771 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedrak]

bcrankshaw wrote...

Ken555 wrote...

I killed wynne in DAO and she appears in Awakening, Dont get it.

Lol...well said ...a brilliant rebuttal

Well, I didn't know about that, but that was an exception. In BG, it was the rule

Modifié par Pedrak, 16 août 2010 - 12:55 .

[SirShreK]

Can anyone elaborate in exactly what aspect was DA:O a spiritual successor to BG series in terms of gameplay?

Modifié par SirShreK, 16 août 2010 - 12:58 .

[TimelordDC]

bcrankshaw wrote...

Imajasjam wrote...

I am sorry but have you even played the Baldur's Gate series? The story telling in those games are far superior to anything Bioware has released since, when compared to Baldur's Gate all of Bioware's latest games seem very shallow indeed.

Specific examples please or rubbish

BG2 is leagues ahead of DA:0 from a complexity and deep game mechanics perspective

Baldur’s Gate had alot more spells in it. That’s about it. Melee characters in Dragon Age origins have much more to them in Dragon Age then they did in Baldur’s Gate, they were just point and click until you got HLA's in ToB. Rogues were stealth and backstab, that’s two buttons.

BG did however have more micromanagement due to having 2 more party members to control, but all in all I think it’s about the same, less spells, but more melee abilities.

Allow me to give you examples why BG2 is a more complex and challanging  game  than DA:0  ..there are many examples but here are some..I don't think the story telling is necessarily superior in BG2 

• When you die in BG2 you stay dead until resurrected..no automatic rez at the end of the battle
• If you get turned to stone you stay that way until restored....negative effects dont magically vanish like poison
• Certain creatures cannot be harmed unless your  Weapon has a + 3 or higher ...if you don't have one you are screwed ..I can't remember a single creature in DA:0 that I couldn't hit
• When you fight undead its always a challange....if they drain levels you stay that way until restored
• There are monsters that can kill you instantly with spells like Finger of Death
• Its not just the fact that BG2 has more spells ...its the fact you have to use them oftern in a proper strategy to defeat mobs
• In DA:0 and DA:A the only time I had to really think about my choice of spells was fighting the Queen of Blackmarsh and the Mother

Also how is DA:0 different and better  in melee combat to BG2 ....you still click   at Monster and the character go's wild ? The one thing  BG2 doesn't have is the range of skills that helps in combat in DA:0

 

How is the above an argument for better RPG? Ultimately, the combat was different and more challenging in BG2 and that was primarily because of the strategic nature of the system vs the tactical nature of the DA system.
In BG2, if your party hadn't memorized spells to combat particular enemies, you were toast - no recourse other than going back to an earlier save. DA is much more tactical in that sense - while it is not something I entirely like, the decision to go that route is not a bad one. There are a lot more casual gamers today and it makes good sense to cater to that market. Further, games have evolved over the past decade - you do not need a punishing combat system to tell a good story.

Lastly, the party members resurrecting automatically was a requirement due to the DA design - the cutscene engine and the game engine are different beasts. If a party member stayed dead and the cutscene was created with that party member, the party member would still appear in the cutscene - which would be jarring. Hence, the decision to resurrect the party members - at least, one of the factors that went into it.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

If you'd refer to the last few pages of the aforementioned "This is what bioware seems to want" thread, you'd see these posts advocating the story-telling and roleplaying aspects of early BioWare games as being superior to modern titles couldn't be further from the truth. Your ability to influence the overall story and outcome of games like Baldur's Gate is non-existant to neglible. (You do get the choice right at the end of Throne of Bhaal, however)

So what you are trying to say is because there is only one ending in the Baldur's Gate games (apart from TOB) your choices dont matter? I think you need to play the game again and then come back with your answer, sure we could not change the ending but the choices we made throughout the game had a much heavier impact on the journey than Origins or Mass Effect ever did. Sure Mass Effect and Origins had different endings but the journey was always pretty much the same, however in Baldur's Gate depending on the choices you made, the side quests you took and the company you kept the journey was wildly different.

But really all of the different endings in Mass Effect and Origins were all pretty much the same anyway, the hero defeats the archdemon, the world is saved and somebody gets crowned either king or queen (or in the case of Mass Effect the hero stops Saren and his army of geth and then humanity either gets a seat on the council or rules the council).

However regardless of all that I think the Baldur's Gate series had much better writing than any of the games Bioware released afterwards.

Edit: I see a lot of people have jumped on Amstrad's coattails dispite the fact that his argument is fairly weak and pretty much comes down to "the choices in BG diddnt matter because it only had one ending" and it makes me wonder if you people actually played the game at all or at the very least only did one playthrough.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 16 août 2010 - 01:17 .

[DPB]

SirShreK wrote...

Can anyone elaborate in exactly what aspect was DA:O a spiritual successor to BG series in terms of gameplay?

Full party control and real-time with pause combat. Most of Bioware's games in between had a similar combat system, but you couldn't control your party to the extent you can in BG and DAO (KOTOR is close, but you can't select mutliple characters at once or direct them by clicking).

Modifié par dbankier, 16 août 2010 - 01:05 .

[SirShreK]

dbankier wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Can anyone elaborate in exactly what aspect was DA:O a spiritual successor to BG series in terms of gameplay?

Full party control and real-time with pause combat. Most of Bioware's games in between had a similar combat system, but you couldn't control your party to the extent you can in BG and DAO (KOTOR is close, but you can't select mutliple characters at once or direct them by clicking).

NWN:HOTU?

EDIT: Ok... No (real) real time. Gotcha..

Modifié par SirShreK, 16 août 2010 - 01:07 .

[DPB]

SirShreK wrote...

dbankier wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Can anyone elaborate in exactly what aspect was DA:O a spiritual successor to BG series in terms of gameplay?

Full party control and real-time with pause combat. Most of Bioware's games in between had a similar combat system, but you couldn't control your party to the extent you can in BG and DAO (KOTOR is close, but you can't select mutliple characters at once or direct them by clicking).

NWN:HOTU?

Well, in HOTU you get a party, but you're limited to general orders like attack, hold, and guard. You can't take direct control of any characters other than the PC.

[AlexXIV]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

If you'd refer to the last few pages of the aforementioned "This is what bioware seems to want" thread, you'd see these posts advocating the story-telling and roleplaying aspects of early BioWare games as being superior to modern titles couldn't be further from the truth. Your ability to influence the overall story and outcome of games like Baldur's Gate is non-existant to neglible. (You do get the choice right at the end of Throne of Bhaal, however)

So what you are trying to say is because there is only one ending in the Baldur's Gate games (apart from TOB) your choices dont matter? I think you need to play the game again and then come back with your answer, sure we could not change the ending but the choices we made throughout the game had a much heavier impact on the journey than Origins or Mass Effect ever did. Sure Mass Effect and Origins had different endings but the journey was always pretty much the same, however in Baldur's Gate depending on the choices you made, the side quests you took and the company you kept the journey was wildly different.

But really all of the different endings in Mass Effect and Origins were all pretty much the same anyway, the hero defeats the archdemon, the world is saved and somebody gets crowned either king or queen (or in the case of Mass Effect the hero stops Saren and his army of geth and then humanity either gets a seat on the council or rules the council).

However regardless of all that I think the Baldur's Gate series had much better writing than any of the games Bioware released afterwards.

I fear I disagree there. You can decide your class and race, so you can in DA:O and you even get different origin stories. IN BG2 you can decide to be shadow thief or vampire supporter, you get this choice in Orzammar and Brecilian Forest as well. None of these have major impact on the story in BG since you leave Amn and your decissions stay behind.. Even the choices you make in the Drow city are irrelevant for the story since once you drop your disguise they are all your enemies anyway. And you get forced into situations all the time, without having much of a choice. The only thing about BG that makes it 'more epic' is the depht of the D&D universe as such and of course the game lenght which is probably 5 of 6 times longer than DA:O.

[heretica]

Slidell505 wrote...

tl;dr and honestly I don't care about your opinion.

side note for the op: mass effect rocks :> just so you know...

[BruceVC]

TimelordDC wrote...

bcrankshaw wrote...

Imajasjam wrote...

I am sorry but have you even played the Baldur's Gate series? The story telling in those games are far superior to anything Bioware has released since, when compared to Baldur's Gate all of Bioware's latest games seem very shallow indeed.

Specific examples please or rubbish

BG2 is leagues ahead of DA:0 from a complexity and deep game mechanics perspective

Baldur’s Gate had alot more spells in it. That’s about it. Melee characters in Dragon Age origins have much more to them in Dragon Age then they did in Baldur’s Gate, they were just point and click until you got HLA's in ToB. Rogues were stealth and backstab, that’s two buttons.

BG did however have more micromanagement due to having 2 more party members to control, but all in all I think it’s about the same, less spells, but more melee abilities.

Allow me to give you examples why BG2 is a more complex and challanging  game  than DA:0  ..there are many examples but here are some..I don't think the story telling is necessarily superior in BG2 

• When you die in BG2 you stay dead until resurrected..no automatic rez at the end of the battle
  
• If you get turned to stone you stay that way until restored....negative effects dont magically vanish like poison
  
• Certain creatures cannot be harmed unless your  Weapon has a + 3 or higher ...if you don't have one you are screwed ..I can't remember a single creature in DA:0 that I couldn't hit
  
• When you fight undead its always a challange....if they drain levels you stay that way until restored
  
• There are monsters that can kill you instantly with spells like Finger of Death
  
• Its not just the fact that BG2 has more spells ...its the fact you have to use them oftern in a proper strategy to defeat mobs
  
  
• In DA:0 and DA:A the only time I had to really think about my choice of spells was fighting the Queen of Blackmarsh and the Mother

Also how is DA:0 different and better  in melee combat to BG2 ....you still click   at Monster and the character go's wild ? The one thing  BG2 doesn't have is the range of skills that helps in combat in DA:0

 

How is the above an argument for better RPG? Ultimately, the combat was different and more challenging in BG2 and that was primarily because of the strategic nature of the system vs the tactical nature of the DA system.
In BG2, if your party hadn't memorized spells to combat particular enemies, you were toast - no recourse other than going back to an earlier save. DA is much more tactical in that sense - while it is not something I entirely like, the decision to go that route is not a bad one. There are a lot more casual gamers today and it makes good sense to cater to that market. Further, games have evolved over the past decade - you do not need a punishing combat system to tell a good story.

Lastly, the party members resurrecting automatically was a requirement due to the DA design - the cutscene engine and the game engine are different beasts. If a party member stayed dead and the cutscene was created with that party member, the party member would still appear in the cutscene - which would be jarring. Hence, the decision to resurrect the party members - at least, one of the factors that went into it.

I don't disagree with you around why Bioware made the game simpler ..or at least changed it .I never considered the whole cut scenes aspect....good point  . This really boils down to a personal view on which game offers an  overall better RPG experience ..and everyone will have factors which influence that  ....for me it's still by far BG2  but I did enjoy DA:0 and will buy DA2 . I will wait patiently for a company to make a game similar to BG2...it would only be for PC I assume ?

[Reaper Man]

Well it'd be any time now, old BIoware was what, 80 years old with heart problem? Ah well he was a good man, hopefully young bioware can take over the family buisness.

[FedericoV]

dbankier wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Can anyone elaborate in exactly what aspect was DA:O a spiritual successor to BG series in terms of gameplay?

Full party control and real-time with pause combat. Most of Bioware's games in between had a similar combat system, but you couldn't control your party to the extent you can in BG and DAO (KOTOR is close, but you can't select mutliple characters at once or direct them by clicking).

Imho, DA:O's gameplay in terms of combat was somekind a new version of BG classical gameplay more focused on action through a quicker gaming tempo. Also, BW have choosen to remove every kind of strategic elements from combat gameplay and to concentrate on tactics. The result is not bad and overall fun but honestly is not that good either, since it felt like some kind of one-man-band MMORPG. You have but two choice (at least if you play the game on hard or nightmare): using tactics (thus removing party controll wich is the point of the whole game) or to micromanage to death. Imho, that's not great combat design but that's just my tastes.

For the sequel, they have two options: work hard on the gameplay side, trying to balance and fix everything that do not work as intended and that customer/reviewers do not like to strenghten the gameplay. Or, streamlining the game ruleset and pushing forward the actions elements to concentrate on what (imho) was the stronger selling point of DA:O: the storytelling.

Considering the fact that consolle are the focus for DA2 and that the dev cycle is very short, from what I've read so far I believe that they will take the second route (wich is not bad if the game is still good for its own design's purposes). But we will have to wait for an actual gameplay footage before we could make somekind of rational judgement.

[Seth Burns]

You are entitled to your opinion. I respect your opinion. Your opinion is not right. It is not wrong, either. It is just your opinion. Therefore, your feelings and opinions are pointless to post, because your opinions and feelings are neither wrong or right. So I see no reason in these types of hate threads. Bioware, nor it's players are going to consider what you've said. Also, if you don't like the way Bioware is heading, just stop buying their games. Don't worry, nobody will notice.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlexXIV wrote...

I fear I disagree there. You can decide your class and race, so you can in DA:O and you even get different origin stories. IN BG2 you can decide to be shadow thief or vampire supporter, you get this choice in Orzammar and Brecilian Forest as well. None of these have major impact on the story in BG since you leave Amn and your decissions stay behind.. Even the choices you make in the Drow city are irrelevant for the story since once you drop your disguise they are all your enemies anyway. And you get forced into situations all the time, without having much of a choice. The only thing about BG that makes it 'more epic' is the depht of the D&D universe as such and of course the game lenght which is probably 5 of 6 times longer than DA:O.

You actually play the game or did you look that information up on wikipedia? Side with the vampires and the Shadow theives will refuse to help you when you need to take the vampires down, if you killed Drizzit in the first game he refuses to help you, depending on the side missions you took in the first half of the game certain factions will help or refuse to help you when you need them too, depending on who your love interest is (or if you even have one) Bodhi will kidnap them before the fight and that is all on the one mission.

Who you have on your party also has a huge effect on the game as well, certain side quests may open up, certain party members wont get along (in the case of having both Minsc and Edwin on your party one will inevitably kill the other). Anomen was a big one as depending on what quests you did (or refused to do) he would fail his knighthood based on your actions, refuse to help a man save his kid and Anomen will fail his knighthood and become utterly miserable and end up killing one of your party members.

I could go on but the list is endless.

[ashwind]

But please tell me if you enjoyed Origins have you actually played the Baldur's Gate series, and if you have please tell me if Origins actually reminded you of Baldur's Gate and whether you felt it was a fitting tribute.

Enjoyed Origins, yes - although sometimes I get frustrated at certain things.

I wont compare Baldur's Gate & NWN to DAO because Bioware is making a new fantasy world and new rules, a new RPG to replace the D&D rules and the familiar Forgotten Realms universe.

I feel that DAO is fitting as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, it is a new experience new rules - I rant a lot about DAO in the forums. Personally, I feel that Bioware needs to refine the rules they made in DAO, give it more depth and hopefully someday they will have a standard set of rules for all their future RPGs - as it is, I feel that DAO is ... simply too simplified compared to the D&D rules I am use to.

My only concern is Bioware's attempt to "scale down" the game to fit better on consoles, personally, a real RPG can only be played on PC - after all I have 104 keys on my keyboard + a mouse.

Do I enjoy it - yes. DAO is as good a RPG as you can get but it just isnt great and far from excellent.

Modifié par ashwind, 16 août 2010 - 01:38 .

[Azaron Nightblade]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

Why dead? Because they don't make games you enjoy any longer? Your opinion doesn't equal the death of a company. They've shifted philosophies, if you're not willing to go with that shift then that's fine, you're certainly not alone on that boat. But dead? No, if anything they're more alive then ever.

Yes Bioware is still alive and making money but the point I was trying to make is that they arent the company they were when they made the Baldur's Gate series, the old company died and the new one rose from its ashes. Perhaps I and those that share my point of view are in the minority and the majority of todays gamers prefer shallow action adventure titles, that is what I want to find out from this thread.

It didn't "die", it evolved - sure it might not be in a way that's to your liking, but still.
As far as I'm concerned they are still making great games which I spent countless of hours playing

[Shiakazee]

ShadyKat wrote...

In b4 the lock.

Well you definitely found your answer.  I agree with you op, for the most part.

Bioware has dumbed down their rpg roots a lot.  Its evident more and more in each game that comes out because

theyre trying to appeal to wider audiences(console kiddies).  Each games takes out a little rpg goodness imo.  For

example, in mass effect 2 they redid the whole lv up system, taking out most of the depth and there was little to no

exploration to be had.  This was supposed to be this huge galaxy to explore.  Sure I could land on a lot of planets, but

then I could only go from point "a" to point "b".  Then the dialogue wheel,  ugh, you would select an option from it and

then shepard would say the complete opposite thing that he was supposed to say.  This wasnt innovative, it was just

lazy.  But im ranting here. Overall bioware is still kicking and thanks to trigger happy console players, we have to

take two steps back instead of forward<_<

[Hollingdale]

Jesus, sometimes I wish you guys would just go live in caves. Such despicable conservatism.

[AlexXIV]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I fear I disagree there. You can decide your class and race, so you can in DA:O and you even get different origin stories. IN BG2 you can decide to be shadow thief or vampire supporter, you get this choice in Orzammar and Brecilian Forest as well. None of these have major impact on the story in BG since you leave Amn and your decissions stay behind.. Even the choices you make in the Drow city are irrelevant for the story since once you drop your disguise they are all your enemies anyway. And you get forced into situations all the time, without having much of a choice. The only thing about BG that makes it 'more epic' is the depht of the D&D universe as such and of course the game lenght which is probably 5 of 6 times longer than DA:O.

You actually play the game or did you look that information up on wikipedia? Side with the vampires and the Shadow theives will refuse to help you when you need to take the vampires down, if you killed Drizzit in the first game he refuses to help you, depending on the side missions you took in the first half of the game certain factions will help or refuse to help you when you need them too, depending on who your love interest is (or if you even have one) Bodhi will kidnap them before the fight and that is all on the one mission.

Who you have on your party also has a huge effect on the game as well, certain side quests may open up, certain party members wont get along (in the case of having both Minsc and Edwin on your party one will inevitably kill the other). Anomen was a big one as depending on what quests you did (or refused to do) he would fail his knighthood based on your actions, refuse to help a man save his kid and Anomen will fail his knighthood and become utterly miserable and end up killing one of your party members.

I could go on but the list is endless.

Well I played the game like 20 times if not more. Though the things you mention don't really do anything in the grand scale. I probably missed that Edwin thing though since I always killed him. But in DA:O there are also companion quests, so that's not a big difference. And if you defile andraste's ashes you have to fight (and kill Leliana), same with Wynne if you choose to wipe out the Circle. And you even can get Loghain into your party even though he is your enemy for the most part of the game. You couldn't do anything like that in BG2. I tried to find ways to convince Bodhi to come in my boat, but there was no way.

Whether the Shadow Thieves help you to get to the Asylum or Bodhi does doesn't really matter since you get there anyway. That piece with Drizzt was nice because I also read all the books from RA Salvatore (about Drizzt that is) but you didn't need him to finish Bodhi. Ofc BG2 was longer and had more quests etc., and that was my point as well in my prior post. BG2 was also epic in lenght (and with that naturally length and number of quests). What I liked better was the quests about Viconia who I tried hard to keep happy even though I was good most of the time.

[Foolsfolly]

Anyone who thinks BioWare hit rock bottom with Mass Effect 2 is someone who's opinion doesn't matter.



Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games I've played in the last 5 years, it is likely the best I've played this year and Red Dead Redemption did not make that an easy choice.



From graphics, to storytelling, to voice acting there is nothing that ME2 is rockbottom of. You may not have liked certain aspects but that's a 5 star game from a top game developer who are rocking the world right now.



I find the OP's post and title of this thread to be insulting, unfounded opinions, and generally just whining for the sake of whining. BioWare took criticism for Mass Effect very well and improved the game many times over. Stop whining. No one's forcing you to be here or to buy their games. If you think Baulder's Gate is the end-all-be-all game then keep playing that.

[Hollingdale]

Nowadays on theese boards when someone mentions ''Mass Effect'' you just sit there guessing how many more words it will take til ''shallow'' pops up; like in this op: 1, 2, 3, 4... Ah there it is!

[Huwmin race]

I've played bioware games all my life and i have to say they use the same system in all of they're games and its about time we had a change whether you like it or not the same old things get boring and it's the truth so either accept it or stop whining like ****ing 3 year olds because they didn't get what they want bioware will make a game i will play and enjoy

[triggerhappy456]

Bioware has always made great games, and the classic like Baldur's Gate were great games. But why are there so many people complaining that Bioware are trying new things?
I would say that almost every change they have made has made there games better, and the irrational hatred for games like Mass Effect is ridiculous.
I found it sad that someone with a name as funny as the Ops is such a troll, but I have not seen him make one comment on these forums which is not aimed at putting someone down or denouncing new ideas.
And no offence Rubbish Hero, but I was crying with laughter when I read your comments