255 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fadook wrote...

But you're still getting full control over the personality of your character and your choices affect how the story goes.

That's true for Torment, but we don't know yet if it's true for DA2.

It certainly wasn't true for ME and ME2.

[Cutlass Jack]

Fadook wrote...
But you're still getting full control over the personality of your character and your choices affect how the story goes. The personal investment is still there.

We don't know that to be true in DA2. And in Planescape there certainly wasn't the sense of investment in the character even with those choices. It still beat you over the head with the fact it wasn't your character.

The risk in DA2 is that there's this 'iconic' version of your character that might vary greatly from the actual version of your character. If this only happens the one time in the beginning I think that's fine. But if every time there's some great cutscene or moment it switches to the Iconic Hawke instead of your character, its going to really take away from the sense its your story.

[Gorthaur X]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Exactly.  There are all sorts of games I played in the '80s that just aren't very good when I look back at them.

Gauntlet, for example.

Yeah.

I have an insane amount of nostalgia for the original Pool of Radiance - it was the first CRPG I played - but I can't say I'm really capable of getting into it anymore.

On the other hand, there was a point when I was completely hooked to Master of Magic for several months, and I was introduced to that game only a few years back. I would probably still play it if DOS emulator programs didn't hate me.

[Saibh]

Gorthaur X wrote...

You could just as well say the exact same thing about DA:O or DA2. They are good games - for their time - but limited by budget (in terms of content vs. the cost of developing that content with full voiceovers etc.), engine (3D invariably falls into immersion-breaking uncanny valley territory), and the sensibilities of the time (as evidenced by the horror expressed toward the concept of complexity in a computer game in this very thread).

Yeah, you can. But remember how young the industry of gaming is. There was no pre-genereation of BG to say "this is so much simpler than what I used to play!". Whereas most people can point out that, no matter what the past generation says about music, the generation before them said the same thing. That doesn't exist for gaming.

That these modern sensibilities happen to match your preferences better is great; more power to you. Your preferences, however, aren't any more objective than anybody else's.

 I can objectively say the tactics is far, far more complex than BGII's. That's just comparing what is possible now by what was possible then. Whether DAO is objectively a better, game--well, that's my opinion. But there are plenty of people saying "Oh, DAO will never be as good as BGII" with absolute conviction. And I am mostly just expressing irritation at said conviction.

Apart from that plenty of us do not have the same appreciation for every other game we used to enjoy in the days of yore, there are people who have been introduced to Baldur's Gate more recently - sometimes after DA:O, even - and still enjoyed or preferred it.

I would say a good chunk of them probably have been colored by your nostalgia. It's like how people say Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time without ever seeing it, people who will even defend it's honor without having seen it--why? Because it's a classic, and since top critics all agree it's amazing, younger people make exceptions for it.

And, then, yeah, I'm sure there are people who enjoy BGII more. I'm sure there are a great deal more people who enjoy newer games more. But that's just anecdotal evidence, since neither of us can prove it.

[Blastback]

Okay, let me begin this post by saying that ever since I bought Baldur's Gate 2 in 2001, it has been my favorite game of all time.  Bar none.  To me, it was a revalation.  I had never played anything like it.  The couple of CRPG's that I had played in the past had bored me to tears.  The turn based combat was a complete turn off.  But this was exciting.  And it was big.  Really big.  And immersive.  And, I was hooked.  One of my friends had just gotten me started playing D&D, and then this came along.  I got Baldur's Gate 1, and while it wasn't as good in my opinion, I still loved it.  I've been constantly playing them to some degree ever since.  And I love them as much now as I did back then.

That said, I am fully aware that as time has gone by, Bioware's games, and others, have improved over Baldur's Gate 2 in numerous areas.  Visuals, mechanics, maybe even writing.  The tactics in the Dragon Age series may very well be more advances.  But still, I love BG2 more than any of them.  For one thing, I like the larger variety of classes in BG2.  I also loved the variety of monsters.  And my character was exactly what I wanted him to be.  I have never been as happy with any PC in a CRPG as with the Bhaalspawn.  I loved that you could have 6 members in your party.  I especially love the scope.  It was probably two years before I finished Baldur's Gate 2, plus Throne of Bhaal. 

I'll be the first to admit, that when it comes to Baldur's Gate, I don't judge it objectivly.  Because nothing before or since has ever made an impact the same way it did.  But that doesn't mean that I don't love everything that Bioware has done since.  Except Sonic, didn't play that. 

Point is, that while I doubt that DA2 will be able to live up to my feelings about Baldur''s Gate 2, I'm not measuring the two against each other.  I'll play and love DA2 for the experiance that it offers, not because of how it compares to Baldur's Gate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gorthaur X wrote...

I have an insane amount of nostalgia for the original Pool of Radiance - it was the first CRPG I played - but I can't say I'm really capable of getting into it anymore.

That's a great example.  The Gold Box games haven't aged well at all.  The same is true of the original Bard's Tale series.

But, I think Might & Magic II is still a solid game.

[Harid]

I played BG2 relatively late (4-5 months ago) and I found it to be a solid game, but not worthy of the praise it got from PC players.

AD&D and mage supremacy ruined it for me.

Broken magic and dispel spam, along side trashy melee classes. . .meh.

I will say that the framework was there, but the combat needed more.  Especially if you weren't playing a mage.

Modifié par Harid, 09 février 2011 - 09:56 .

[Blastback]

Khayness wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I'd only like the epic story feel to return. That's what I love about the BG saga, that from a scared dude who can barely kill a wolf, you end up being a key figure who will shape the Realms for years to come. The storytelling and locations go excelently with that. Little villages, huge lively cities (seriously, you could spend days in Baldur's Gate/Athlaka alone), not so lively dark sewers beneath said cities (Cult of the Unseeing Eye ftw), mage prison, The Underdark, etc.

The whole series felt like playing an epos, the game was massive.

This.  Right here. 

[Ravenfeeder]

Gorthaur X wrote...
On the other hand, there was a point when I was completely hooked to Master of Magic for several months, and I was introduced to that game only a few years back. I would probably still play it if DOS emulator programs didn't hate me.

You can get a Windows (XP, Vista, 7 x32 and x64) compatible version at gog.com for $6

Modifié par Ravenfeeder, 09 février 2011 - 10:07 .

[Marionetten]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I'd LOVE it. Have you tried Magicka? It's absolutely beautiful and brings me back something fierce. It doesn't hurt that the magic system is one of the most innovative things I've experienced in ages.

[Harid]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

Find me one of these games where melee aren't mook classes to the magi and I'll buy that.

[Ravenfeeder]

DA2 can only match BG2 if it manages to find a villain as good as Irenicus played by an actor as good as David Warner.

[AlexXIV]

Blastback wrote...

Khayness wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I'd only like the epic story feel to return. That's what I love about the BG saga, that from a scared dude who can barely kill a wolf, you end up being a key figure who will shape the Realms for years to come. The storytelling and locations go excelently with that. Little villages, huge lively cities (seriously, you could spend days in Baldur's Gate/Athlaka alone), not so lively dark sewers beneath said cities (Cult of the Unseeing Eye ftw), mage prison, The Underdark, etc.

The whole series felt like playing an epos, the game was massive.

This.  Right here. 

I think a story of the magnitude of BG1/2 would spread over a whole series, like DA1-5 or something. One reason why I was and am disappointed that I can't keep playing my Warden. Sure, Hawke will be cool, but there is nothing like going through a truely epic story with one character that comes from humble beginnings to be nothing less than a god.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 09 février 2011 - 10:08 .

[Morroian]

Just on the tactical elements of DA2 here's a quote for the Eurogamer preview:

"On consoles, you'll still be able to pause the action and cue up attacks and strategies for team-mates before letting rip. On PC the tactical view may have been very slightly reigned in, but the trade-off allows for more complex geometry, with hills and steps and split-levels, all of which can be used tactically."



Preview at:

http://www.eurogamer...hands-on?page=2

[Gorthaur X]

Saibh wrote...

Yeah, you can. But remember how young the industry of gaming is. There was no pre-genereation of BG to say "this is so much simpler than what I used to play!". Whereas most people can point out that, no matter what the past generation says about music, the generation before them said the same thing. That doesn't exist for gaming.

It's not quite as young as you seem to think; it's young only as a form of mass entertainment. I grew up playing games on the Commodore 64 and a 086 PC, and I'm by no means a member of the first generation of gamers.

 I can objectively say the tactics is far, far more complex than BGII's. That's just comparing what is possible now by what was possible then. Whether DAO is objectively a better, game--well, that's my opinion. But there are plenty of people saying "Oh, DAO will never be as good as BGII" with absolute conviction. And I am mostly just expressing irritation at said conviction.

IMO, the only major improvement DA:O introduced over BG was the addition of various combat abilities for melee classes. However, it also did away with a lot of variety of magical effects, strategic resource management, and the need to adjust your strategy to varied opponents, making for gameplay that generally did not even require you to use the tactical options it did offer.

Hopefully, DA2 improves on these issues, but I don't see DA:O as being anywhere near even BG1 in terms of complexity.

I would say a good chunk of them probably have been colored by your nostalgia.
It's like how people say Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time
without ever seeing it, people who will even defend it's honor without
having seen it--why? Because it's a classic, and since top critics all
agree it's amazing, younger people make exceptions for it.

That's possible, but it's also a completely unfalsifiable argument that essentially boils down to "only I have the perspective to remain objective in my assessments". Yes, nostalgia exists as a phenomenon, and it affects people's opinions. However, so do hype, the build up of anticipation, and the excitement over something being new.

Modifié par Gorthaur X, 09 février 2011 - 10:09 .

[Marionetten]

Ravenfeeder wrote...

DA2 can only match BG2 if it manages to find a villain as good as Irenicus played by an actor as good as David Warner.

Does Warner still do voice acting? I'd love to see him perform in another BioWare game. Irenicus was brilliant.

[Firky]

Oh, wow. What a thread. And what a quote. Excitement plus.



I totally loved BGII, especially the combat. My rose coloured glasses of nostalgia +8 are firmly on too.



However, I also replayed the entire game with ep only about 6 months ago. I think a lot of Baldur's Gate tragics do replay it a lot (at least the ones I know), so I think its possible to be objective about its gameplay.



Comparisons of the two games' "tactical" nature is interesting. Baldur's Gate had a lot of moments in combat where you'd be fighting vampires, they'd level drain you a couple of times and you'd all be dead. But, cast negative plane protection and you'd win easy. That's a negative for me.



However, BG2 did have other things that made it (IMO) "more tactical" than Origins. A wider variety of buffs, 6 party members, enemies with more transparent resistances, weaknesses etc. You actually had to change weapons, buffs and armour to optimise damage against certain creatures. A lot.



I also played the BG2 redux mod recently and its fascinating how the clever modders have crammed the square peg through the triangular hole. It provides another way to look at how different BGII and DA:O actually are.



One way or another, I find this quote exciting. Yay, combat. I'm guessing that the quote refers to the greater distinction between classes and the new features of the enemies, like assassins backflipping and "disappearing" and the mage globe. That kind of stuff.

[Ravenfeeder]

Marionetten wrote...
Does Warner still do voice acting? I'd love to see him perform in another BioWare game. Irenicus was brilliant.

IMDB says yes 

[Sharn01]

Harid wrote...

I played BG2 relatively late (4-5 months ago) and I found it to be a solid game, but not worthy of the praise it got from PC players.

AD&D and mage supremacy ruined it for me.

Broken magic and dispel spam, along side trashy melee classes. . .meh.

I will say that the framework was there, but the combat needed more.  Especially if you weren't playing a mage.

I really dont know what game you where playing, Fighters in 2nd edition where grossly overpowered, the only class that could be as strong was a cleric, when they cast a spell that temporarily turned them into fighters.  The best hp, best armor class, best damage and best saving throws of any other class in the game, if you are upset that they didnt have the versatility of the other classes that is completely different then them being weak.  I use to actually play pnp 2nd edition, we did experiments with adventures that where specifically designed to kill the party, and fighters where always the class that stood tall when it was all done.   

As to the DA2 being more tactical then BG2, I will believe it when players have to reload fights several times because they havent figured out what tactics to use and when, or read a spoiler.

[Altima Darkspells]

Marionetten wrote...

Does Warner still do voice acting? I'd love to see him perform in another BioWare game. Irenicus was brilliant.

He does every time I fire up my Gargoyles DVD.

/tear

[Meltemph]

Hopefully, DA2 improves on these issues, but I don't see DA:O as being anywhere near even BG1 in terms of complexity.

That is only because of the D&D mechanics. Besides, the mechanics of DnD in games are a sloppy complexity and is only complex in the manner of customization. The only part I would say it was "superior" in its complexities is the variety of bad guys/monsters, but that obviously is just because of the IP.



The only reason DnD system is considered more complex is because it was a lot more messy, imo.

[mesmerizedish]

I'm actually re-playing the Baldur's Gate series right now... almost done with the first game, trying not to rush through the last two chapters, but I really, REALLY want to get to SoA. Anyway, what I've learned from it is that they are still amazing games, and surprisingly playable in modern resolutions (provided you use a widescreen mod).

However, gameplay-wise, they suck. Especially compared to Dragon Age. This isn't BioWare's fault. The Infinity Engine contained the best CRPG implementation of a PnP ruleset, like, ever. But that PnP ruleset (2e AD&D) was utter rubbish. Only casters did anything interesting, but the magic system was broken from the get--go. As far as combat goes, I actually 4e is the best system yet. Unfortunately, it seems like every other part of the game just disappeared, but I digress.

BGII still stands as what I feel is the greatest game ever, and this is in spite of its horrendous mechanics. What BGII has is beautiful art, a divinely inspired story (the Bhaalspawn saga as a whole is even better than PS:T, which stands at #2 for me), and an engine that has aged surprisingly well.

The first Baldur's Gate... didn't have all of that. Plot-wise, I'd compare DA:O and BG1... Baldur's Gate has a leg up because of developments that become apparent during chapters V and VI. But, ignoring those developments, we have a pretty standard series of dungeon crawls with a goal that really has nothing to do with the player character. I will go on the record as saying that DA:O's story is mediocre. In the details, it's fantastic. The dialogue, the characters, individual encounters, all great. But, looking at the big picture, it's just kind of boring. The same thing is true of Baldur's Gate.

What BGII did was to make the story about the PC. Besides that, the story's just bloody fabulous. What I'm seeing from DAII is that same PC emphasis that SoA had, and I'm liking the direction it's taking. I have too much love for SoA that I could say I think DAII might approach it in terms of greatness, but I'm sure, even before playing it, that it will be better than Origins.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 09 février 2011 - 10:20 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

 Very much possible. Since plot, pacing and characters matter to me more than anything, Bioware could pull it off (doesn't help I dislike the DnD system, not that it's Bioware,s fault but there it is).

It's not that much of a milestone for me anyway. I prefere KOTOR (1 and 2, even), Origins, Planespace, Fallout series (excluding the pile of ****e know as 3). Never quite got in the Baldur's Gate fervor, maybe because I merely played it around 2005 after other games came out.

So I don't see what's so controversial in this statement. Not everybody whorships BG2.

[Saibh]

Gorthaur X wrote...

It's not quite as young as you seem to think; it's young only as a form of mass entertainment. I grew up playing games on the Commodore 64 and a 086 PC, and I'm by no means a member of the first generation of gamers.

That's like comparing the garbled, tinny sound of the first phonographs with, say, the gramophone. The gramophone was the height of our technology, but it sounded a lot better, and a lot more closely, to modern recordings.

BG has marked comparisons to DAO. Can you really make such comparisons to games before that? None that I recall. They were in such an infantile stage that they don't really resemble anything like what we call video games. BG does.

IMO, the only major improvement DA:O introduced over BG was the addition of various combat abilities for melee classes. However, it also did away with a lot of variety of magical effects, strategic resource management, and the need to adjust your strategy to varied opponents, making for gameplay that generally did not even require you to use the tactical options it did offer.

Hopefully, DA2 improves on these issues, but I don't see DA:O as being anywhere near even BG1 in terms of complexity.

To each his own. Like I said, I was mostly irritated that everyone has been saying "It will never be as good as BG, that's so stupid of them to say so!", when they haven't even played the game.

That's possible, but it's also a completely unfalsifiable argument that essentially boils down to "only I have the perspective to remain objective in my assessments". Yes, nostalgia exists as a phenomenon, and it affects people's opinions. However, so do hype, the build up of anticipation, and the excitement over something being new.

Re:above. Occasionally, when I get into debates, I lose sight of what I was initially arguing with, and just start arguing for whatever the other person is opposing. I'm trying to avoid that, by saying I was mostly just expressing exasperation that people are unequivocally saying BG is better than anything BioWare will ever do again.

[Harid]

Sharn01 wrote...

Harid wrote...

I played BG2 relatively late (4-5 months ago) and I found it to be a solid game, but not worthy of the praise it got from PC players.

AD&D and mage supremacy ruined it for me.

Broken magic and dispel spam, along side trashy melee classes. . .meh.

I will say that the framework was there, but the combat needed more.  Especially if you weren't playing a mage.

I really dont know what game you where playing, Fighters in 2nd edition where grossly overpowered, the only class that could be as strong was a cleric, when they cast a spell that temporarily turned them into fighters.  The best hp, best armor class, best damage and best saving throws of any other class in the game, if you are upset that they didnt have the versatility of the other classes that is completely different then them being weak.  I use to actually play pnp 2nd edition, we did experiments with adventures that where specifically designed to kill the party, and fighters where always the class that stood tall when it was all done.   

As to the DA2 being more tactical then BG2, I will believe it when players have to reload fights several times because they havent figured out what tactics to use and when, or read a spoiler.

Dual class fighters were a great class, but single class fighters were not so great.  Rogues were completely useless in combat unless you enjoyed chugging invincibility potions like it was going out of style.  And a mage could stop any fighter with Time Stop, and kill him before it ended, and outside of your Bhallspawn, and late game Acension additons, there was nothing you could do about it.  I completely fault D&D mechanics, for magic being so horribly broken, but the fact is, every class was a mook class before the mage.  And while that may be great for some people, watching my Fighter get stunned for the 100,000th time (hyperbole, deal with it) while they had to eat spells by mages got old to the point that it made most encounters formulaic to avoid such a thing.

Not even going to mention how you could replace a random fighter with summon Planetar, while fighters only had Whirlwind to compete, and I suppose hope the enemy didn't cast broken **** like Mantle or Protection from Magical Weapons.  And if they did, well, goes back to my initial point about Dispel spam.

Modifié par Harid, 09 février 2011 - 10:26 .