315 réponses à ce sujet

[eclaire123]

I like Dragon Age, but seriously, Baldur's Gate II > all games ever. Bioware put some real love and tenderness in to that game. I wont even lie I've had it for like five years and still haven't finished it, it's so long and indepth.

[IckyLicks]

First of all I really, really, really love BG 2.  Like many others, that RPG is what got me into CRPGs.  That game set the bar so high that it will be hard for any developer to match it.  Sadly, with all the money and talent you'd think Bioware could pull it off.  I still don't understand why.  To continue my thoughts....

I think comparing these 2 games, DAO and BG 2, is stupid. 

1. Totally different rules and mechanics
2. Different time period of release date (I may not need to state this but the time period really does have a huge factor in a game such as culture, technology, and resources)
3. Bioware's current goals
4.  DAO is not a sequal to BG 2.

I believe Bioware used the whole "spiritual succesor" line for marketing purposes.  Otherwise it's just stupid, especially when they've admitted that you cannot match the depth and content of their "successor."

My thoughts on both these games is this:

What I love about BG2 were the characters and story.  For some reason, BG's world had a life of it's own for my own mind to make up.  Sort of like how you read a book.  The same is true for the characters.  Maybe the voice acting from the characters were that good, I don't know. Also, Irenicus will be one of my most beloved antagonists.  His arrogance could be felt outside the game and to this very moment.  Honestly, when I played the game I wish I could have joined him but of course everyone has to be a hero. Lastly, BG 1 & 2 was based off of a 10+ year old world (Dungeons and Dragons).  So of course all the lore and content will be greater. 

For DAO, I liked it a lot.  It was very satisfying and is the best current rpg out there.  The characters were cool, I loved Alistair's personality.  He made me laugh a lot.  All of them were equally cool.  Although, I thought Morrigan was a total female dog. The thing that got me was the amount of social/political plots there were in this game.  I was fine with it for a while but it seemed a little too much for me.  I wanted a bad guy in the game.  I don't care about politics.

 
**Spoilers?**
The Archdemon was soooo boring to kill and as a bad guy.  At least make him try to pursuade my henchmen like Mephestopheles ( I probably spelled his name wrong) in NWN 1: Hordes of the Underdark.   I think these days Bioware is trying a bit too hard to allow players to make choices. 
**end of spoilers?**

 Although DAO had a very deep choice mechanic it didn't really make the game more likeable.  It just pissed me off when I made the wrong the decision, because It forced me to just log back to my earlier save to correct my mistake.  Also, this obsession with graphics and voice acting really affects how a game is made.  I think if games weren't so heavily dependent on sales or under corporate eye, BG 3 could still be made in the old fashioned sense.

Modifié par IckyLicks, 24 décembre 2009 - 07:22 .

[peregrinefalcon46]

IckyLicks wrote...
What I love about BG2 were the characters and story.  For some reason, BG's world had a life of it's own for my own mind to make up.  Sort of like how you read a book.  The same is true for the characters.  Maybe the voice acting from the characters were that good, I don't know. Also, Irenicus will be one of my most beloved antagonists.  His arrogance could be felt outside the game and to this very moment.  Honestly, when I played the game I wish I could have joined him but of course everyone has to be a hero. Lastly, BG 1 & 2 was based off of a 10+ year old world (Dungeons and Dragons).  So of course all the lore and content will be greater. 

For DAO, I liked it a lot.  It was very satisfying and is the best current rpg out there.  The characters were cool, I loved Alistair's personality.  He made me laugh a lot.  All of them were equally cool.  Although, I thought Morrigan was a total female dog. The thing that got me was the amount of social/political plots there were in this game.  I was fine with it for a while but it seemed a little too much for me.  I wanted a bad guy in the game.  I don't care about politics.

 
**Spoilers?**
The Archdemon was soooo boring to kill and as a bad guy.  At least make him try to pursuade my henchmen like Mephestopheles ( I probably spelled his name wrong) in NWN 1: Hordes of the Underdark.   I think these days Bioware is trying a bit too hard to allow players to make choices. 
**end of spoilers?**

 Although DAO had a very deep choice mechanic it didn't really make the game more likeable.  It just pissed me off when I made the wrong the decision, because It forced me to just log back to my earlier save to correct my mistake.  Also, this obsession with graphics and voice acting really affects how a game is made.  I think if games weren't so heavily dependent on sales or under corporate eye, BG 3 could still be made in the old fashioned sense.

Good post.

I agree with almost everything here. Especially the bolded section.

Personally I liked all the characters, especially Morrigan. This is possibly the first game where I believe the voice acting itself really contributed something special to the game.

You wanted a 'bad guy'? Differing political opinions are about as close as it comes to 'badness' in the shades-of-gray world of Dragon Age. From my point of view, Sten, Morrigan, and certainly Loghaine are all 'bad guys', and they are all exceptionally well presented in my opinion.

I found the choice mechanic enjoyable, despite the fact that I too had to reload to change my decision a couple of times (Redcliff).

I think if anything we should be comparing DAO to games like KOTOR and NWN2, which to me it is clear that DA is superior.

[devSin]

Wow, I sure am glad the title of this entire board says NO SPOILERS ALLOWED... :/

[PsychofromAllandor]

Why does everyone bring NWN into this discussion? NWN was done by atari not bioware. Just curious

[Zcorck]

PsychofromAllandor wrote...

Why does everyone bring NWN into this discussion? NWN was done by atari not bioware. Just curious

Atari was the publisher for NWN.
Bioware DID do NWN1.

[Shotinthedark99]

I blogged on this recently, BGII was better simply because the villain was the best villain of all time ever. http://www.gamespot....erpanel;profile

[Altima Darkspells]

BG2 dresses DAO up a pink dress and makes her its pretty, pretty prison *****.



Not that Origins is a bad game, it's not. In fact, it's quite superior to BG2 in many aspects (ignoring the aspects improved by age, such as graphics, voice acting, and all the other little things that were limited by the day).



I consider Origins to have a superior setting and cinematic feel. Ferelden was very well thoughout, while the Forgotten Realms are about twenty years of rehashed storylines by dozens of authors.



However, I feel BG2 curb stomps Origins when it comes to gameplay. It just felt that in BG2, there were many more options than what's available in DAO. BG2 doesn't immediately shoe-horn you into several 'main' quests--you simply finish the starting area and get dumped out to go play as you will. Character creation was a bit more important, and the spell synergy and variety was fun.



DAO, on the other hand, had the same starter area>3-4 'main' quests with a smidgeon of general fed-ex sidetasks>end that BioWare has stuck with ever since KotOR. And, sadly, it's starting to wear thing and become painfully predictable.

[AlanC9]

Oh, great... now we've got thread necromancy in the BG2 vs. DA:O threads too.

[Shotinthedark99]

It's not entirely about a different game, it's a comparison. Things were different then, budgets weren't as high, fewer people could add more content. I mean, for the amount of content in DA:O I was blown away, all the origin stories were amazing. BGII had a main quest, DA:O had a main quest, just fewer and less involved side quest only areas (which were a lot easier to make in those days). DA:O just put most of the side quests in the same areas. It's not exactly that they were all fetch quests either, just the board quests. Each area had a half dozen or so true side quests, some of which were very interesting.

[jlibster]

Okay has a HUGE fan of Baldur's gate and recently looking at Dragon Age, here are my thoughts, in terms of comparisons which is actually fair because Dragon Age was supposed to be a the "Spiritual" sequal to Baldur's Gate.

Game Rule System:
The D&D (or AD&D) system had been in development for I guess around 20 years so lots of time to get refined, add content, history, world and so forth. If time for maturing were not a factor I would have to say that the game rule system of Dragon Age in many ways felt a LOT like an improved version of the SquareSoft Final Fantasy Series. The Skillsets and Spells with different paths and requiring one to use points for skills you didn't want (in magic especially) for skills you did definitely Final Fantasy style. one of the things I love the most about D&D was sthe wide variety of spells. (Most of the manual in Baldur's Gate was dedicated to spells. Also, the attributes felt a bit simplistic in Dragon Age (I love the in-depthness  of D&D and Baldur's Gate). Also, I guess the new ruleset that says everyone starts the same (same skill/attribute points) felt rather wishy washy. Not real life. (Although that also means no getting frustated at rerandomizing dice rules for points to use on your character (LOL). Baldur's Gate 2 Really pushed the envelop with the bard and fighter skill sets. My impression is that the D&D 3rd edition was the inspiration, and then distilled to try to bring in the maximum possible crowd. in some ways I felt it was slightly "dummied down".  Now for 5 years, its a very impressive system. But that said, I suspect if they decided to use old D&D 3rd edition, the spells, rules, skills would be more interesting. My feelings were mixed about the odd mixtures  and distilations I mentioned. For quality of system and execution, my hat slightly tips to Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale with two exceptions: The abiltiy to wiggle your way around a charcter blocking the doorway or "overwhelm" another character does make the combat a bit more real and adds to the challenge. On the otherhand, the detecting of traps and disarming felt a bit shallow, and what about trapped chests? 

Character Depthness:
Here Dragon Age again is a bit mixed for me. What I liked most was the ability to increase approval rating and needing to hit different approval ratings to learn more of the character. The ability to pick different characters was really nice, although being limited to 4 isn't as interesting for my as the old "six gun" standard of D&D computer games like Baldur's gate. It feels like they were trying to build up from Neverwinter Nights 1 (which allowed one character and one companion which is a drag in single character mode. I like the unlocking/character data, but Baldur's Gate character explortion has a slight edge on the playable character side. On the other hand, Dragon Age explores more chracters in depth like a really good book. Again, My hat tips SLIGHTLY to Baldur's Gate, partially because Dragon Age had only 3 Characters that had real depth of "character" (that really stood out): Morrigan (top, somewhat complex, some feel she is pure evil but I'm not convinced), Stern, and yourself (player). After that NPC's are more interesting in general. Although I have to explore the dog a bit more. I like the dog...

Combat Tactics: Dragon Age with a few glitches/crashes aside has the edge here. Partially because one of the few REAL advantages over the infinity Engine in my opinion is having true 3d physics. For technical/hardware limitation reasons, the old Infinity engine like of faked it a bit, but it could really fake it WELL. But for some combat situations, like high ground vs. low ground, I felt more time was taken on this part of Dragon Age than most of the system. Seeing how much I loved the tactics in Icewind Dale 1/2 this is quite a feat. For Tactics, Dragon Age is the best of its age.

Music: Jeremy Soule, in Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale. Nuff said. Dragon Age has a few good moments but it didn' thave as much (pardon the pun) Soule in it. Felt like something generic out of that terrible Dungeons & Dragons Movie. It was good music, but Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate had GREAT music. (I actually went out of my way to get the sound track, Icewind dale's music was SOOO good, slightly better than Baldur's Gate V1 (V2 was a bit of a letdown).

Graphics Quality: Dragon Age used an actually 3D engine. Nuff said. Although, there is SLIGHT room for improvement in character facial expressions, (considering Baldur's Gate/Icewind dale has none I'm being REALLY picky).

Dungeon Crawls: Draon Age dungeon crawls are amazing and a bit creepy. Again the 3d Engine helps a lot in this. Although, the lighting in Dragon Age was ALWAYS bright. Takes the spook out that Baldur's gate had in abundence.

Quests: The Quests in Baudur's Gate really were more indepth in terms of actual quests. Dragon Age's quests are more like test of character where you decide who you are. I felt it was almost like an inkblot test made for a RPG. Now this is the element that truly makes the story of Dragon Age unique. Its really YOURSELF you're exploring through your decisions. All paths basically lead the same place, but as a wise man once said, its the journey that is exciting, not what's at the end of the road. So you don't want it to end. So for me its a toss up. The decisions you have to make are often not simply dependent on whether you really feel good or evil, but often a choices of evils/good so it blurs the line in a way that make syou think which is good.  It depends whether you like epic quests or self exploration (keep lots of white paper for latter). Its a toos up for me. Both are engaging, If these ideas could be combined, that would be the best I think anyone could offer. That said, its no easy challenge. The game tries to be non-judgemental which is also good, but makes the choices that much harder in many respects.

For me I guess Baldur's Gate/Icewind dale is the sweet spot for those of us who love the "epic quest" genre. Dragon Age gets some of this, but Dragon Age gets you into the politics as well (and really in depth), things where are more grey than black/white, and you explore yourself as much/more than your own character.I give my hat a slight nod to Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale in part because the elements that I felt were missing COULD have been in Dragon Age: More in-depth trap/thief skills, spookier dungeons, better music, overall more indepth history, and MORE SPELLS (and greater class flexability..they faked the mixed classes in Baldur's Gate II I feel). Dragon Age is unique however in  that it opens like a really good book. Badur's Gate, as good as the story is, feel more game/quest than curling up to a good book "by the fire" which is eactly howI feel when exploring (I won't say playing as its too simple for this game) when I play Dragon Age.

[TheMufflon]

jlibster wrote...
one of the things I love the most about D&D was sthe wide variety of
spells.

I'm guessing your favourite spell school was Necromancy.

[Vicious]

BG2 was a huge game and it's like will not be seen by Bioware again. Some indie company, like the guys who made Mount&Blade, maybe, but not Bioware. Technology has moved on, and with it expectations have gone through the roof.



That said the BG series was Bioware's first epic series, I'd say Mass Effect is their second. DA does not qualify yet since it does not focus on a single main character.

[Juunana]

Loved BG2 and love DA:O...but I'm going to be difficult and go with Planescape: Torment. Anyone who has played it should know what I'm talking about. Never been so absorbed in a game before.

[easimon1812]

Arokiss wrote...

...I wouldn't compare? They're different games, with different stories. One is bound to be different >.>

That and I never played BG and thus have nothing to compare this game too other than KOTOR <.<

-yeah judging by the first line of your comment alone it is ovbious that you have never played BG. sufice to say BGII (my favorite) is just epic in size, and the characters, if you actually do things they dont aprove. like robbing ,killing innocents or more importantly ignoring their quest or doing things incide their personal quest that they dont aprove  they will leave for good, and you are going to miss them (seriously) some of the characters are paert of the epicness that makes BGII.

[Vasagralem]

Hi, im looking to buy Dragon Age, and for what ive read so far all that stuff about "spiritual succesor to Baldurs Gate" its not really true, it may have some similarities, but it seems more like a dumbed down version or a version that appeals more to the modern public (in other words dumbed down). So the reason to buy this game seems to be the story-cinematics and the relations development between the main character and the party npcs. So my question is: is this game too much alike KotOR and KotOR 2? Because i liked KotOR 1 a lot, but felt like i wasted my money on Kotor 2 because they were basically the same game, i didnt even finish it, it wasnt even an expansion it was the exact same thing, same gameplay mechanics, same story-system (cant find the word for that:pinched:), same develop of relationships along the journey to all this planets, etc. So, in buying DA:O im buying a Kotor 3 in the core mechanics of the gameplay?

Hope i explained myself enough, english isnt my native language.

[hexaligned]

Holy necro batman. I'd say the whole "spiritual succesor" thing was honestly a bit of misleading marketing.   Your assessment that a lot of things have been stripped away and simplified to appeal to this generations gamers is a fair one imo. That being said if you liked BG you will like DAO. At least I've never heard anyone who liked the former state they disliked the latter.

Modifié par relhart, 10 avril 2010 - 02:18 .

[Domyk]

speaking of which what is the best ACTIVE site for Baldurs Gate 2 mods these days?

[AlanC9]

Vasagralem wrote...
but it seems more like a dumbed down version or a version that appeals more to the modern public (in other words dumbed down).

Well, it depends on what you mean by dumbed down. Some of the stuff that got yanked was dumb in the first place. But since you've done research, you probably know what's been done along these lines already.

So my question is: is this game too much alike KotOR and KotOR 2? Because i liked KotOR 1 a lot, but felt like i wasted my money on Kotor 2 because they were basically the same game, i didnt even finish it, it wasnt even an expansion it was the exact same thing, same gameplay mechanics, same story-system (cant find the word for that:pinched:), same develop of relationships along the journey to all this planets, etc. So, in buying DA:O im buying a Kotor 3 in the core mechanics of the gameplay?

Difficult to answer without knowing what you consider to be a "core mechanic." I'm also mystified by disliking a sequel that plays exactly the way an original game that you liked played, but that's your business.

There are certain similarities. DA shares a basic structural similarity with the KotOR games (and pretty much everything else Bio's done since BG1). Following the early game, you've got 4 (or maybe 5) major quest areas that can be resolved in any order the player wishes.

Combat isn't very KotOR-ish; it's more like an MMO.

Personal relationships with the companions are more like KotOR2 than the original, since their approval of you is tracked.

[Swordfishtrombone]

BG2 is still the best game that I've played. Though that's not a point against DA:O - BG2 just set the bar very, very high. After BG2, NWN1 was a disappointment to me, even though it's not at all a bad game - the contrast in quality was just so big. NWN2 did much better, and DA:O I think is still a little better than NWN2...



KotOR wasn't bad - I'd rate it about the same as NWN1.

[Fendaren]

While definetely a great game, I would have to say baldur's gate 2 is par excellance

[SphereofSilence]

IckyLicks wrote...

I think comparing these 2 games, DAO and BG 2, is stupid. 

1. Totally different rules and mechanics
2. Different time period of release date (I may not need to state this but the time period really does have a huge factor in a game such as culture, technology, and resources)
3. Bioware's current goals
4.  DAO is not a sequal to BG 2.

I think it reflects that many of us who loved BG2 wants to see the things that made it so great appear for Dragon Age. 

[SphereofSilence]

Vasagralem wrote...

Hi, im looking to buy Dragon Age, and for what ive read so far all that stuff about "spiritual succesor to Baldurs Gate" its not really true, it may have some similarities, but it seems more like a dumbed down version or a version that appeals more to the modern public (in other words dumbed down). So the reason to buy this game seems to be the story-cinematics and the relations development between the main character and the party npcs. So my question is: is this game too much alike KotOR and KotOR 2? Because i liked KotOR 1 a lot, but felt like i wasted my money on Kotor 2 because they were basically the same game, i didnt even finish it, it wasnt even an expansion it was the exact same thing, same gameplay mechanics, same story-system (cant find the word for that:pinched:), same develop of relationships along the journey to all this planets, etc. So, in buying DA:O im buying a Kotor 3 in the core mechanics of the gameplay?

Hope i explained myself enough, english isnt my native language.

The gameplay mechanics aren't the same as in KOTOR series. They're different in that DAO is fantasy while the former was science-fiction.

Regardless of what many of us have complained about the game (me included), it's still a really good game. For the price you're paying you get potentially up to 100 hour gameplay with good story, a good cast of characters, with lots of good dialogs. 

Chances are you're going to like it. I wholeheartedly recommend buying it. 

[CybAnt1]

Atari has the D & D license at this point. So far other than the on-running D & D Online MMO, there have been no D & D games coming out - no strategy, no CRPG, nada. There's nothing been released that uses the 4E ruleset. And they've announced nothing in development. A "successor" per se to BG2 would require D & D rules -- if you're looking for one, it will have to come from there. BTW, there's been no peep from Obsidian about a NWN3, either, or if there will be further OCs after SoZ for NWN2.

[AlanC9]

SphereofSilence wrote...
I think it reflects that many of us who loved BG2 wants to see the things that made it so great appear for Dragon Age. 

What are those things, anyway. Besides sheer size, of course.