255 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiax Rules All]

Baldurs Gate 2 is unbeatable if you ask me, I am replaying it now for about the 12th time or so. It never gets old to me and the characters were the best in any Bioware game. Stop trying to compare your new games to BG, Bioware. You are only setting yourselves up for dissapointment

[Bhaal]

Well... Simply no way.

Bioware lacks the touch that Blackisle had...

Edit: Ah... Mike is talking about "combat". I can believe that.

Modifié par Adakutay, 09 février 2011 - 08:22 .

[Steingrimur Steingrimsson]

Well, I actually prefer Icewind Dale II. The reason? I played it when I was young and thus nostalgia intervenes. I only got to play Baldur's Gate II last year, really. A great game, but not my favourite Bioware game. Again this is because I grew up with NWN and KotOR.

The reason for all this is that the systems involved in reasoning and thinking in our brain are very poorly connected with the systems controlling our emotions.

[Steingrimur Steingrimsson]

Double post? Double post!

Modifié par Steingrimur Steingrimsson, 09 février 2011 - 08:22 .

[JrayM16]

Adakutay wrote...

Well... Simply no way.

Bioware lacks the touch that Blackisle had...

 ??

[Meltemph]

BG2 was good at telling a Forgotten Realms story... That said, I thought KOTOR was a better story by far.

[DPB]

Adakutay wrote...

Well... Simply no way.

Bioware lacks the touch that Blackisle had...

Black Isle only produced BG2, they weren't the developers, that was Bioware.

[Alodar]

Fadook wrote...

Bah, Planescape: Torment had a far better plot and characters than DA:O and BG2 combined.

But at what cost?
You didn't get to choose your gender.
You didn't get to choose your name.
You didn't get to choose your character model.
You didn't get to choose your starting class.

If I have no ownership over the main character, I have no interest in the story.


Alodar

[Mad-Max90]

I got it, you guys are like my grandpa, he loves John Wayne. Since he loves John Wayne, he didn't want to see the new true grit because it wasn't "John wayne's" version, no matter how much better the new one is he wouldn't see it until his friend told him how good it was, now he loves both movies the same

[crimzontearz]

This kinda gets me.....



To me nearly any RPG that is at least playable and somewhat engaging is better than BG, like any shooter with the above qualities,to me, is better than Bioshock.....because I throughly dislike the forgotten kingdoms as a setting and I dislike sci-fi timepieces as a setting (yes especially fallout)....



people should stop deifying BG, it was a great GREAT game under a very objective point of view but its position in the hall of videoludic amazingness is very subjective.



Also people should remember that Bioware's very first game was a SHOOTER.....to that extent, of all Bioware games, Mass Effect 2 is ironically the one that goes back to the roots

[AlanC9]

Saibh wrote...
Technically this thread already exist, and I'll say what I said there: "If I watched a series as campy as Xena today, I'd laugh at it. I'd laugh and laugh and laugh. It'd be way over the top. Yet, when I watch Xena, that's not really what I think. Because my nostalgia kicks in, I don't see it like that."

You mean it wasn't supposed to be campy?

[JrayM16]

Alodar wrote...

Fadook wrote...

Bah, Planescape: Torment had a far better plot and characters than DA:O and BG2 combined.

But at what cost?
You didn't get to choose your gender.
You didn't get to choose your name.
You didn't get to choose your character model.
You didn't get to choose your starting class.

If I have no ownership over the main character, I have no interest in the story.


Alodar

Sometimes, espcecially w/ certain devs, there are sacrifices.  I felt that Planescape's sacrifices were worth the things it did much better than BG 1 & 2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Saibh wrote...

You guys make me want to go on a lynching of BGII. Can you not just take off your rose-colored glasses and objective view BGII for what it is? Amazing--for the time. But old, and limited by the budget, engine, and technology of the time.

DAO improved upon nearly every aspect of that game. DAII looks even better, if you ask me. So, yeah, it could easily be a better game. But the holy platform that you have placed that game on refuses to allow you to doubt anything about it.

Comparing BG2 and DAO is difficult, I think, because they're actually very similar games.

I find comparing DAO and BG far more informative, because then I can point to specific features of BG which I prefer to their DAO equivalents.

Like travel.  In DAO (and BG2), to travel to another area you reach the edge of your map and then select a new area from your world map.  It can be any area of which you have heard.

In BG, you again travel by reaching the edge of your map, but then when you select a new area from the world map you're able to choose any area you've visited previously, or any area adjacent to the one you're in - regardless of whether you've heard of it.

So, in DAO, when you leave Lothering, there are a handul of areas scattered across Ferelden you can visit.  But you cannot simply head north to see what you find.  BG allowed this, and it was a good feature.  Similarly, BG wouldn't let you just tell the game you wanted to go to Denerim.  If you haven't been to Denerim before, then you have to travel across all the intervening space to get there.

I much prefer BG's world exploration system to the one BG2 and DAO use.

The only other game BioWare has made that lets you go somewhere and look around for no reason is Mass Effect.

[Cutlass Jack]

Alodar wrote...

But at what cost?
You didn't get to choose your gender.
You didn't get to choose your name.
You didn't get to choose your character model.
You didn't get to choose your starting class.

If I have no ownership over the main character, I have no interest in the story.
Alodar

I must agree with this. However, I will say Planescape was an amazing game despite this. However I still can't play it without thinking how much better it would have been with those options.

Investment/ownership in the character is the most important factor in an RPG to me. Which is one of the reasons I just can't get into games like the Witcher. And also why I worry somewhat that the 'iconic' Hawke will take something away from the experience of DA2.

[RosaAquafire]

BG2 was amazing for its time. But I played it for the first time less than a year ago, and was flabberghaster over just how ... simple it was. And BG1? Even worse. "Character development," storywise AND gameplaywise, was nonexistant in that game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

Who knows, ten years from now we might be having the same discussion, except over DA:O or DA2. You never know how the future will look back...

Ten years from now I hope my all-time top 5 games list doesn't still end in 2003.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alodar wrote...

But at what cost?
You didn't get to choose your gender.
You didn't get to choose your name.
You didn't get to choose your character model.
You didn't get to choose your starting class.

If I have no ownership over the main character, I have no interest in the story.

You got to choose your personality, which is all that really matters to me.

Sadly, these new BioWare games with a voice and wheel don't do that.  We'll see if DA2 manages it.

[Gorthaur X]

Ziggeh wrote...

I don't see how anything could ever be as good as my imperfect memory of something I enjoyed.

Indeed, every disc, hard drive or other digital storage device containing a copy of any of the Baldur's Gate games mysteriously vanished from existence in late 2002 due to, or so rumor has it, a Wish spell cast by a frustrated BioWare employee. For this reason, all we know of this supposedly remarkable game are legends told by doddering old men and women, flickering in and out of lucidity in their rocking chairs in old houses where they now sit waiting for death's sweet release.

[tez19]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Who knows, ten years from now we might be having the same discussion, except over DA:O or DA2. You never know how the future will look back...

Ten years from now I hope my all-time top 5 games list doesn't still end in 2003.

I know mine won't.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Who knows, ten years from now we might be having the same discussion, except over DA:O or DA2. You never know how the future will look back...

Ten years from now I hope my all-time top 5 games list doesn't still end in 2003.

Amen to that.

[Lem Lemoncloak]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Comparing BG2 and DAO is difficult, I think, because they're actually very similar games.

I find comparing DAO and BG far more informative, because then I can point to specific features of BG which I prefer to their DAO equivalents.

Like travel.  In DAO (and BG2), to travel to another area you reach the edge of your map and then select a new area from your world map.  It can be any area of which you have heard.

In BG, you again travel by reaching the edge of your map, but then when you select a new area from the world map you're able to choose any area you've visited previously, or any area adjacent to the one you're in - regardless of whether you've heard of it.

So, in DAO, when you leave Lothering, there are a handul of areas scattered across Ferelden you can visit.  But you cannot simply head north to see what you find.  BG allowed this, and it was a good feature.  Similarly, BG wouldn't let you just tell the game you wanted to go to Denerim.  If you haven't been to Denerim before, then you have to travel across all the intervening space to get there.

I much prefer BG's world exploration system to the one BG2 and DAO use.

The only other game BioWare has made that lets you go somewhere and look around for no reason is Mass Effect.

I understand what you are saying, however I think it's hard to combine a good story and interesting gameplay and at the same time cater to the exploring side of a game with finite resources. You could argue that BioWare managed it with BG however a lot of people complained about those transitional areas lacked in depth and interest. In my opinion they often became a chore, rather than fun.

That's a personal opinion of course, but I think it's the answer to why they have done it in such few games. It simply costs to much and they let the exploring part over to Bethesda and other companies.

Personally I prefered the way they handled it in BG2. That game and PS:T are the best RPG:s in history to date, which is kinda sad.

[Aeryn-Sun]

I must be missing something. I don't see how praising the good bits of DA2 in any way diminishes the value of BG2.

I adore BG2 - I still mod for it, for goodness sake - and I adore DA:O. I don't put them on a scale, like I have to choose one over the other. They're both fantastic games, and I expect DA2 will be fantastic as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tez19 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ten years from now I hope my all-time top 5 games list doesn't still end in 2003.

I know mine won't.

Mine are currently 1985, 1989, 1998, 1999, and 2003.

[SDNcN]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

You guys make me want to go on a lynching of BGII. Can you not just take off your rose-colored glasses and objective view BGII for what it is? Amazing--for the time. But old, and limited by the budget, engine, and technology of the time.

DAO improved upon nearly every aspect of that game. DAII looks even better, if you ask me. So, yeah, it could easily be a better game. But the holy platform that you have placed that game on refuses to allow you to doubt anything about it.

Comparing BG2 and DAO is difficult, I think, because they're actually very similar games.

I find comparing DAO and BG far more informative, because then I can point to specific features of BG which I prefer to their DAO equivalents.

Like travel.  In DAO (and BG2), to travel to another area you reach the edge of your map and then select a new area from your world map.  It can be any area of which you have heard.

In BG, you again travel by reaching the edge of your map, but then when you select a new area from the world map you're able to choose any area you've visited previously, or any area adjacent to the one you're in - regardless of whether you've heard of it.

So, in DAO, when you leave Lothering, there are a handul of areas scattered across Ferelden you can visit.  But you cannot simply head north to see what you find.  BG allowed this, and it was a good feature.  Similarly, BG wouldn't let you just tell the game you wanted to go to Denerim.  If you haven't been to Denerim before, then you have to travel across all the intervening space to get there.

I much prefer BG's world exploration system to the one BG2 and DAO use.

The only other game BioWare has made that lets you go somewhere and look around for no reason is Mass Effect.

If they implemented a travel system similar to BG I think it would have to accompany a reduction in the scope of the game. I really can't see that system meshing well with a game focused on treking across an entire country like in DA:O. It could have worked very well in  campaign like Awakening though.

Modifié par SDNcN, 09 février 2011 - 09:12 .

[BomimoDK]

I seriously think that this game will hit the same spot that BG2 did. It's got the same grade of improvements and tightening that BG2 did. If anyone here forgets i'll remind you that BG2 was a fair chunk more linear and straightforward than BG1. I'm on the wagon