148 réponses à ce sujet

[exorzist]

At least, that is what GamerZines thinks in their latest review of the new smash hit by BioWare.

But for now, the title fight is between Baldur’s Gate 2
and Dragon Age: Origins. Baldur’s Gate 2 (not the original, and if you
have to ask why, I despair) offered several things: henchmen quests,
great party mechanics, enormous gameplay (90 odd hours), great
levelling and accessible combat.

Dragon Age: Origins offers all of these, but with today’s standards.
Where I feel a little uneasy is in locating something unique, something
to hold up and say this is why you should play the game. In truth,
while the engine and graphics are all new, and that’s great, Dragon
Age: Origins succeeds by excelling in all the areas an RPG needs. It’s
fine tuned to oblivion, and I choose my words carefully.

The story is compelling, and lengthy. There’s plenty to do and lots
of side quests to distract you. The acting is all good, and not wooden
like I’ve seen some criticise. The humour is there, as in BG2 often in
the background – hear your henchman shout “Bad dog” to an attacking
werewolf, or “Time for Plan B” as they near death, and you can’t help
but crack a smile.

More on http://greywardens.com

Modifié par exorzist, 18 novembre 2009 - 09:55 .

[jawlz]

Yes, but there is no equivalent to Minsc in Dragon Age!!!!

[FalloutBoy]

Not sure I get what you mean by "enthrones".

[exorzist]

Corrected the typo

[mrjazzman]

hrm I think what he meant is more along the lines of the German word "entthronen" which means "taking the throne away from O" rather than the English "enthrone" which means "putting O on the throne" but anyway....



I don't have a lot of time to play atm so I haven't seen more than ~20h of DAO so far but I reall like what I've seen so far. BUT: I don't see it coming close to BG2 just yet. All it has on BG2 is presentation ihmo....

[Love-Buzz]

Someone else said a few days ago that it's unfair to compare DA to BG2, because BG2 was the second game in its series and thus had the chance to expand and make improvements on the first game. For its time, I think BG2 was more complete than DA is (DA is long and fabulous, but there were not enough quality side quests; there are some balance issues; the model animations are a tad stiff), but if you look at how far BG2 game from BG and think about how good DA2 could be if it makes equally large strides after DA, BG2 may yet be dethroned.

[sugasugaki]

Meh, DAO is inferior to BG2. Purtier graphics don't make for a better game. If you're going by that, I highly recommend Oblivion--it has very pretty graphics. As for being an "unfair" comparison, it's not. Same company, they've had years to build off what they learned from BG2, NWN1/2, etc.

[MisterEcted]

DA:O dethrones BG2?

HA! I don't have nostalgia to go by because I just played BG2 for the first time last year and it's WAY better then DA:O. BG2 just had more imagination - the quests are so much better. For example right off the bat when you escape you can do a quest where you look for a little boys mom in a tent and you end up in very strange and mysterious place! You just don't get that in DA:O. BG2 is one of the few games that suspends my disbelief a bit - DA:O is more like a chore with WoW-style quests - no imagination.

Modifié par MisterEcted, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:04 .

[mrjazzman]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

MisterEcted wrote...

DA:O dethrones BG2?

HA! I don't have nostalgia to go by because I just played BG2 for the first time last year and it's WAY better then DA:O. BG2 just had more imagination - the quests are so much better. For example right off the bat when you escape you can do a quest where you look for a little boys mom in a tent and you end up in very strange and mysterious place! You just don't get that in DA:O. BG2 is one of the few games that suspends my disbelief a bit - DA:O is more like a chore with WoW-style quests - no imagination.

Going by that logic, Bethesda must make the best games ever.

I'm glad that a kid like you just found BG2 and got his mind blown by it, but it's unecessary for you to come on the forums and say "BG2 was WAY BETTER THAN THIS CRAPPY DA:O LOLOL" every chance you get.

Who said anything about crappy? Did you mean to quote someone else? And the only one going LOLOL in here so far is you

[Negative1979]

I lobe DA:O but I have to admit that the sidequests in BG2 are a lot more interesting than the sidequests in DA:O. The sidequests in DA:O seem to be mostly fetch this or go there and kill such an such. While in BG2 there where quite some really involving sidequests, including a few that had nothing at all to do with the main story or any of the characters I really liked that. But having said that, that is the only thing I really miss in Dragon Age, I haven't had a game in a long time that I looked forward to playing again after arriving home So good job Bioware, again.

[GhostSeraph]

Does not!

[Kelston]

BG2 is better. Sorry. Bobby Kotick held DA:O back from all it that it could be.

[Krathax]

Easy now...DA is good, but not that good...

Modifié par Krathax, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:57 .

[MisterEcted]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
Going by that logic, Bethesda must make the best games ever.

I'm glad that a kid like you just found BG2 and got his mind blown by it, but it's unecessary for you to come on the forums and say "BG2 was WAY BETTER THAN THIS CRAPPY DA:O LOLOL" every chance you get.

Going by what logic? That the quests in BG2 actually have depth and imagination and the DA:O quests are just the same ol' boring fetch quests? How exactly does that make Bethesda the best developer?

I'm not a kid - I'm 28 and whenever I see topics comparing these two games I will continue to express my opinion so you're just gonna have to get over that.

[mrjazzman]

Kelston wrote...

BG2 is better. Sorry. Bobby Kotick held DA:O back from all it that it could be.

Who's Bobby Kotick and how did he do that?

[Pseron Wyrd]

mrjazzman wrote...
Who's Bobby Kotick and how did he do that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kotick

[Chastain]

BG2 was great back in its day.



The biggest problem with BG2 to me was that it was slavishly dedicated to recreating tabletop gaming. There was just too much micromanagement and the pace was simply too slow for me sitting by myself in front of a computer. Slow pace is one thing when you're hanging out with friends around a table, talking, eating, drinking and playing. But BG2 was just too slow moving when you're sitting alone, IMO.



I do agree that many side quests in DA are pretty shallow.

[Socratatus]

Sorry, but no way does DA win over BG2. No way. I`d say even Fall Out 3 is more of a true challenger to BG2. D A is far too shallow compared.



And that reviews angers me because it`s due to misleading reviews like that why I bought this game. It is no BG2.

[Fester Pot]

No need to go to a third party site when you can just click here and read it at the source.

[Seifz]

I don't know why y'all think BG2 was better. All that BG2 had was a great story and interesting companions. AD&D v2 sucked and the graphics weren't all that great, even for their time. Since DA:O has better companions and a fantastic story that isn't set in an overused Forgotten Realms and doesn't involve any Drow Rangers... Yeah, DA:O is much better.

[exorzist]

Fester Pot wrote...

No need to go to a third party site when you can just click here and read it at the source.

indeed, thats why i linked the original article in my first post too ...