315 réponses à ce sujet

[Ashbery]

I loved BG2 but DA is better in every way in my view.The companion interaction is a much higher level.The 3D letting you zoom,ect makes the gameworld more immersion.The tighter lore is much better than the terrible eveything and the kitchen sink D&D setting.The game story is more mature and political



The combat flows better because the injury system is better than the constant reloading that happened in BG2,and BG2 has an absurd amount of spells that were useless.The fighter and archer class has more tactical options than BG2 ever had.



BG2 only wins by nostalgia in my view.

[FlintlockJazz]

Regarding what Kaerwek said about healing and mages, after starting my own mage I have to agree that combining the two has led to a rather powerful character, but as they also mentioned the limit of 4 characters means that if we were to have a separate healer class then that would mean all four party options would be already chosen for us, limiting our already limited options further. Instead, I reckon that they should have spread the healer role amongst all three classes more, perhaps giving the rogue a 'treat wounds' ability where they can patch up party members at the cost of having to stop fighting while they do so?

[Takrandro]

Let's keep it simple, both are exstremly good games, and both are different, but keep u busy nonetheless,so just enjoy them! besides, u can't compare 2 completly different settings with each other, if it was another Forgotten Realms game, u could, but now u just should't just enjoy the game and try to pull everything out of it;)

[BennyHartless]

So I downloaded the demo for BG2 to see what everyone is talking about. I literally couldn't even play it five minutes. Modern games have spoiled me I guess. I can't take a blast back to 1998 at this point. The graphics are terrible. The control seems pretty ham fisted. I just couldn't dig it. Maybe is was the shiz back in 98, but this is 11 years later.

Modifié par BennyHartless, 21 décembre 2009 - 12:47 .

[Razh2211]

BG2 is from the year 2000 actually.

Also, you would have to play a lot more then 5 minutes to see what is so good about it. Actually, anyone who hasn't played out at least the half of the game doesn't have anything to say in this thread.



Sure, DA is newer, has better graphics, action and whatnot. Story isn't better. Side quests aren't better. Variety of weapons isn't better. Variety of NPC, other characters and enemies isn't better. DA has no formations, no movement patterns. DA doesn't have better maps.

[johngaltjr]

The big thing that made BG2 better for me was atmosphere. Who can forget the feeling of freedom when you first stepped onto Waukeen's Promenade? Athkatla was amazing, Denerium is Trademeet in comparison. DAO is pretty good, but it really fails at capturing any type of city feel. The areas feel much more contrived in DAO. Look at Lothering for example, how ridiculous are the Chanter's board quests?

[Skellimancer]

Baldur's Gate 1&2 have a much more richer feel to the world, it might be 2D but it was good 2D. The areas were large, very detailed and felt more alive. I really enjoyed the city quests, such as finding the serial killer. The game had so much atmosphere.

The spell system in BG was vastly superior, in my opinion.

DA:O does give melee classes some usable skills in battle though, which relives boredom when rolling constant 1s in a long fight.

Modifié par Skellimancer, 21 décembre 2009 - 04:07 .

[Varenus Luckmann]

I wouldn't.

[Tomark]

mmh, i'd say that BG succeeded in making a very good 'CITY' like Amn. Denerim doesn't compare.



All the rest is better in DA:O. Characters in BG are flat (sorry, but saying things like 'it takes more time to romance viconia' means nothing when it's just that she'll say three sentences every ten hours of gameplay, and not 10 every half hour).



Gameplay is much better in DA:O. A character in BG (except mages) was pretty much done at the beginning. Only thing to get it better was loot and attack rates. Also, you could easily have *everything* in BG2, which meant you didn't care about money at all, and stealing was pretty much useless.



The story in BG2 was pretty much a 'classic' in the sense it was an archetype, and really basic. DA:O has little things that makes you smile all the way through, you can *change* things, and every origins gives some nifty differences to dialogs and a few key places.

[Subject696]

BG had some one a bigger scal story DAO you just have to build a army and end a blight end of story BG well you are the child of a god a evil god mutch bigger story



as for teh game play in BG you have 6 peoplein your party and every char you would vind would have a story line you could follow as for your class you where able to have a story quests for class alone so there was more to do in BG



and you have more spells (loves spells) and more armor more weapons more areas to explore



so I say BG is a better and bigger game, if you play for the grathics DA:O is better

[blazin130791]

DA has some things ismiliar to BG but is no way its spiritual succesoras we where told it would be. DA is good, BG is the best, the benchmark i compare all other RPGs to.

[Legion-001]

BG1&2 > DA:O Why?

Quite simply the battles, even the biggest fights in DA:O are little more then barroom brawls in BG1&2 and at no point in ANY game should you have to see a massive battle in the distance and think 'I wish I was in THAT fight'.
The mage battles in BG2 are awesome, there are actually a SERIES of shields and counters, contingencies and defences, a mage battle in BG2 WAS a battle not just mana clash you're dead, crushing prison you're dead, force field your friends are dead THEN you're dead, cone of cold now you're ALL dead... Notice a pattern here?

So:
BG1 8/10 (I think mages could be killed too easily)
BG2 9.5/10 (Awesome battles and quite fun... Not so good for warriors though)
DA:O 5.5/10 (Too many killer bugs (memory leak for one), everything seems to have that half-assed 'we couldn't be bothered' look to it (forests with lots of trees would be nice and PEOPLE in the cities actually LIVING there), missing combat log, useless spells/talents)

Modifié par Legion-001, 21 décembre 2009 - 04:26 .

[blazin130791]

yeah BG was defintly harder and more tactical. some fights like the twisted rune, kangaxx and a few of teh TOB bosses where really hard. The hardest DA battles are like only relatively hard on BG.



saying that once you knew the system, where items where, etc it was pretty easy to own everything, even solo. i never managed to do twisted rune or kangaxx solo but most other bosses i did.

[Subject696]

I played BG solo and cleared every thing solo mostly as a mage but I must agree mages where strong but very weak mostly I would have the save and load a lot for one arrow would kill me but once you get eh very strong spells at the high lvls strust me bg mages where god like only never realy liket the summon fiend why? why summon some thing that would kill you that was the only thing I would not under stand

[Legion-001]

Subject696 You were supposed to cast protection from evil upon you character/party BEFORE summoning an EVIL demon, the demon will only attack those who aren't protected from evil.

[ZeroMystic]

The answer is you don't comare this to BGII because it's not a BG game and has nothing to do with it.

[Skellimancer]

ZeroMystic wrote...

The answer is you don't comare this to BGII because it's not a BG game and has nothing to do with it.

Erm, "Spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate." ring any bells?

[Bullets McDeath]

ZeroMystic doesn't have bells. It's tragic.

[whtnyte-raernst]

outlaworacle wrote...

ZeroMystic doesn't have bells. It's tragic.

Yeah, but it's easy to tell when he has arrived.

[T0paze]

Baldur's Gate II has a better story and a much better villain. It also had better quests, including side quests. Dragon Age has... 3D.

[zazei]

T0paze wrote...

Baldur's Gate II has a better story and a much better villain. It also had better quests, including side quests. Dragon Age has... 3D.

This is how I feel. It's hardly fair to compare the two considering BGII win in every area besides that it looks worse. But for a ten year old game that aged as well as it has that's not too bad. It's also the game with the largest replaybility I ever seen. Because of it's great modding community I still play the game quite regularly and after countless times through the game the only two dungeons that feels like they drag out to me is the starting place (that mods remove) and Windspear hills. The second one though is still better then some of the stuff Dragon Age makes us do. Also I'm probably going to start another BG2 run soon since it been a few months to check the latest versions of some mods, however while I do plan to do one more run of Dragon Age sometime in the future in six months or so I probably have forgotten all about this game while BG2 is still happily right there if I should be tempted to play a little.

Also remember BGII was huge when it was released in ways that Dragon Age just can't compare to. What other game that was released in 99 came on that many discs? I had to rebuy it because one of my original discs broke but from what I can remember BGII was released on 4-6 cd discs.

[Arbiter Libera]

For me DA:O is basically modern day equivalent of Baldur's Gate, with all the pros and cons that come with that (cut down content do make room for technology powering the game, less content because producing it has become way more expensive nowadays than it was back then, wonders of voice acting and cinematics/cutscenes, streamlined interface and mechanics as not to confuse and baffle the casual crowd new to whole RPG scene, etc). It basically had to adjust to modern day audiences that outnumber old-school RPG fans. Closest AAA title compared to it's competition, at least.

DA:O can stand on it's own as a terrific RPG when compared to other recent titles, it's just that it falls short when compared to gold age classics.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 21 décembre 2009 - 06:07 .

[Poet DAO]

I think the comparison is unfair, with capital letters, for DAO.

When the BG series first appeared with BG1, how many books, PnP modules and even comics had been already published regarding the Forgotten Realms fantasy world? Dozens.

Forgotten Realms was a well known, rich and highly developed world then. It had been around almost decades and had a perfectly defined geography, history, mithology and background. It already had a lot of heroes and villains well delineated. Geeez! The earlier gold boxes with Pool of Radiance, Silver Blades, Treasures of the Lost Frontier, etc..., that worked on AT computers with DOS, already showed us Elminster and cities like Neverwinter, Waterdeep and Luskan.
The game/combat system was plain and simple DnD, the same that had worked perfectly for years in PnP games and was proof tested.

When BG appeared the "only" (so to speak) thing they had to do was invent a compelling story, develop the characters and the graphics, and the quests. The combat system and the setting were there for the taking. They had nothing to change, nothing to add.

Now they have developed a whole new world from scratch, with a whole new history, mithology, geography... all new. The game is soooo new it still has no "feeling". It has to be developed. DnD developers for the PnP game knew too well back then that they had to support it with material, modules, novels, art books... they had to do that to spark the magic. This new world is well thought off, but is still empty, not only of people, but also of emotions, of past experiences... right now is hardly more than a random map on a sheet of paper.

If that werent enough, they had to develop a completely new set of rules, a new combat system, new classes and powers. And instead of the simple D20 hit or miss classic for DnD, they have created something more akin to a modern MMORPG, complex and qith a lot of potential, but also untested and that will probably will see a complete development over the years and the  sequels.

The effort has been titanic and `probably, the main part of their energies will now go to the tuning of the system

We will probably see the world take shape and get populated with the 2nd or 3rd official module, when they have time to do that and we begin to recognize the old places and the old characters.

Right now we should look DAO like a great effort, a fun and well thought out game, with a lot of details still to tweak, in a world that lacks some lustre and feels still empty, but with the promise of much more to come if we are patient. And I for one am satisfied enough to give it a fair chance

[MerinTB]

With the caveat that I bought each of these games on release -
I never finished Baldur's Gate (never even got to Baldur's Gate the town) and I tried playing it, over several years, about 4 times.
I finished Baldur's Gate: Shadows of Amn twice - once when it was released, and once maybe 3 years ago. I finished Throne of Baahl once, when it was released, and barely started it in that second play through.
I played Icewind Dale three times to completion in a row on release, and then at least once on each expansion at their release, and probably twice in the last five years all the way through.
I played Icewind Dale 2 twice all the way through, though the second time was starting and stopping to do other games.
(I realize that IWD and IWD2 are not Bioware, but they use the same engine as BG)
I tried NWN OC about 5 times (4-6, I lost track) and only once managed to force myself to finish the OC once.  I tried the first expansion pack 3 times and never finished it.  I tried two persistant worlds and didn't stick around form more than a week at either.  NWN is like Phantom Menace to me - I wanted so badly to like it, and kept trying, but in the end just really don't.
DAO I've played through once and am on my second playthrough - so twice in a row, and I'm anxious for my third playthrough with another character and another party. I didn't play KotOR or Mass Effect or Jade Empire 3 times in a row (I did play KotOR twice in a row, though.)

That's how I'd compare them.

BG2 got two (sorta) playthroughs from me over 9 years. DAO will see two playthroughs from me in probably 9 weeks.

Modifié par MerinTB, 21 décembre 2009 - 06:23 .

[blazin130791]

mages where ridiculously overpowered. kensages even more so.