioware argued was almost large enough to be the third. Dragon age has only had one game, and only a handful of facts are known about DAO 2.

I loved Baldur's gate 1 and 2, even TOB, and it might be fair to compare BG 2 or BG 1 to Dragon Age. I just feel till Dragon age at least gets two games under it's belt it is rather hard to compare.

If there is a major difference currently it's alternate characters, where as BG 2 you picked up right after BG 1 ended, here it's a different, land, hero, etc where your old game has impact.

I enjoyed the continuity of Baldur's Gate, only because I met characters from BG1 in Throne of Bhaal so it was like a complete circle.

All things considered tho DAO is a good game, and DA will be a good series I think.

#48
night0205

night0205
  • Members
  • 849 messages
I've beaten Dragon Age Origins around 8 times.



I've beaten Galdur's Gate 2... once.



To me, Dragon Age Origins is more... Playable. To tell you the truth, I hated starting a new game because I had to break out of that stupid dungeon over and over again! Well, that's how I feel. I think Dragon Age is more... Playable. Leaving it at that, not saying it's deeper or a better RPG.

#49
Rzepik2

Rzepik2
  • Members
  • 467 messages

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

 What
DAO proved is that level scaling can work when it's done right.
.


How did it prove that since level scaling wasn't done
right in DAO?  It's certianly not as broken as Oblivion, but it's still
bad.


I think you didn't get what I was saying. In
DAO level scaling actually works. In Oblivion it made for
silly situations (I could list a few but that would be a waste of time).

I prefer no level scaling (hence my point about BG).


I know Oblivion level scaling is the worst, what I was saying is DAO also has level scaling that is broken.  It's just not broken quite as badly

BTW Baldur's Gate also has level scaling. Barely, but still.
Some encounters have alternative versions, for example Rejiek quest: the Bone Golem will appear only on higher levels. This makes much more sense than "darkspawn lvl29".

#50
joriandrake

joriandrake
  • Members
  • 3 161 messages

Cancermeat wrote...

If i was stranded on an island and I could only bring 2 video games it would BG and BG2.


also, we were able to play as one of many races in it, and the character got transferred over from BG1 to BG2