50 réponses à ce sujet

[KillerRabbit]

Oh to reply to the "ranged weapon usage".. well I have previously played through all the IWD1-2, BG1-2 games so yes I know basic tactics and ranged kiting as a group... played a hunter through WoW from vanilla raiding to Cataclysm as well so..

[themincer]

corey_russell wrote...

Also trying to do a all melee group in DA:O is pretty much impossible even with the best equipment.

Not true. I did an entire playthrough like this, and it wasn't that hard at all. I had Shale as tank, my pc as dual-wielding warrior, Leliana as ranged/bard, and Sten as two-handed. No magic damage-dealer, and no healer (just poultices).
It was fun, actually

[ncknck]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

ncknck wrote...
Bg1 has [...] higher zoom factor.

than what game?

Than BG2, which defaults to 800x600. Which is a decrease in graphic quality, given that the user is mantaining the same view distance from the monitor.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

ncknck wrote...

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

ncknck wrote...
Bg1 has [...] higher zoom factor.

than what game?

Than BG2, which defaults to 800x600. Which is a decrease in graphic quality, given that the user is mantaining the same view distance from the monitor.

Are you complaining only because you can't be bothered to go into the menu and change the settings?

Spoiler:
I personally prefer smaller (and less visible) pixels and being able to see more of the gameworld is nice too.

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 12 novembre 2011 - 05:09 .

[2_BR4ZIL_2]

Nice to see the hardcore BG fans showing up, i for one played DAO and a bunch of other "modern" rpgs before buying the BG series, i can honestly say that i prefer BG over DAO anytime, still, my favorite RPG of all time is Fallout (1 & 2, not the crappy third one). As The Cow King said, this isnt a game for 12 year olds ( its actually funny because i played & loved FO2 for the first time when i was 12, but nvm), these games requires the same amount of patience to read a long book, i would say, and i find it much more "immersive" and has a more realistic ambient & characters than... say... Oblivion.

EDIT: it seems i did not have a good thief with me and fell for a "this post was actually dead but someone revived with a completly diferent topic" trap, oh well.

Modifié par 2_BR4ZIL_2, 14 novembre 2011 - 01:33 .

[Son of Imoen]

Likewise, it seems DAO isn't a game for 40-year olds. I am trying to play Dragon Age Origins to find out if it really is a 'spiritual successor' to Baldur's Gate and if NPC's are just as unique and likeable (I even like 'Anoymen') as in BG. But the cinematographic nature of DAO frightens me off and I'm still not beyond Ostagar. My old mind gets overburdened by all the visual stimuli of modern games that look like I'm interacting with a movie instead of moving around and manipulating small avatars like in Baldur's Gate. Will try out Fallout 1 & 2 and other old games like Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil, that got the same kind of old-style 3D graphics as BG (or is BG what is called 2D?). Already bought most of those on GOG except for TOEE, of which I have the disc-version.

[2_BR4ZIL_2]

I really recommend the old Fallout series, seeing as they were made by Black Isle, it also has a awesome mod community for it, mostly hosted at www.nma-fallout.com. They have their versions of a "tweak/fix pack" and "unfinished business" mods for fallout 1 & 2. of course, the vanilla game is just as good regardless.

[eroeru]

Played the game a couple of years ago and though it took some time, got really into it all. The random difficulty is just insanely fun imo + believable and madly immersing if you ask me.

And I do wonder how many of those who have tried BG for the first in the last couple of years have enjoyed it as thoroughly as I did... http://social.biowar...14/polls/26771/

Modifié par eroeru, 21 novembre 2011 - 11:41 .

[Stonewall62]

Well, having gotten older and fallen SO far behind in the gaming realm (due to kids and a lack of time) has me trying to catch up and play old games.... Finished BG1 way back before the kids and loved it. BG2 I got pretty far through, and then the first kid came along and my gaming career sat dormant for years... LOL!!

In the last two years I've picked up NWN1 and 2, DAO/A, Mass Effect 1 and 2.....

Finished NWN1 OC, got a little through SoU... And did ME 1 and 2 (anxiously awaiting 3).

So in other words? I'm all over the place. I think I want to start again with BG1, carry character over to BG2 and then maybe go with DA-O before going back to play all of NWN through....

I love these types of threads because playing the way I do, I bounce back and forth between these varying games often. And yes, there's a nostalgia factor with BG1 that keeps me coming back. I even have nostalgia for the old Pool of Radiance games, but find it hard to find anything to play them on anymore... LOL!!!

[akayasha]

I think you should play Baldur's Gate 2 first. The story in Baldur's Gate 2 is a little more driven than the first. The first one, rather than focus on the main story immediately, has a lot of side quests and exploration to keep you going until the story gets darker and draws you in. Personally, I enjoyed the first, but as a person who played Baldur's Gate after Dragon Age: Origins, I liked Baldur's Gate 2 more than Baldur's Gate 1.

[Bhryaen]

Why do people seem so content to start with the sequel? To me it's like saying, "Yeah, 'Hamlet's' good, but you should start from where he's showing the play within a play to the King. That's where the story really starts to pick up." BG2 is totally the 2nd half of the story. It almost doesn't matter which half one likes better but how to read a story. Playing BG2 first is also like saying, "OK, so to sum up, huge story about killing a tank. Now, you're in a prison with magic deity powers..." It just completely underrepresents what BG1 offers and lops off the meat of your identity and predicament... BG1 was the pioneering start- broke so much ground as a game experience that it gained BG (and probably crpg's) the appeal they have today. Is it so radically different from BG2 which uses the same game engine that BG2 can be divorced from its origin? And despite the almost unstructured initial chapters, there are still a number of "regular" story-arc elements- bounty hunters, bandits, the shortage, dreams- and the later chapters are much more structured with a very specific route to follow. You just get to retain throughout the game a sense that you could walk away and take Durlag's whenever you feel like it...

In any case I just don't see any good reason to advocate skipping BG1 or doing them in reverse order. Of course, it depends on gameplay preferences: if the story isn't what interests a player, I suppose it doesn't matter, so what's the point of my entreaty?

Seagloom is right that BG2 is probably the one that set the industry precedent of a variably elaborate, structured game from start to finish- the precedent that has carried into so many of the subsequent crpg's as the genre which opened into a wider and less sophisticated audience. BG2's initial instantiation of the subsequently popular format, however, was probably more complex, involved, and- as Corey mentioned- lends itself to more diverse re-plays than the application by all the other "successors" out there.

I also agree with Corey that the only way "spiritual successor" ever holds is just that they're all crpg's that owe their origin to BG's appeal. NWN was also supposed to be the "spiritual successor" of BG... and fails just as much as DA due to being nothing more than the next in a long line of over-the-top, self-conscious spin-offs in their endeavor to market a new crpg product with an even more "realistic" or "exciting" graphical interface and combat system... but which completely lost the BG ambience, strategy, and creativity in translation... If it's a succession, it's not a "spiritual" one...

As to the OP's experience, it's hard to claim a game's appeal as nostalgia that has so much present-day modding capability and continues to be so controversial, immersive, and playable. (Contrast this with Zork or Myst...) I'll always remember the feeling I had going through BG when it was all I knew, but that feeling is a very quantifiable one that I've never had with any other game for good reason: BG was made with a D&D sensibility in mind, not a crpg one, so there's no contrived crpg plot, no metagaming interface, lots of "core" (D&D) rules, and a sense of the off-the-cuff adventure experience that fun playing of D&D can involve.

And I've seen the YouTube playthroughs for DA:O and am underwhelmed- it's like a more cinematic Dungeon Siege where you just hack-and-slash your way down a long tunnel. I liked Dungeon Siege... and won't return like I have to BG's environs, humor, and personally engaging storyline... There's another thing in BG that often gets overlooked: talented voice actors. The voice acting in a DA:O or Oblivion is the same advert-extra, melodramatic type that makes me want to start smacking the NPCs around to get them acting more realistic...

Btw- thanks eroeru for that poll. Nice results... not easy to get from a BG forum though lol

Modifié par Bhryaen, 11 janvier 2012 - 03:43 .

[HoonDing]

Bhryaen wrote...

And I've seen the YouTube playthroughs for DA:O and am underwhelmed- it's like a more cinematic Dungeon Siege where you just hack-and-slash your way down a long tunnel. I liked Dungeon Siege... and won't return like I have to BG's environs, humor, and personally engaging storyline... There's another thing in BG that often gets overlooked: talented voice actors. The voice acting in a DA:O or Oblivion is the same advert-extra, melodramatic type that makes me want to start smacking the NPCs around to get them acting more realistic...

Hit the nail right on the head.

[Son of Imoen]

Bhryaen put forth a well-written argument why you should start with BG1. I totally agree. This post of my doesn't add anything to the argument, but I get irritated by people who suggest you should jump into the middle of the story, missing all background, suspend and build-up of BG1 and skipping straight to the character-with-godly-powers in BG2. How did charname get there is far better told by playing through BG1, than by a quick summary of all the suspense Imoen gives at the start of BG2. It's like watching the final scene of a movie and decide to watch the movie itself next year, after you've watched the sequel. Like watching The Two Towers before you go and see The Fellowship of the Ring.

Modifié par Son of Imoen, 11 janvier 2012 - 11:51 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Son of Imoen wrote...
Like watching The Two Towers before you go and see The Fellowship of the Ring.

I think it's more like watching Aliens as an action movie fan and then deciding that Alien might be interesting too.

Yes, Baldur's Gate 1 is a great game that tells the story better than a little intro "movie" and a few short dialogues could, but for some people it just might be the wrong medium - and no matter what you say, BG1 and BG2 have different atmospheres, with BG2 being more accessable for modern newcomers.

[HoonDing]

I can understand starting with BG2, since the game retcons BG1 anyway, i.e. ending up with Jaheira, Minsc and Imoen in Irenicus' dungeon regardless of your choices in BG1.

Plus there's Imoen suddenly turning into a Bhaalspawn.

[akayasha]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Son of Imoen wrote...
Like watching The Two Towers before you go and see The Fellowship of the Ring.

I think it's more like watching Aliens as an action movie fan and then deciding that Alien might be interesting too.

Yes, Baldur's Gate 1 is a great game that tells the story better than a little intro "movie" and a few short dialogues could, but for some people it just might be the wrong medium - and no matter what you say, BG1 and BG2 have different atmospheres, with BG2 being more accessable for modern newcomers.

Agreed. Of course, if a newcomer enjoys Baldur's Gate 1 then... by all means play it through! Some people like the original creator of this topic was disapointed at Baldur's Gate 1 and tried it already, so with a basic grasp of the storyline, he or she should try Baldur's Gate 2 as a last chance to enjoy the series. If the new player doesn't like Baldur's Gate 2 then the series probably isn't for that person. Of course you shouldn't immediately start with Baldur's Gate 2, but if the first one is unplayable to the new player then I advocate the fact that he or she should at least give Baldur's Gate 2 a try.

[DreamwareStudio]

I have a lot harder time on BG 2 normal than I do Dragon Age: Origins. I just wiped out a boss dragon using only two characters playing nightmare using the Nightmare Plus mod no less.

Modifié par google_calasade, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:37 .

[Son of Imoen]

google_calasade wrote...

something  spoilerish

.... that he has corrected now!

Modifié par Son of Imoen, 19 janvier 2012 - 05:44 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Son of Imoen, I am so sorry. I never thought about that as DA:O is going on a few years now. Please feel free to delete your msg so I don't screw up anyone else. I removed the exact reference from post.

Modifié par google_calasade, 18 janvier 2012 - 09:39 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

google_calasade wrote...

I have a lot harder time on BG 2 normal than I do Dragon Age: Origins. I just wiped out a boss dragon using only two characters playing nightmare using the Nightmare Plus mod no less.

Well, that's what you get for choosing a game with a rather linear spell system, comparatively straight-forward combat that's been modeled for consoles and no actually unique opponents.

I was a bit more disappointed with the ME2 combat system though, where spells only start working properly once you've worked your way through somebody's armor (I considered changin this with a mod, but it would hopelessly unbalance the game) and if the enemy uses any abilities at all (which is rare), it's mostly straightforward damage. Modern games are sort of like Batman Arkham Asylum, where the game seems to expect to you to just lean back and be awestruck how awesome the protagonist Batman is.

[DreamwareStudio]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

I have a lot harder time on BG 2 normal than I do Dragon Age: Origins. I just wiped out a boss dragon using only two characters playing nightmare using the Nightmare Plus mod no less.

Well, that's what you get for choosing a game with a rather linear spell system, comparatively straight-forward combat that's been modeled for consoles and no actually unique opponents.

I was a bit more disappointed with the ME2 combat system though, where spells only start working properly once you've worked your way through somebody's armor (I considered changin this with a mod, but it would hopelessly unbalance the game) and if the enemy uses any abilities at all (which is rare), it's mostly straightforward damage. Modern games are sort of like Batman Arkham Asylum, where the game seems to expect to you to just lean back and be awestruck how awesome the protagonist Batman is.

You won't get any argument from me as I think you're right about the modern games going for more flash than substance.

[Redcoat]

If you've just come into BG1 from a game like DA:O, then yes, it'd be a bit of a shock. BG1 is from a time when games did not talk down to the player, did not assume that the player was an idiot who couldn't figure out anything out on his own, and offered up a genuine challenge that yielded a sense of satisfaction when i twas overcome. It's from a time before the "Blockbuster Mentality" took hold of the game industry, which demanded that every game be some epic, cinematic shooter or action/adventurer with a Hollywood budget and 10 million-plus sales figures.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing DA:O; I thought it was a very enjoyable title that, with a few tweaks, could honestly be a successor to Baldur's Gate. But after seeing DA2, well...that's not likely to happen)

As for the voice acting, I'd say that's a matter of taste. Games like DA:O and Mass Effect used a lot of voice talent from TV and film, while the BG series tends to use voice talent from cartoons, which is probably why the characters come off sounding different.

But BG1 wasn't perfect, either. The best way to describe it would be like an orchestra warming up - you know the performance is going to be great, but it's not quite there yet. The main plot doesn't intersect with the protagonist anywhere near enough. The game is brutal at the beginning, when the protagonist can fall to mere wolf in two hits. The NPCs personalities often feel underdeveloped, with little in the way of banter. Sarevok, for all his machinations, wasn't exactly compelling as a villain. BG2 improves on these things in nearly every way, with a more tightly-focused plot, better characterisation, better environments, better quests, and so on. But I'd disagree with the suggestion that a player start with the second game. There's something to be said for going from a Level 1 weakling who dies in two hits to an unstoppable god king made flesh. Starting with the second game feels like starting the original Star Wars with Empire Strikes Back.

BG2 set the mould for everything to come, really. The three female love interests in the game get recycled in every subsequent BioWare game. One can't help but think of a character like Merrill being like Aerie with a Welsh accent (and a much smaller brain), or Morrigan being a human version of Viconia. It also established the basic plot of each BioWare game to follow: Linear, on-rails first act, free-roaming second act, on-rails third act leading into the endgame.

[Bhryaen]

Redcoat wrote...

As for the voice acting, I'd say that's a matter of taste. Games like DA:O and Mass Effect used a lot of voice talent from TV and film, while the BG series tends to use voice talent from cartoons, which is probably why the characters come off sounding different.

Damn, that's so true about BG's voices being more like cartoons than TV. I've liked them from the start but hadn't made that observation. hehe But they're so much more memorable! I'm finding numerous DA:O NPC voices impressive- delivered so well in the cutscenes and "conversations-" particularly Morrigan and Alistair, but also the delivery of Duncan and Cailan, and the writing involved is part of process. Funny that Morrigan's mother is Captain Janeway, and her voice is good too... But I can't recall afterward any of the specific things they've said, having only just played it a day ago, remembering just the feeling of finding them very believable and enjoyable. By contrast in my regular daily grind I'll still- years later- find myself recollecting one or another of the- albeit cartoonish- lines from the PCs and NPCs of BG and NWN. Note that the PC voices of DA:O are annoying and not controllable, whereas the voices in BG are often hillarious and in NWN you can make your character actually use the voiceset itself.

Redcoat wrote...

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing DA:O; I thought it was a very enjoyable title that, with a few tweaks, could honestly be a successor to Baldur's Gate. But after seeing DA2, well...that's not likely to happen)

Although I agree with nearly all that Redcoat said, there's no way DA:O is a kind of contemporary BG- DA2 or no- not even with the overtly lifted line "Gather your party and venture forth..." There just isn't the sense that the original BG designers- with their intricate rules system, off-the-cuff and wily storytelling, and standard of exploration- would prefer the more passive, cinematic, and "on the rails" setting of DA:O. What would those particular individuals have preferred? I don't know, but I won't elaborate on my comparison of DA:O with Dungeon Siege (since I already did in another recent thread), but I'll add that the two apparently even share the absurd bonus of extra points for wearing matching equipment... A contemporary BG would have to be some sort of development from the NWN2 engine that would open up the gameworld to more random, non-quest, uncontrolled encounters, more scene-setting, more requisites on reading and thinking ahead, less structure, and far more "side quests..." As linear as BG2 tends to be comparative to BG1, particularly toward the end, it still has lots of extra exploring to be done. And you can find more in just a portion of a BG1 side area than you can in the supposed dwarven metropolis in DA:O's start.

The sense I get from BG is of a group of designers who had more leeway to create whatever content they wanted and enjoyed the process more, putting more of themselves into it and tossing in characters and encounters that weren't essential or show-stopping, just something they personally thought would be good- to get the player to laugh or appreciate it- not necessarily something a planning board would consider marketable and socially salient... They didn't necessarily "know what they were doing," and it shows, hence the warm-up orchestra effect. Perhaps that does give BG- and particularly BG1- a less "professional" appearance and presentation, but it hasn't cost it in terms of its appeal- quite the opposite. With the designers just doing what they preferred, they came up with a game they personally liked to play and one that's been profoundly more lasting. And it probably did take a lot of work in those days, whereas for all the epic appeal of a DA:O type, you'll never find a graveyard in it that alludes to the designers' labors- punishingly exploding warriors in them or no- at least not with the ready collaborations for hire to deliver a tailor-made game hit of the year...

[The Fred]

OK I see a lot of "BG elitism" and, yes, nostalgia-based BG love out there, and I'm going to try and fight mine down. As such, when I look at it critically, I see a lot of my love for BG *is* nostalgia, the fact I played it long ago and the fact I miss the things that were lost when newer games came out.

ncknck wrote...
But, such a game exceeds the attention span of 10yo kids, who are disappointed there is nothing to hack.

As a side note, I was probably not much older than this when I first played the game, because it was a lot of years ago now. That lends to my nostalgia. However, there are very valid reasons why I like BG, even in many ways more than BG2. For example, BG2 is a higher-level game where combat is a bit more high-powered. The roles really do start to boil down into mages countering each other and then whoever is left destroying the melee whilst the other gets destroyed by the melee, or whatever. In BG1 you started at L1, could die very easily, and really had the fear of death beating on your door. Mages had to ration their 2-3 spells per day. It was tough.
Coming back on-topic, that's why I am shocked to read this:

SkittlesKat96 wrote...
A lot of the gameplay is very repetitive, unbalanced and takes no skill or is just frustrating

Forst1999 wrote...
Combat in BG is about three things: Protection from enemies' crowd control spells, disabling enemies' protection spells and maybe drinking some potions if it is one of the mean fights. Most battles in BG1 doesn't even require any of this, but are just "click on an enemy, wait for it to die, maybe eat a sandwhich in the meantime". I find the battles in either Dragon Age much more varied. You are always occupied with using the right talent/spell at the right time, and not just in extraordinary situations.

As I say, Forst's first quoted sentance maybe applies to BG2, but that's one thing I find in favour of BG1. The rest of it... seriously? Having played BG1 a lot now, I find it a lot easier and I do find the shoot-and-run tactics boring. However, I still much prefer the tactical decisions of BG to reflex- and timing-based systems of other games. I'll admit that in BG1, melee guys got gold, but if you tried "click on an enemy, wait for it to die" with a Mage, you're dead. Hell, try that with a L1 fighter against a lot of enemies, you're dead.

As much as I love BG, it does benefit a lot from modding. This is partially because oversights can be fixed, and things can be tweaked to the way you like them. It's partly because some of the mods are just really good. Try installing Sword Coast Strategems, then tell me if BG is tougher than DA:O.

Tl:dr summary: Yes most of us here are biased. However we do have many valid reasons for liking BG beyond nostalgia. Further, there are reasons to like BG1 over BG2, even though there are many other things that the latter has over the former. Conclusion? Different people have different opinions. You're disappointed with BG? That's fine. I'm not going to say "not everyone understands true awesomeness" or some other derrogatory thing which suggests that just because you have no taste you're a bad person... oops.  But seriously. Each to their own.

[The Fred]

An extra note:

Bhryaen wrote...
A contemporary BG would have to be some sort of development from the NWN2 engine that would open up the gameworld to more random, non-quest, uncontrolled encounters, more scene-setting, more requisites on reading and thinking ahead, less structure, and far more "side quests..."

I'm biased again, but IMO NWN2 *is* the successor to BG, if it has one. The moddability of NWN(2) means that a lot of cool builders have made very BG-like stuff. I know DA:O has a toolset too but it's better for different things. Some of the guys from the NWN2 community are actually approaching completion on a BG1 remake, which is phenomenal since very often these projects are started and peter out after the Prologue, if that. This will bring all of NWN2's engine's powers to BG. Still not the same as the original, but pretty cool nontheless. I haven't played DA:O to know whether it's better or worse than either of these but it strikes me as a whole different kettle of fish to BG.