29 réponses à ce sujet

[Pugnate]

I played the hell out of BG2 back in the day. I finished it at least five times (including the expansion.)

So the other day I started DA again for the second time. After finishing the origin story, I couldn't really bring myself to play too much further.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Dragon Age to bits, so I don't get it.

Anyone else found BG2 more compelling for a replay than DA? 

I am thinking it is because BG2 had a lot more variety. BG2 took us to various fantastical places, all great to absorb. DA was essentially in the same kingdom.

[mr.chicken]

These comparisons are always tough. The simple answer is that they are two very different games (even though DA was billed as the spiritual successor to BG), so comparing them on the exact same level is difficult to do.



HOWEVER. That's what forums are for right?



Dragon Age was an excellent game. Really a gem of a game surrounded by 10-hour first person shooters and "epic" 30 hour role playing games. In today's rpg market, only Oblivion gives me as much immersion as Dragon Age and I still enjoyed Dragon Age much more than Oblivion (hated the leveling system in that game).



With all of that being said, however, it doesn't come close to Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. The amount of detail and replay value for those two games has never been duplicated. Both games are HUGE with BG2 easily encompass over 250-300 hours of in depth gameplay. The dialogue was witty (fully voiced dialogue was not necessary at all), and I still find the 2D Infinity engine to have absolutely gorgeous settings.



To me, the BG series represent the greatest feat in CRPG history. I don't expect that to be matched any time soon (maybe ever). So while I seem to have more enjoyment replaying Dragon Age than yourself, it certainly isn't Baldur's Gate in terms of depth and replayability.

[Kevin Lynch]

I think you're right about the difference between BG2 and DA:O and their respective replay values, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. I think BG2, admittedly an awesome game and one of my all-time favourites, had it good to be released at a time when gamers had longer attention spans and when gaming in general wasn't as pervasive as it is today. In other words, players were willing to keep at a single game longer and there weren't as many games vying for the same leisure time. In a story-based game these days, it takes something truly extraordinary to hold the player to it.



I love DA:O and I intend to keep coming back to it for a while yet. But I've developed a back-log of games because of how cheap and easy it is to get them online. This takes me away from DA:O. A decade ago, I probably would have had only a few major games that I played in an entire year and keeping at a single game like BG2 was relatively easy.

[caladorne]

Count me in the BGII camp as well. There's no telling how many hours total I spent there! With that said, I'm running my fourth pc in DAO.

[Strikers1945]

I was thinking of making this exact same post. I'm still finding it hard to keep at my first playthrough with DA:O. I was considering restarting another campaign in BG2 instead. I was taken aback with the linear aspect of DA:O after so many people reviewed it as the successor to BG2.

[BomimoDK]

Funny enough, I find myself unable to discuss this properly. The differences are just too great. You can't tell me that DA:O wasnt diverse. BGII used nations, DA:O used different racial cultures. I never play BGII by itself. I think it's a "**** game" played that way. I play the BGT mod because i'm a major fan of BG1's combat balance and the feel of you being small in a big world rather than a mamoth in a china shop, which you became in late BGII. DA:O has both feels, but you'll find that whenever you feel like the China shop is crumbling, something massive brings along a shrinking laser and you're back down feeling like it's a vicious fight to win. Love that.



To me BGT used to own the knickers off DA:O. Especially due to greater challenge. But now, i've started to REALLY study DA:O and i find that playing it at stock rules (hard) is just what makes this game close enough to BG to warrants its place just beside it.



Right now, i'm into Dragon Age lore over Forgotten Realms lore, so DA:O is my pick of the day. But 90% of times people ask me, I'm in a Faerûn mood.

[Gecon]

DA has a lot less party variance.

Only 4 people in party (BG1+2 had 6), only three classes (BG2 had 11), no less than TWO specializations (4 per class) are forced upon you (unlike BG where taking a spec was an advantage/disadvantage deal and keeping the core class was definitely a not too bad option), only Mages actually have a larger range of variety while Warrior / Rogue just spec into a fighting style.

As a plus theres some details in the rule system that are better - Warriors and Rogues get active abilities. But basically they all get the same active abilities, theres not much variance to find.

All in all its not a great system. Its not the most suckage system either. At least some parts are not too bad.

[Gecon]

As a quick idea of what I would do differently if asked to fix the DA system:

- Give every class stats that are meaningful.

For example, Mages might choose between:
1. Willpower that specifies how hard it is to resist your spells and how much basic cost your spells have
2. Wisdom that specifies how much mana you have available and how much defense you have against spell damage
3. Intelligence that specifies the damage of your spells, how complex spells you can learn, and how expensive your higher spells are
4. Empathy that specifies how effective your supportive spells (heals and buffs) are and how fast your regenerate mana

That way you would have to choose which kind of mage you prefer, not just pump Int like the last idiot as you do in DA.

Likewise for Warrior and Rogue.

- Dont let people increase stats with every levelup. Thats boring and superflous. Just take level into consideration as well if you want to compute how effective some action is.

- Remove the skilltrees. Let people choose freely what spells or talents their mage or non-mage should be able to access. Dont force people to take skills they dont want to get skills they want. Rather give them less skills to choose from.

- Redefine skills. Skills arent talents. You should be able to operate well as a Rogue level 1 already, like in DnD. Not wait until level 10 until you have a meaningful set of skills.

- Completely change the warrior / rogue talents. Make them be able to learn different techniques. Make techniques available for multiple styles. Make warrior / rogue as varied as mages already are.

- Redefine specializations. Dont force them on people. Let specializations have disadvantages (right now they are advantage only).

[BomimoDK]

In short. reinstate the 2nd Ed D&D rules? Not for this game mate. But i'd ****in love a new game with that ruleset. 3rd and 4th editions are just cakewalks due to too many opened doors.



Freeze the stats: hell yes. Agree. then the gear bonuses would REALLY count for something.



Remove skilltrees: no. It would really beat the balance silly. However, weapon skills should be accessible to every class so that an Arcane Warrior could train shield or a Rogue could use a two-handed staff (which aren't in the game at all).



DnD. or at least back when therr were actual classes and not just characters with levels from everywhere... 2nd ed. Back then, you were jackderp untill at least level 4. DA is no different. There's a learning curve for the character to improve.



Yes. make them varied, expand the trees but don't let the class specific talents be accessible to other classes.



Agree. but the current system actually works well enough IMO.

[Frolk]

I've replayed BG2 tonnes of times and it's always seemed fresh to me. I think part of it is how companions are managed: rather than collect everyone and have them hang around in camp, BG and BG2 limit you to a handful of companions who will generally stay with you for the rest of the game. In effect, this means that each playthrough of BG2 will involve a different adventuring party with different interactions and different sidequests.



Of course, it's possible to ignore half of your followers in DA:O and intentionally not do certain sidequests on one playthrough so that you can do them on another, but completionists like myself have a bit of trouble with that.

[Strikers1945]

Wholeheartedly agree. I was way more attached to my characters in BG2 than I'm finding in DA:O.



What's that Boo? Feel the backhand of justice!!

[GithCheater]

BG2 companions had some funny one-liners, but interaction with these cardboard one dimensional companions was virtually non-existant. Also, because of the clunky user interface, I spent almost as much time buffing as I did fighting in a battle. I felt more relief than joy when I finally finished BG2 and could play DAO again.

[hannibal555]

Baldur's Gate II wins by far.

More complexity and better atmosphere.



The tubular level design of DA gets old fast.

[BelgarathMTH]

I love both games on their own merits, and I replay them both frequently. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses.



Even though Bioware promoted DAO as BG's successor, I really think that it's apples and oranges between the two.

[iremojllah]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I think you're right about the difference between BG2 and DA:O and their respective replay values, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. I think BG2, admittedly an awesome game and one of my all-time favourites, had it good to be released at a time when gamers had longer attention spans and when gaming in general wasn't as pervasive as it is today. In other words, players were willing to keep at a single game longer and there weren't as many games vying for the same leisure time. In a story-based game these days, it takes something truly extraordinary to hold the player to it.

I love DA:O and I intend to keep coming back to it for a while yet. But I've developed a back-log of games because of how cheap and easy it is to get them online. This takes me away from DA:O. A decade ago, I probably would have had only a few major games that I played in an entire year and keeping at a single game like BG2 was relatively easy.

I've never played either Baldur's Gate or Baldur's Gate II.  I know, I'm deprived, but I agree, Kevin, with your perception of how difficult it is for gamers now to stay focused for any length of time to one particular game for the very reason you say--we're an "instant gratification' society and with the games being put out to market much quicker and the flood of the many types of games, that is what makes the Baldur's Gate series seem better. 

I truly enjoy DA:O and DA:OA, but at this point in time I'm becoming bored with the replay.  I am highly anticipating DA2 in March!  A new storyline and new characters, although I will miss Alistair:wub: not being in DA2 .  I am, however, looking forward to new characters and quests in DA2.

I won't comment on BG or BG2 as I don't have an opinion either way, but Kevin is right...it was easier to stay playing them at a time when there weren't so many games out there to play.  I would love to get Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II for PC, but not sure if it is still available, or if the PC I have would play them.  I've always enjoyed the Dungeons and Dragon's genre of games that were put out for PC, although I only like to play the first person type and not the MMORPG's. 

Otherwise, Kevin, I totally agree with your take on the merits of both games in context of when they were first put out there for players.

[Kevin Lynch]

iremojllah wrote...

I would love to get Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II for PC, but not sure if it is still available, or if the PC I have would play them.  I've always enjoyed the Dungeons and Dragon's genre of games that were put out for PC, although I only like to play the first person type and not the MMORPG's. 

You're in luck, since GoG just recently released both Baldur's Gate: The Original Saga and Baldur's Gate 2 Complete. Will work on XP, Vista, and Win7 and are DRM free.

Now anyone can compare the classics against the new breed, like DA:O. Sometimes it can be difficult looking past the older art style and graphics, if you're someone who likes the shiny newness of today's games. If you can manage it, though, you'll find it's worth it. I hope that DA:O isn't the last game that comes along that has that same feeling from the old BG games; I waited a long time to enjoy a game like that again.

[ladydesire]

To be honest (and I do plan to get Baldur's Gate and BG2) I find DAO is good as is, and I would probably not like it if it became more like D&D, as suggested by Gecon.

[Strikers1945]

iremojllah wrote...
I won't comment on BG or BG2 as I don't have an opinion either way, but Kevin is right...it was easier to stay playing them at a time when there weren't so many games out there to play.  I would love to get Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II for PC, but not sure if it is still available, or if the PC I have would play them.  I've always enjoyed the Dungeons and Dragon's genre of games that were put out for PC, although I only like to play the first person type and not the MMORPG's.  

Word of warning. If you aren't familiar with pencil and paper D&D be prepared for a very steep learning curve. The rules on spell-casting are especially painful. I concede that the way abilities were implemented in DA:O were an improvement in the fun-factor for me. 

[Frolk]

Strikers1945 wrote...
Word of warning. If you aren't familiar with pencil and paper D&D be prepared for a very steep learning curve. The rules on spell-casting are especially painful. I concede that the way abilities were implemented in DA:O were an improvement in the fun-factor for me. 

For sure.  My mage mostly served the party by standing back and slinging rocks at the bad guys because I hated the idea of having him or her waste spells on minor opponents.

[Jean de Valette]

The BG series proved to be the pinacle of Bioware RPGs, and one of the last to focus on story instead of action, generic interchangable NPCs and graphics. Since then they've been trying their hardest to stamp out tactical combat, original NPCs, detailed storyline and statistics in all their games. Which I understand because that's not what the average gamer with an attention span of a goldfish wants.

DA and ME2 are well made games and fun on on their own rights, but the latter is a third person shooter and the first is a homage to Diablo 2. Both have little to do with D&D-style roleplaying or have the depth of the BG series.

I don't blame Bioware for going mainstream but the BG series won't be surpassed by Bioware anytime soon. If ever.

Modifié par Jean de Valette, 13 décembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[HolyAvenger]

Jean de Valette wrote...

The BG series proved to be the pinacle of Bioware RPGs, and one of the last to focus on story instead of action, generic interchangable NPCs and graphics. Since then they've been trying their hardest to stamp out tactical combat, original NPCs, detailed storyline and statistics in all their games. Which I understand because that's not what the average gamer with an attention span of a goldfish wants.

DA and ME2 are well made games and fun on on their own rights, but the latter is a third person shooter and the first is a homage to Diablo 2. Both have little to do with D&D-style roleplaying or have the depth of the BG series.

I don't blame Bioware for going mainstream but the BG series won't be surpassed by Bioware anytime soon. If ever.

110% agreed to all that. I doubt I'll ever play a RPG that even comes close to the BG series (and BG2 in particular).

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Jean de Valette wrote...

The BG series proved to be the pinacle of Bioware RPGs, and one of the last to focus on story instead of action, generic interchangable NPCs and graphics. Since then they've been trying their hardest to stamp out tactical combat, original NPCs, detailed storyline and statistics in all their games. Which I understand because that's not what the average gamer with an attention span of a goldfish wants.

DA and ME2 are well made games and fun on on their own rights, but the latter is a third person shooter and the first is a homage to Diablo 2. Both have little to do with D&D-style roleplaying or have the depth of the BG series.

I don't blame Bioware for going mainstream but the BG series won't be surpassed by Bioware anytime soon. If ever.

I understand it's your opinion, but I have to disagree. The strength of the story in BG/BGII, in my opinion, is in that it's very personal, it's really the story of your character, rather than the story of the war your character got involved in. There, BG was a clear winner.

On the other hand, I've found it much easier to play in a tactical manner in DA. Camera rotation and the lack of fog of war helps considerably, as do markers showing the area of effect of your spells. Roasting your mage or missing that monster with Fireball because you were a few pixels off with targeting isn't fun, and neither is having a "single monster" wipe your party because he's got 20 friends that you can't see until your melee characters try to close. The tactics menu means that I can reasonably expect my companions to do their job, and anything the AI can't handle I can just do myself.

Role-playing is just as wide open in DA, and you don't have the ridiculousness of having your alignment say "Lawful Good" and acting throughout the game as a sadistic bastard. In fact, you're arguably better able to role-play, as you can play your sadistic (or at least unsympathetic) character without the game world actively trying to murder you for it.

Statistics are as important in DA as in anywhere else - they define what your character can do. The only difference is that you don't have to have high everything like in Baldur's Gate, you can specialize in what you want your character to do. Everyone needed high Strength (carrying capacity/to hit/damage), Dexterity (missile to hit/AC), Constitution (HP, though any non warrior could get away with 16), and Charisma (could be dumped if you wanted to make an NPC the party face), Mages needed high Intelligence (spells) and high Wisdom (for [Limited] Wish), and Priests/Druids needed high Wisdom (spells) on top of that. Not much depth in a statistical system that basically said "reroll until you get high stats in everything."

Honestly, it is my opinion that Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II are great stories that suffer from the AD&D rules. Maybe it's just that I played 3rd edition D&D before playing in a 2nd edition AD&D campaign, but I found AD&D labrynthine and unintuitve, and very little of the mechanics were explained in-game, for example, what exactly Bard Song did, what abilities were gained as the character leveled, and so on.


More on topic, I've restarted both games a lot, really the only difference is that I've finished DA. I've found both to have a lot of replay value, but there's only so many times I can go through the opening before it starts to get dull.