315 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Would it not be fairer to compare DAO to BG1 since they were both the first in their respective series? Why are we comparing DAO to BG2? Should not DA2 when it appears be compared to BG2?

[Vincerind]

No, because DA:O is the spiritual(?) successor of BG2. And BG2 got compared to BG1, too. Unfair is only that BG2 had 2D graphics and less spoken text. That made implementing content much easier. IMHO both games are awesome and absolutely worth their price.

[Cottonheaded]

While I really do enjoy Dragon Age, I can't imagine returning to it in a few years. Since I'll play through Baldur's Gate every so often, that seems suggestive of the series having more of an impact upon me, thus leading it to be more of a "classic" than Dragon Age.



Or maybe that's just BG's advantage of being the first video game I've ever played and nostalgia wins by default?

[Minaleth]

I've replayed BGII+ToB recently and I am also replaying DA:O. Both games have their respective pros and cons, both are well replayable and both are great RPGs.

I tend to agree that BGII wins in the matter of gameplay namely combat and sidequests, but also the variety of equipment and enemies. Also the party encounters when you fight against full party equal to your party is something that DA lacks. The difficulty than is not about how many NPC attack you and how many HP they have... I miss the free exploration and interaction with environmnet (though this was not anything groundbraking in BG too).

Apart from obvious (3D, UI, cinematics, character rendering...) I see DA superior in character development and epilogue variety. *shrugs*

And I feel need to add, that BGII's isometric graphics is still the most beautifull game environmnet I've ever seen.

[BomimoDK]

Shotinthedark99 wrote...

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

i've got to throw this in the game though, which is kinda stupid since i don't really agree with it.
but, Irenicus has NOTHING to do with the ballspawn themselves or the ensuing war. it's as if BG2 was one gigantic sidequest just to put some space (and levels) between the first game and the last. he's essentially useless and a waste of time <--- didn't agree with that.

the next part, i do agree with: if they hadn't made HIM the antagonist, they could have focused on the other 5 in bg2. you could have killed off the 3 first in the main plot and we'd have a better connection to the first games story. then the XP could have dealth with the last two or just handlet one and savel Melissan for an epic third game.
why did they make BG2 the way they did? why was it so detached from the path of the story? it's only simple links that reattach the story to the baalspawn. like stealing your soul and such. but these questions have been nagging me forever.
it essentially ended up compressing and diminishing a third epic game with 5 half gods down to an xpack with 5 large as hell battles and the best dungeon ever. but why? why sidetrack when you only have the licence for so long?

[AlanC9]

BomimoDK wrote...

but, Irenicus has NOTHING to do with the ballspawn themselves or the ensuing war. it's as if BG2 was one gigantic sidequest just to put some space (and levels) between the first game and the last. he's essentially useless and a waste of time <--- didn't agree with that.

Well, that's only from the PC's POV. It was very important to Irenicus that the PC was a Bhaalspawn.

the next part, i do agree with: if they hadn't made HIM the antagonist, they could have focused on the other 5 in bg2. you could have killed off the 3 first in the main plot and we'd have a better connection to the first games story. then the XP could have dealth with the last two or just handlet one and savel Melissan for an epic third game.
why did they make BG2 the way they did? why was it so detached from the path of the story? it's only simple links that reattach the story to the baalspawn. like stealing your soul and such. but these questions have been nagging me forever.
it essentially ended up compressing and diminishing a third epic game with 5 half gods down to an xpack with 5 large as hell battles and the best dungeon ever. but why? why sidetrack when you only have the licence for so long?

This has the causality completely backwards, of course. Or do you think they already knew about the Five when they wrote the BG2 main plot?

[Realmzmaster]

Vincerind wrote...

No, because DA:O is the spiritual(?) successor of BG2. And BG2 got compared to BG1, too. Unfair is only that BG2 had 2D graphics and less spoken text. That made implementing content much easier. IMHO both games are awesome and absolutely worth their price.

BG2 got compared to BG1 because it was a continuation of the story about the Bhaalspawn. DA:O for all the marketing hype is not the spiritual successor to BG1 & 2.
DA:O is not based on any of the Forgotten Realms. The only part of being a spiritual successor is that it is made by BioWare who made BG1 & 2.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

DA is a wonderfully told long twisting story, but its just one story.



Baldurs gate 2 tells multiple stories BUT it doesnt have the need develope complex characters a few dialogues the occasional quest but nothing massive except the romance stuff really.



What BG did better was expanding the WORLD allowing you to explore that, to take the world on in which ever way you wanted. It was still the "illusion of choice" that most Bioware games have in that you have to achieve a set of objectives and its the order that you do them in thats the choice but the world was bigger, you could finish the entire game and only see 2/3'rds of it.



What DA does better is the characters, the individuals you travel with are so much more deep and the relationships you form with them are what replace the myriad of intricate side quests Both worlds are long very long, While Baldurs gate is wide without being deep, DA is deep without being wide. That for me is the difference, DA is NOT Baldurs gate, but its the nearest I have found to BG and in todays world where games are getting shorter and more about graphics than gameplay, I will take it.



But I still wish for something with the depth of Character of a modern Bioware game along with the depth of World of BG2.



Heres something for you.



If DA is the "spiritual successor to BG2" then imho The Witcher is the spiritual successor to Planescape torment.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

BomimoDK wrote...

Shotinthedark99 wrote...

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

i've got to throw this in the game though, which is kinda stupid since i don't really agree with it.
but, Irenicus has NOTHING to do with the ballspawn themselves or the ensuing war. it's as if BG2 was one gigantic sidequest just to put some space (and levels) between the first game and the last. he's essentially useless and a waste of time <--- didn't agree with that.

the next part, i do agree with: if they hadn't made HIM the antagonist, they could have focused on the other 5 in bg2. you could have killed off the 3 first in the main plot and we'd have a better connection to the first games story. then the XP could have dealth with the last two or just handlet one and savel Melissan for an epic third game.
why did they make BG2 the way they did? why was it so detached from the path of the story? it's only simple links that reattach the story to the baalspawn. like stealing your soul and such. but these questions have been nagging me forever.
it essentially ended up compressing and diminishing a third epic game with 5 half gods down to an xpack with 5 large as hell battles and the best dungeon ever. but why? why sidetrack when you only have the licence for so long?

BG 1 was your story, BG2 was exploring Imoens story and learning that yours and Sarevoks were not unique stories,  ToB was wrapping it all up.

BG1 was nothing to do with the main plot except the first and last chapters everything else was a giant side quest too   its called a journey of discovery.  As for why Irenicus, bah if you have to ask that you already missed the point of him.

[BomimoDK]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

Shotinthedark99 wrote...

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

i've got to throw this in the game though, which is kinda stupid since i don't really agree with it.
but, Irenicus has NOTHING to do with the ballspawn themselves or the ensuing war. it's as if BG2 was one gigantic sidequest just to put some space (and levels) between the first game and the last. he's essentially useless and a waste of time <--- didn't agree with that.

the next part, i do agree with: if they hadn't made HIM the antagonist, they could have focused on the other 5 in bg2. you could have killed off the 3 first in the main plot and we'd have a better connection to the first games story. then the XP could have dealth with the last two or just handlet one and savel Melissan for an epic third game.
why did they make BG2 the way they did? why was it so detached from the path of the story? it's only simple links that reattach the story to the baalspawn. like stealing your soul and such. but these questions have been nagging me forever.
it essentially ended up compressing and diminishing a third epic game with 5 half gods down to an xpack with 5 large as hell battles and the best dungeon ever. but why? why sidetrack when you only have the licence for so long?

BG 1 was your story, BG2 was exploring Imoens story and learning that yours and Sarevoks were not unique stories,  ToB was wrapping it all up.

BG1 was nothing to do with the main plot except the first and last chapters everything else was a giant side quest too   its called a journey of discovery.  As for why Irenicus, bah if you have to ask that you already missed the point of him.

now that you say it... i kinda already knew it, back inside though. but, irenicus' role... wasn't it just to underline the worth and power of my heritage? (and serve as XP for ToB where you WOULD have to be a semi-god. but, still. why wrap the biggest chapter in the series into this small space. i'd dump irenicus and have you meet him early, should be over quicker. you'll get the same info in a shorter time AND they could squeeze in two baalspawn and set an epic cliffhanger for a third game.

so my real concern was... why sacrifice the largest, awesomest chapter, the one with the biggest content and best reason to flesh out further, for some guy who wants divine powers to take revenge on some elf community.

oh, and no. BG1 wasn't a sidequest. everything tied in with sarevoks plot and the discovery about your true heritage. everything makes sence in that game.

so does bg2 though, except for the fact that it got more air time than the REAL centers of the story.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 13 avril 2010 - 10:29 .

[BomimoDK]

AlanC9 wrote...



This has the causality completely backwards, of course. Or do you think they already knew about the Five when they wrote the BG2 main plot?

i'm guessing not when i'm thinking back at what the council of athkathla was saying in the ending of BG2...

a full third game was planned for whatever they wanted AND the baalspawn.

[Domyk]

But I still wish for something with the depth of Character of a modern Bioware game along with the depth of World of BG2.
.

It comes down to full voice acting, If Dragon ages was majority text read, we would not be as hooked with the depth of the characters like Alistair, Morrigan and Leliana etc.

[astrallite]

BG2 has the highest metacritic score of any PC RPG of all time (95), with an average user rating of 9.3

Baldurs Gate has a metacritic score of 91 with average user rating of 9.3

Dragon Age has a metacritic score of 91 with an average user rating of 8.4.

The players have spoken.

Modifié par astrallite, 13 avril 2010 - 11:59 .

[dbkkk]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Vincerind wrote...

No, because DA:O is the spiritual(?) successor of BG2. And BG2 got compared to BG1, too. Unfair is only that BG2 had 2D graphics and less spoken text. That made implementing content much easier. IMHO both games are awesome and absolutely worth their price.

BG2 got compared to BG1 because it was a continuation of the story about the Bhaalspawn. DA:O for all the marketing hype is not the spiritual successor to BG1 & 2.
DA:O is not based on any of the Forgotten Realms. The only part of being a spiritual successor is that it is made by BioWare who made BG1 & 2.

Bioware developed BG2=ToB but Black Isle developed BG1 (though Bioware authored the engine and assisted Black Isle).

Black Isle also did Plaescape Torment. Bioware later went on to make NWN of course.

[dbkkk]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

frayjog wrote...

...But BG1 > BG2.

I know that there's people who see it that way, but I really cannot get my head around that concept.  For me, BG1 was the reason I put off buying BG2, and only bought it on a whim, after it had been out for a year, and the price had gone down.

When I first picked up BG1, I stopped playing less than half way through, as it was so horribly tedious. I saw the potential there for a great game, but it just wasn't doing it for me - the pathfinding and characters blocking each other, plus the endless areas with essentially nothing in them but repetitive critters killed it for me. 

BG2 seemed to correct everything that made BG1 nearly unplayable for me - it was like the ugly duckling of BG1 had grown up to become a beautiful swan in BG2.

I did eventually finish BG1, only after I'd finished BG2 a couple of times, and wanted to take one character through BG1 and BG2. So I gritted my teeth, and grinded my way through BG1, but man, it felt like work. 

Maybe it has been said before but you can play BG1 on the BG2 engine using EasyTutu to fix the pathing and related issues. Looks great too. The BG2 version of the Infinity engine was much more polished than in Bg1. 

While Bg2 is certinaly much better imo and far more epic than Bg1, I am still enjoying Bg1 atm on a current playthrough. I like a game where almost every zone someone is trying to murder me for nefarious reasons. Especially when you go out and explore, use all your spells, stretch out your day all banged up and bruised and find there is a 'hitman' mage who is tossing spells over the place out in front of the inn you were about to use to take a long recuperative snooze.

Edit:

Make sure you use Sword Coast Strategems mod as it increases the difficulty by a lot. There is also a Swrod Coast Strategems 2 for BG2+ToB. Just fought the vampiric wolf in Ulcaster and that fight was insane at hard difficulty with the SCS mod. Harder than any fight I ever had in DAO (even with difficulty mods).

Modifié par dbkkk, 14 avril 2010 - 12:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

dbkkk wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Vincerind wrote...

No, because DA:O is the spiritual(?) successor of BG2. And BG2 got compared to BG1, too. Unfair is only that BG2 had 2D graphics and less spoken text. That made implementing content much easier. IMHO both games are awesome and absolutely worth their price.

BG2 got compared to BG1 because it was a continuation of the story about the Bhaalspawn. DA:O for all the marketing hype is not the spiritual successor to BG1 & 2.
DA:O is not based on any of the Forgotten Realms. The only part of being a spiritual successor is that it is made by BioWare who made BG1 & 2.

Bioware developed BG2=ToB but Black Isle developed BG1 (though Bioware authored the engine and assisted Black Isle).

Black Isle also did Plaescape Torment. Bioware later went on to make NWN of course.

No, BioWare developed BG1, Black Isle only published the game under the Interplay banner. Black Isle did develop Planescape Torment, Fallout and Icewind Dale.
BG1 & BG2 are all Bioware.

[StuartMarshall]

Well I think the new philosophy is to add real meaty side-QUESTS as DLC and fill the game itself more with these side-sorta quests/tasks. For example, Return to Ostagar and Warden's Keep - while short as paid DLC - would be immense as proper side-quests in the released version itself. But the release itself, while it does have some, is more a case of "go to this place on the world map, kill bandits, come back and collect your reward".

[Vicious]

BG2 had better dragon-fighting music.

[perry2]

Vicious wrote...

BG2 had better dragon-fighting music.

BG2 had better dragons too. DAO required very little stategy to beat them. The ones in BG were the highlight of the game.

The individual quests in DAO set it apart from BG nicely, but the chapters, except for the Mage tower, didn't really compare to the Underdark, Bodhi, or the other large adventures of BG2. BG2 is so monstrous in its scale, with its myriad of different monsters and more NPC options. The DAO series will never offer anything as massive as BG2,. There just isn't enough money in it. when they can sell you half the material in scraps as DLC and make twice as much money. 

I do think we haven't seen the last of D & D based RPGs from Bioware.The D & D game and legendarium has a pretty devoted following and is a license to print money. I expect we will have to wait for DAO to run its course unless another developer picks up the rights and runs with them as with Interplay/Black Isle, althugh I guess the white knight there now would maybe have to be Obsidian since they were still producing NWN material as recently as 2008. Would Bioware license BG3 to Obsidian?

[perry2]

astrallite wrote...

BG2 has the highest metacritic score of any PC RPG of all time (95), with an average user rating of 9.3

Baldurs Gate has a metacritic score of 91 with average user rating of 9.3

Dragon Age has a metacritic score of 91 with an average user rating of 8.4.

The players have spoken.

I think this relates to the expectation the game would play closer to the BG series. The next full game under the DA banner will be saddled with none of these expectations, and should be as much a jump from from DAO as BG2 was from BG. Hopefully they don't go  too far with the DLC as it really seems like buying xp and  a few magic items as opposed to game expansions. The Shadow Dragon in BG2 was a quest. Soldiers Peak in DAO is buying a suit of video game armor with real money.

Modifié par perry2, 14 avril 2010 - 03:44 .

[AlanC9]

Realmzmaster wrote...
BG2 got compared to BG1 because it was a continuation of the story about the Bhaalspawn. DA:O for all the marketing hype is not the spiritual successor to BG1 & 2.
DA:O is not based on any of the Forgotten Realms. The only part of being a spiritual successor is that it is made by BioWare who made BG1 & 2.

What exactly do you think "spiritual successor" means, anyway? You really thought that had something to do with being in the FR? Seriously?

[AlanC9]

astrallite wrote...

BG2 has the highest metacritic score of any PC RPG of all time (95), with an average user rating of 9.3

Baldurs Gate has a metacritic score of 91 with average user rating of 9.3

Dragon Age has a metacritic score of 91 with an average user rating of 8.4.

The players have spoken.

Are you really sure that metacritic numbers can be compared for products released several years apart?

Not that I, or anyone else, should care.

[CybAnt1]

I do think we haven't seen the last of D & D based RPGs from Bioware.

You think wrong. Atari currently owns the Hasbro-WotC IP rights. EA doesn't. Therefore they can't. Of course, Atari may be squandering those rights to produce crap, but there's nothing we can do about that. 

http://arstechnica.c...d-franchise.ars

Don't get me wrong - I'd like somebody to do a D & D 4E SP-RPG someday - at the moment it can't be Bioware.

Plus, I think they like being out from under the IP thumb of Hasbro-WotC, who has to approve every possible color change to every yuan-ti. It's nice to own your own IP and not have to kiss another corporation's *ss to change what something looks like or what a spell does. 

[AlanC9]

perry2 wrote...
BG2 had better dragons too. DAO required very little stategy to beat them. The ones in BG were the highlight of the game.

It's not like BG2 dragons required much strategy. They were hard, but that's not the same thing. You still had to just run the standard playbook at them -- plus fire resistance for Firkraag, of course.

Would Bioware license BG3 to Obsidian?

Bio never owned those rights, so no.

[Vicious]

Once upon a time, a terrible france-based game publisher named Infogrames decided to change it's image, and purchased the Atari name, long defunct, and published a few good games, and then went back to it's original plan of cranking out lots of crap.