315 réponses à ce sujet

[Skellimancer]

StarMars wrote...

Darpaek wrote...

Lulz! If you find DA:O hard, you won't even make it to the Friendly Arm...

^this

The lack of scaling makes the game a lot harder or easier in some parts. Knowing the game mechanics and rules help a lot. But the mages are just damn...

Not all the mages were tough.

www.youtube.com/watch skip to 7:10. anyone know how to add the time into the link?

Modifié par Skellimancer, 22 décembre 2009 - 01:59 .

[SphereofSilence]

kingthrall wrote...

the worst part of all is that baldurs gate had somthing over 60-80 balanced spells not including mods, this game had a meagre 70 and over half are useless in combat as they are severley underpowered.

Heck it seems to me BG2 had close to 200 spells!

[Grommash94]

Hmmm....I give BG a 9.5/10, and DA a 9.7/10. I love both games.

[Sam -stone- serious]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Ten years on, BG2 is still the better game for me. It has more content (200++ hours) and more consistently quality quests than in DAO. It's combat/spells systems was deeper and more rewarding. There were tons of weapons and armor loots and kick-ass legendary items. It's character customization offers tremendous scope and depth to craft a truly unique character that no one else has. The story brought the PC and co to numerous places of far more memorable than in DAO in one truly epic adventure. There were twists and revelations that DAO lacked. Companion interactions were almost as good as DAO, with one or two characters having longer and deeper progression when it comes to dialog. The likes of Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Yoshimo remained deeply seated in memory more so than the current crop of DAO party members. Some companions will leave you if you made the wrong choice, some will fight you and die, some will fight with other companions. There were many such memorable instances, but one in particular stands out - Yoshimo whom I came to cherish as a friend and comrade, was geased by Irenicus, thereby led me to a trap the whole time, and forced to fight me against his will. I was forced to irreversibly kill him, his body torn to pieces on my final blow. I was almost on tears. THAT was one of the most profoundly powerful experiences I've had in my gaming life, among many others, most of which comprised of BG2 moments.

It's impossible to really convey all the greatness of BG2 in a go. There's still plenty to be said. No one game till this day came close to surpassing BG2, not even MGS4. Certainly not DAO.

Having said that, it's not fair to compare DA with BG2. BG2 had the benefit of given time and effort solely on building content on an unheard of scale with a well-established engine. For DAO, BW had to content with building an brand new engine from scratch, toolset and the game proper. The better comparison would be between DA2 and BG2 or DAO and BG1.

+1 I cant help but agree.

[Calerion]

^

A great example of "how to quote to an ancient post".

[Loregothe]

DA:O - Great Game. BG2 w/BG2:TOB - Best game ever made. Period. You can argue that point, but you would be wrong

[MerinTB]

Not all, but many of the responses that prefer BG and BG2 talk about more options, a bigger world, more races, etc. -

that's because it was based on a nearly 30 year old property at the time (D&D) in a world that had been created over a decade before the game.

It's like talking about more aliens, more planets, more different cultures, etc., in KotOR than in Mass Effect. Again, based on a 30 year old property.

You have to give Bioware a lot of credit with Dragon Age and Mass Effect for creating their own worlds, their own lore, their own properties. Some of it (especially in DA) is "stock" fantasy at the base, but they still make it their own.

---

As for combat in BG and BG2 - it was never hard, IMO. It was fun. But the travelling and large open maps and random encounters made the first game especially boring at times (why I never finished it - the traveling alone brought me to tears - you can see why I hate MMOs.)

As for characters better in which game - yes, Minsc and Viconia were memorable. But for as many "I hate Morrigan" and "Alistair's a wuss" threads I see, I saw far more "I hate Jaheira" and "Aerie's worthlesss" ones. I'd say, on balance, the characters are about as good. Who equals Minsc? Depending on your tastes in humor, I give Shale or Zevaran. Who's as lame as some think Alistair is? That bard (can't remember his name, never took him with me) or the evil thief (I did take him with when I played evil but he sucked so bad story and character-wise.)

It's six of one, half a dozen the other.

Modifié par MerinTB, 22 décembre 2009 - 06:01 .

[cw8]

No comparison, BG2 is superior. Leave the graphics, D&D system, DAO system out. BG2 still has better gameplay, much more interesting sidequests, artwork in BG2 is more epic(artwork not graphics) and you got Irenicus, one of the best gaming villians of all time, DAO has practically no interesting villians let alone anyone who can even challenge Irenicus to the throne of Best Villian. And also Minsc.

Modifié par cw8, 22 décembre 2009 - 06:11 .

[MerinTB]

You know, melodramatic voice acting by David Warner alone knocks Irenicus off his throne a bit as "great villain." End of line.

Also - prissy elf who lost his elfhood and wants to take immortality from the son of the god of murder - not the most intriguing or compelling of evil schemes.

[Greyclouds40]

Hmm... I find both games to be equal in terms of sheer enjoyment, but I believe alot of the people who exalt BGII in this thread simply have a bad case of nostalgia (I do as well).



Combat:

DA:O takes the cake here. Warriors and rogues can actually do something other than auto-attack. BGII only addressed this shortcoming of the "physical folk" in its expansion, and even then it was only in response to the limitations of the THAC0 system (THAC0 was a pretty poor statistical concept... at higher levels you only had to roll to see if you got a critical hit or a critical miss). Mages feel... right... in DA:O. Powerful, but not the exploitable gods of BGII fame. I do lament the fact that there are incredibly few spells that can be used outside of combat (maybe addition of some "skills" that are particular to the mage class are in order?) in DA:O, but the spells that are used in combat are actually all potent and useful in their own regard. If you consider the glyphs to be worthless, I don't think you've ever really played DA:O.



Story:

In terms of the creation of a whole new world and culture? DA:O takes the cake. You only have to read ONE R.A.Salvatore book to understand the culture and background of the forgotten realms setting of BGII. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but hell people: give the writers of DA:O credit here! They created a game world with a subtle nod towards a concept of sacrifice. That's a HUGE undertaking in and of itself!

Overall story arch? BGII slightly edges out the win, but almost lost primarily because choice is relatively absent in BGII. You have no choice but to be a relative do-gooder. Hell, I'm having a BLAST in DA:O being a selfish dwarven commoner! You'd be heavily restricted in BGII if you went towards a more evil route. Having said that, there were a couple dialogues in BGII that stuck with me. DA:O's storyline was memorable, but seemed to take a back seat to the world creation undertaken by the writers.



Replay value:

DA:O wins here. And I've played BGII 4 times through (2 times with the expansion; one of those times as a solo sorcerer just to experience the "speed run" route). Opening vignettes was a BRILLIANT idea by the DA:O team! It means that for 6 separate playthroughs, it's your own fault if you play through the first couple of hours in the same fashion.



I don't know about you guys, but Irenicus' dungeon got REALLY old for me. It took about the same amount of time to exit it as it does to finish a DA:O origins story, but the stories are more interesting simply because they're fresh each time (and not an overt way to... divest... you of your equipment).



Final verdict: Both are great games. I sincerely hope that Bioware makes a sequel or a lengthy expansion. They've locked down me as a purchasing client for many years to come.

[Pystall]

Mordaedil wrote...

I give BG2 a 4/10 and DAO a 10/10. BG gets a 6/10.

Are you sure you are not talking about the console BG and BGII?

I mean, BG as well as BGII were amazing.  I still install it and play it like once a year.  What did you give Planscape Torment, or Icewind Dale?

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I just want tomake sure you are not confused as to the PC versions vrs the console.

[Vandarr1]

BG2 was the best gaming experience ive ever had.The sheer number of outstanding mods gave the game so much more to offer.Thinking back on my many playthroughs i cant begin to seperate the actual original game from the game+mods.It was truly epic.

[MerinTB]

Greyclouds40 wrote...

Hmm... I find both games to be equal in terms of sheer enjoyment, but I believe alot of the people who exalt BGII in this thread simply have a bad case of nostalgia (I do as well).

(...)

I don't know about you guys, but Irenicus' dungeon got REALLY old for me. It took about the same amount of time to exit it as it does to finish a DA:O origins story, but the stories are more interesting simply because they're fresh each time (and not an overt way to... divest... you of your equipment).

Final verdict: Both are great games. I sincerely hope that Bioware makes a sequel or a lengthy expansion. They've locked down me as a purchasing client for many years to come.

I may come across as not having like BG2 -  which simply is not true.  I loved it when I played it!  It set the bar for so many games after it.  I attribute BG2 with creating several tropes of CRPGs, good tropes that is (like intra-party banter.)

I do think nostalgia is a factor, for me as well.  As I stated when I tried to replay it was hard to make it through the first part of the game and then other games drew my interest more than finishing the expansion again (and not new games, either - I was itching for some replay of Freedom Force, Icewind Dale, and VTM: Bloodlines, all of which I finished the replays through all expansions and such.)

DAO is just a much more polished product, as in knowing game design.  Are there places where a DA 2 would make vast improvements?  Sure, of course, I'm positive the designers at Bioware were thinking of things to change or improve before DAO was even being playtested.

--

Irenicus's dungeon was annoyingly repetitive the second time I played through it already.  As were a few other points in that storyline.  Don't get me wrong - they were awesome the first time through, but second time many parts of the game were not as compelling.  I've really not hit that in DAO yet on my second time through as there are so many different paths you can take with most of the choices.  And that's not even considering I have 6 new beginnings to play the game with.

I think many people made a mistake when they started and played through each origin before finishing the game.  It's like saving before an important decision and reloading to try each different option to see what happens.  More power to you if you enjoy that, but realize that you really limit replayability by doing so.  Something I did - I only stuck to the same 3 party members as much as possible and only spoke to them in the camp if I could help it.  Gave me more "new" content to experience on replays when I pick a different crew.

--

BG2 is certainly a classic, and a great game.  I can fully accept many people loving it beyond anything that could ever be made outside of it.  I feel the same about Freedom Force, personally, and Icewind Dale.  But please, don't tell people with different tastes who might like BG2 but like DAO more that they are "wrong" - this is almost entirely a matter of opinion, of personal taste.

Honestly, enjoyment of entertainment and preferences in music, movies, books, etc, is the one place where opinions are truly never wrong.

Modifié par MerinTB, 22 décembre 2009 - 08:52 .

[Edelwolf]

Greyclouds40 wrote...

Combat:
DA:O takes the cake here. Warriors and rogues can actually do something other than auto-attack. BGII only addressed this shortcoming of the "physical folk" in its expansion, and even then it was only in response to the limitations of the THAC0 system (THAC0 was a pretty poor statistical concept... at higher levels you only had to roll to see if you got a critical hit or a critical miss). Mages feel... right... in DA:O. Powerful, but not the exploitable gods of BGII fame.

Well said. Finally a little class balance.

Gameplay wise DA is better.
There's some legitimate variety in assigning your ability scores (rogues mostly). It's great that Warriors and rogues now get a choice of skills and powers to develop on levelup.  It's also nice sometimes those skills pop up during dialogues.

The crafting is limited, but better than nothing.
The camp makes party management less of a hassle. The inventory is more practical.


BG2 wins on size and scope, but consdering the hours going into 3d modeling, something like that is not something you can expect anymore from a modern game. The replay value from the origins somewhat make up for it; this is as long as it gets.

[jasonirma]

Actually, this is one of the best threads I've read in this forum. Excellent opinions: all valid.



I'm not done DA:O yet. But once I got about 20+ hrs in, I realized how many people began to compare DA:O and BG series. So, I ordered the BG 4-in-1 DVD, I also ordered the Planescape:Torment DVD, and I've yet to buy the Icewind Dale stuff, though I probably will.



For those, who like me have not played those games before DA:O, here's my initial thoughts...



For BG, I decided I liked the concept of playing through from BG1 to BG2 without having to import my character. For that, I downloaded several mods and tried them. The one I found better than Tutu was the Weidu mod that seemed to be more compatable with other mods and much easier to install. I also used the Widescreen mod to really make the sprite graphics much better (and they are). The opening of BG takes a lot of time to get used to. The UI is very clunky (lots of clicks, lots of experimenting). The combat is okay--though it can't quite capture the love I feel for DA:O.



While the combat log is a definite plus for BG (since I can't quite perform the math I need quick enough with fleeting overhead hitpoints that are generated in DA:O), there is a lot of UI clutter to make the attacks work the way I want them to.



Many have cited the depth of the spell lines in BG as a plus. It's been quite a few years since I played AD&D, and so my familiarity with the spellset is all but gone in my memory. Therefore, it's hard to know which spells I think will fit best for my character in BG. And I have to say, the need to "memorize" a spell followed by a sleep period to make it reappear in my spell list is, well, not nearly as immersive for me. I guess I'll accept that it's an arbitrary cooldown period, but still...The tooltip banner is sluggish in BG, but okay--not nearly the depth that is afforded a modern game and that makes it hard for those of us who've not played this game before.



So far I'm a few hours in...past the Friendly Arm Inn (which was a cool layout and design). The wandering is unfamiliar mostly due to not knowing much about where to go or what to do. In that way, I guess, though, I am much more like the main character in BG--he is equally as perplexed by the outside world. I'll keep playing since everyone says it's worth it.



However, I have to say that Planescape:Torment got me right from the start. It's a bizarre storyline but much more engaging. To open with a character like Mort is just brilliant. The story is so good--and some of the artwork so rich, that I think I'll ultimately love P:T much more than BG just from the way it resonates with me.



Anyone who wants to gauge the difference between the two need look no further than the pdf manuals. BG is epic in its length: it's too big even to be printed at nearly 180 pages (!). I miss the days of gloriously long and beautiful printed manuals.



In contrast, P:T's manual is short but funny as hell. I laughed tons at some of the jokes in the MANUAL! That's a really interesting thing, too, since I can't remember giggling reading through a manual before.



DA:O is different from either BG or P:T, IMHO. I feel like DA:O is more real in many ways, but probably due to the 3D engine, the flow of the combat, and the voicework. It's hard to deal with BG's interrupted voice overs (that incidentally are frequently different than the text of what a character is saying--making it a bit distracting). P:T is awesome.



How lucky are we all to have these huge quality games even available to play! It sounds like we're all talking about enjoyable pastimes, folks.

[Mordaedil]

Pystall wrote...
Are you sure you are not talking about the console BG and BGII?

I mean, BG as well as BGII were amazing.  I still install it and play it like once a year.  What did you give Planscape Torment, or Icewind Dale?

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I just want tomake sure you are not confused as to the PC versions vrs the console.

I was being unnecessarily antagonistic.

Thing is, I like Baldur's Gate 1, but after playing through it I kinda lost the desire to ever see it again. Not that it held true, but it's a horrible feeling to leave a game with.

Baldur's Gate 2? Never appealed to me. I really tried to like the game, I did. But I try to follow a plot-line and hit a wall and then can't bring myself to reload the game to bother anymore and I quit and play something else, something I find better.

[devSin]

MerinTB wrote...
You know, melodramatic voice acting by David Warner alone knocks Irenicus off his throne a bit as "great villain." End of line.

You might be on to something there.


Oh, except that his performance was brilliant. End of circle.

Modifié par devSin, 22 décembre 2009 - 10:08 .

[blazin130791]

I miss edwin, "Could my opinion of this group drop any lower? Evidently so."

[Pystall]

Skellimancer wrote...

StarMars wrote...

Darpaek wrote...

Lulz! If you find DA:O hard, you won't even make it to the Friendly Arm...

^this

The lack of scaling makes the game a lot harder or easier in some parts. Knowing the game mechanics and rules help a lot. But the mages are just damn...

Not all the mages were tough.

www.youtube.com/watch skip to 7:10. anyone know how to add the time into the link?

Speaking of tough mages... The Litches in BGII (some of them anyway) were freakin hard to kill depending on when you stumbled upon them.  If you didn't know that the fight was coming you were not prepared and thus you bit the dust.

Fun games are fun.

[Pystall]

Mordaedil wrote...

Pystall wrote...
Are you sure you are not talking about the console BG and BGII?

I mean, BG as well as BGII were amazing.  I still install it and play it like once a year.  What did you give Planscape Torment, or Icewind Dale?

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I just want tomake sure you are not confused as to the PC versions vrs the console.

I was being unnecessarily antagonistic.

Thing is, I like Baldur's Gate 1, but after playing through it I kinda lost the desire to ever see it again. Not that it held true, but it's a horrible feeling to leave a game with.

Baldur's Gate 2? Never appealed to me. I really tried to like the game, I did. But I try to follow a plot-line and hit a wall and then can't bring myself to reload the game to bother anymore and I quit and play something else, something I find better.

I can understand that.  I was lucky enough to play the BG when it first came out.  I had never played anything like it before and I was in heaven.  The next game for me was Icewind Dale.  I had even more fun from that game than I did with BG.  Then I played BGII and PS Torment.  I had so much fun with these games that I pursued all of the expansions and extra mods etc that I could find. 

It may have been all in the timing for me.  I haven't played a game since that felt like the old BG type games.  When I heard that DA:O was going to be the next BG type of game, I was wicked excited.  I have been having a lot of fun with DA:O and I have to say  that I think they have done a fantastic job.  The interface is a little odd but it works and I enjoy pausing to give orders and to watch the battle frozen in time.  The screenshots alone are fun to look at. 

I seem to be rambling on...  All I can say is that I enjoy all of these games and I hope to see more of them.  I miss the 2D art most of all.  Searching for little nooks and crannies for that trap or hidden stash.  Good times.  lol

Take care,

[rjabber]

I enjoy both games immensely. I played BGii dozens of times. I have finished DAO and have several parallel DAO replays currently underway. These games are an escape from daily life. I like a difficult intellectual game.



Both games had unexpected plot twists.



DAO has better camera angles, graphics, etc. DAO had beeter moral dilemnas and tought choices. Fighter is pretty good. Dual wield is fun and I love shield bash, but it gets less useful in the end-game.



The place that BGii was better was the complexity of combat. You had to think long and hard before approaching some fights, The number of spells was great. The equipment and skills alternatives were wonderful. Unfortunately some DAO combat feels like rinse-lather-repeat. There are a few key spells (eg crowd control with cone-of-cold). Some fights are just wave after wave of similar opponents. I got frustrated in a few fights, not due to difficulty, but due to repetition.



Bottom line is that I feel DAO is the best game in years.

[buzzti]

ok obviously im a bg2 fanatic and i surely cannot grasp the idea that dao is equal or better than bg2;
at the moment im halfways in my second playthrough in hard difficulty in dao and so far it is a very good game
but nothing more

let me show you some points where bg 2 shines all the brighter that havent been said in this thread before

exploration coupled with hidden treasures:

i did like 7 complete playthroughs of bg 2 and each time there where new areas, new monsters, new items to be found (im talking about the vanilla bg2)

in dragon age i think i already found every corner (there arent that many) in the first playthrough and there were no treasures to be found in these corners (e.g. gaxxkang being a lousy ripoff off kangaxx)

combat system and party management:

it is restrictive to put it mildly, you will need a healer (honestly! solo runs with guerrilla tactics like hide and arrow of slaying dont count) that leaves you with 2 open slots to vary and if you dont want locked chests, doors and traps you will need a rogue (no i wont run back home to fetch one after all is said and done) it is merely one slot to vary your walkthroughs;

furthermore the offered skills and spells arent enough, keep in mind if you spec your party members in a way that makes sense you will end up with 2 to 4 warriors skilled the same way (no follower autolevel mod) and 2 rogues and 2 mages skilled the same way (ok im using mages only as clerics but i love meleeing)

whereas in bg2 you have a tremendous pool of party members with a vast set of skills/spells to choose from like will i use a pure cleric or will the dual classed one suffice or shall i give the druid a chance this time for the healer spot

someone earlier in this thread stated that one has to keep in mind that bw had invented a whole new setting and an all new combat system, this is surely true but that doesnt make them better than they are (they are good dont misunderstand me here)

additionally all the other things already said are all counting in for bg2,
the sheer size (200+hours of fun for bg2 without the addon every time you play it not only the first time), the epic story, the living world, the legendary items (compare the smithing of the hammer of the thunderbolts with the dragon scale armor smithing in daoc or good old cespenar going through all your stuff in search of something), the villains (i love sarevok, his armor, his voice or bodhi or joneleth, culminating in a battle with them all in david gaiders ascension mod at the end of tob), and the most wonderful part is getting to know ur companions ,to love them, to care for them and to fight for them (like in jaheiras relationship or imoen and bodhi at the end of bg2);

honestly i cried at the end of bg2 the first time as i read what had become of them

sorry for all the grammar and spelling issues im from austria :innocent:

Modifié par buzzti, 23 décembre 2009 - 12:51 .

[cw8]

devSin wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
You know, melodramatic voice acting by David Warner alone knocks Irenicus off his throne a bit as "great villain." End of line.

You might be on to something there.


Oh, except that his performance was brilliant. End of circle.

Exactly,

Also find me a villian that you actually grow with in the game. From thinking he's just a crazed power-hungry maniac to understanding his reasons behind all the genocide and even feeling sorry for him. And he's a badass mage with a badass character, the other 100000000 villains are sword-wielding, pretend badass villains.

[The Capital Gaultier]

I liked BG2 a lot when I played it, but DA:O is a better game.

[soteria]

BG2 was a good game. It had a great story with a memorable villain and an interesting start (the first time you play it). I like that the "big bad" isn't just a faceless eeeeeeevil that has to be destroyed, like the archdemon.



In every other way, I think DA:O is superior or equal. Both games have memorable companions and interesting dialogue. Both games are hard the first time you play them, and after that are just... not hard. Actually, I didn't even think BG1/2 were hard the first time. They were "fake hard," like when someone got exploded by a crit and you had to reload. Just like in DA:O, most of the "hard" fights are readily cheesable. Folks, stop pretending Kangaxx was hard... just... don't.



In conclusion, BG1/2 had a better villain (the plot is essentially the same--stop the big bad before he destroys the world). DA:O has better gameplay, graphics, and replayability, and the rest, good and bad, kinda evens out.