80 réponses à ce sujet

[xcorps]

The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously is, for me, a huge part of its charm.

And perhaps responsible for it's commercial success.

[Sinfulvannila]

I would like to clarify that I have no problem with Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, I just don't like how the BG games used it without playing to it's strengths. They attempted to put too much weight on the story, and Forgotten Realms was never meant to support it.

[Zibon]

Few87 wrote...

I sure do. Ithe world of FR does feel very very very shallow though, created by aspiring amateurs rather than people with an obviously greater talent that have created the world of DA.

That's because the Forgotten Realms setting is designed to be reused and accomodate a multiplayer experience and many different adventures.  When a setting is created for a single player story you can make everything serve the single story and not worry about sacrificing potential gameplay for other adventures.

Modifié par Zibon, 24 novembre 2009 - 10:57 .

[Althaz]

DA is still too new to really be compared. I preferred the general plot of BG because it was more character driven. However, there's no doubt that Dragon Age tells it's story in a far superior way.



The main area DA isn't quite as much fun as BG in is the combat. The primary reason for that is definitely the simple fact that four characters aren't as much fun as six. In BG being heavily outnumbered was much easier to manage and it made those occasions feel more heroic. Also, the best battles in BG were the Party vs Party battles, which I don't remember any of really in DA.

[Sinfulvannila]

Lorfean wrote...

Sinfulvannila wrote...

I would like to clarify that I have no problem with Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, I just don't like how the BG games used it without playing to it's strengths. They attempted to put too much weight on the story, and Forgotten Realms was never meant to support it.

That's fair enough. I thought the BG series *did* play to FR's strengths. What, according to you, are the strong points they missed out on?

Waves and waves of loot and monsters. I think any game that's in FR should be either extremely tounge-in-cheek, full-on campfest or just completely over-the-top melodramatic. Basically I feel that Neverwinter Nights and the IWD games played a lot more to FR's strengths. In a perfect world, I think BG should have just been Bioware's own aproximation of FR rather than FR itself but I digress, they still did the best they could with it.

Modifié par Sinfulvannila, 24 novembre 2009 - 11:13 .

[Greye]

Althaz wrote...I preferred the general plot of BG because it was more character driven...The main area DA isn't quite as much fun as BG in is the combat. The primary reason for that is definitely the simple fact that four characters aren't as much fun as six. In BG being heavily outnumbered was much easier to manage and it made those occasions feel more heroic. Also, the best battles in BG were the Party vs Party battles, which I don't remember any of really in DA.

Wow, those are good points I hadn't thought of.  Character driven, especially.  More compelling than the old called-upon-to-save-the-world formula, although DA does have the origins, and they do come in sometimes in your game play.  I wonder if it would be possible to remake BG2 some day.  If it would sell and be successful in a more modern market.

I agree that DA cannot surpass BGII due to the game systems and lack of stats or clarity about anything, which are the root of the less interesting combat.  You can't get into building a character or a real battle strategy if you don't really know how things work, like saves or resists, or how much damage things are going to do.  I do appreciate that the +2 sword and +3 etc. is gone in DA.

[Astrid Bashir]

Hey that is a very interesting topic



GO FOR THE EYES BOO!!!! GO FOR THE EYES!!!



I do not know if this will be bigger than BG2 but it actually has everything it needs to become and it feels like it.



What BG2 had was a solid framework that was FR. This framework is attempted here as well but it is still early to say to what extent it will be achieved although it feels almost there. You have to keep in mind that FR had a history of many many years before it became a computer game it had all the time it needed to mature.Had already pretty solid ruleset too.





For sure i am going to enjoy this game for a loooong time.

DLC will further improve and broaden the framework of this new campaign setting Bioware is creating.



It gave me a feel of what i called, what i felt it is, "a single player MMO". I would prefer it a bit more rich in enemy variation though



Good job Bioware you got my absolute attention once again. Thank you for this very very nice game!!



I am looking forward to play in the rest areas of this world and experience even more complex and advanced gameplay the ****s and brawls of Antiva, the richness and culture of Orlais...



As for the +2 and +3 swords that someone mentioned they are still there. Only this time you make them with runes



Regarding redoing BG2... well i would happily help anyone who will seriously attempt to make mods based on it.



BUTT KICKING FOR GOODNESS!!

[Sakiradesu]

You guys make me want to try BG2. It's hard going back to lesser graphics though, now that we've been spoiled with modern graphics.

[bjdbwea]

BG 2 > DA



DnD > DA system



Unfortunately, it is so.

[xcorps]

Sakiradesu wrote...

You guys make me want to try BG2. It's hard going back to lesser graphics though, now that we've been spoiled with modern graphics.

Lesser/dated != poor quality

The scenery in BGII is stunning, sometimes awe-inspiring.

[BlueEyes_Austin]

Few87 wrote...

Lorfean wrote...

Few87 wrote...

DA is by far and away a deeper world than that of BG. The world of DA feels a lot heavier and steeped in real history. The world of BG feels like a bit of a contrast, sort of like a disneyland RPG really. It was a good game years ago but far more work has clearly been put into making the world of DA a living breathing place and they have pulled that off rather well. I hope they drop the world of BG for future games and leave it in the past and continue with this far more immersive world that they have created.

You do realize that the BG games were set in the Forgotten Realms, a setting that was not created by BioWare, but was made by TSR for the Dungeons & Dragons pen and paper RPG about 22 years ago?

I sure do. Ithe world of FR does feel very very very shallow though, created by aspiring amateurs rather than people with an obviously greater talent that have created the world of DA.

That's because it was...it was Greenwood's house campaign.

[french lies]

I hate to say this, but I found the lore and setting of Dragon Age pretty shallow and disappointing. Much of this could probably be attributed to time constraints: Forgotten Realms as a setting had been developed and expanded on for almost 20 years by the time the original BG came out, with separate books for every continent and supplementary material for every god and race you could think of. Ferelden, by contrast, was created by a small group of people over one or two years at most and no matter how good you are there's no real way you're going to be able to add any real depth or weight within that time frame. Oh, and in addition to the setting, the designers/writers also had to come up with all the story, dialogue, quests and a whole new systems for spells, character progression and combat. It goes without saying that the quality wouldn't end up as consistent as when they only had to worry about a third of these things.



Everything feels like a cypher for something else - Darkspawn are orcs, Orlais is France, Antiva is Spain, Qunari are American Indians, the Chantry is the Protestant Church and so on. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with that way of designing a setting, these comparisons never really go beyond borrowing superficial characteristics like accents and stereotypical tripe like "the Orlais/French love wine and fashion".



The setting isn't terrible, don't get me wrong, but it bears all the hallmarks of having been designed around a game, as opposed to having had a game designed within it. For huge, lore-intensive games like this, an established license will almost always produce better results than trying to make up everything during a development cycle. That's why for me DA as an RPG falls short of Planescape and the two BG games.

[spernus]

french lies wrote...

I hate to say this, but I found the lore and setting of Dragon Age pretty shallow and disappointing. Much of this could probably be attributed to time constraints: Forgotten Realms as a setting had been developed and expanded on for almost 20 years by the time the original BG came out, with separate books for every continent and supplementary material for every god and race you could think of. Ferelden, by contrast, was created by a small group of people over one or two years at most and no matter how good you are there's no real way you're going to be able to add any real depth or weight within that time frame. Oh, and in addition to the setting, the designers/writers also had to come up with all the story, dialogue, quests and a whole new systems for spells, character progression and combat. It goes without saying that the quality wouldn't end up as consistent as when they only had to worry about a third of these things.

Everything feels like a cypher for something else - Darkspawn are orcs, Orlais is France, Antiva is Spain, Qunari are American Indians, the Chantry is the Protestant Church and so on. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with that way of designing a setting, these comparisons never really go beyond borrowing superficial characteristics like accents and stereotypical tripe like "the Orlais/French love wine and fashion".

The setting isn't terrible, don't get me wrong, but it bears all the hallmarks of having been designed around a game, as opposed to having had a game designed within it. For huge, lore-intensive games like this, an established license will almost always produce better results than trying to make up everything during a development cycle. That's why for me DA as an RPG falls short of Planescape and the two BG games.

Ultimately,creating your own franchise has greater potential. Let Bioware flesh out the world and the lore over time and it's going to become it's own world(perfect for the videogame medium since it's designed to serve it).I don't think Square-Enix regret creating Final Fantasy,as it's a franchise that can be milked for decade.

They just need to go beyond the dwarves and elves in a sequel. Show us a part of the world that will be like Morrowind.They just need to prove that they can go beyond the most basic and generic fantasy cliches,even if it was well done in Origins.It can be as well done as humanly possible,Ferelden is also as soulless a world as it can be.

[Survalli]

Mistersunshine wrote...

Dragon Age just seems a lot deeper, darker, and more mature to me than any of the old Forgotten Realms games. The setting is richer and more consistent, the beliefs and philosophies of the people more explored and more important to the story, and the major themes of the game are both weightier and more interwoven into every piece of the narrative than I ever felt was true of the Baldur's Gate games.

I like the main characters in Dragon Age a LOT more too, almost completely across the board.

You must not have played the same BG games....BG is way darker and mature than DA ever was.  Yes, DA is dark for this Console generation...but no it doesnt compare to the BG's and the Fallouts of yestreyear.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Ehh, nah, not for me.



While I appreciate Bioware taking the time to call it “the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate”, its not a patch on it as far as Im concerned. Its more NWNs successor, and even then falls short in some aspects.



Some things I personally think where DAO comes short are completely understandable. For instance I dont think the Dragon Age setting can hold a candle to Forgotten Realms (at least what it once was). Thats not surprising though when you consider the years of lore that went into Forgotten Realms and really built it into something amazing. Bioware did a great job making the DAO setting, but it just wasnt my cup of tea to be honest, neither do I think it has the depth some other settings offer.



Also (since I play primarily a mage) I can say without hesitation the magic system of DAO is completely trounced by D&D. Ill take scribing and memorising spells of immense power over mana-based casting of "elemental" and rather bland spells any day. I like a spell to be a truly unique thing, and have something of a history to it. Not just some fire tornado used 2-3 times a battle.



Also (this is really where opinion starts to kick in) I didnt find the plot, characters, music or locations as enthralling as I did in the Baldurs Gate series.



Respectfully, I can see why Dragon Age is a great game that means a lot to many people, but it doesnt rank among my favourites, and I consider Baldurs Gate II not only from a different gaming era, but in a different league to DAO altogether.



Since I first starting playing DAO, there hasnt been one instance where it came close to knocking off my all time favourite game and RPG. Not that that is in any way surprising since no other game has ever come close either.

[Bibdy]

Terwox_ wrote...

The Baldur's gate 2 most off us remember have a heavy nostalgia filter on it. And A good portion off us also have the various fixes and tweaks that have come out for it since bioware stopped officially releasing patches for the game. So when it all comes down to it, wether you like to admit it or not. Baldur's Gate 2 was flawed. Not that I love it any less, don't get me wrong, I love that game to bits and pieces. I just possess the clarity off mind to see the game as it was, with flaws and all. At least some off the time.

Nah, having to restart the game because your romance plot got b0rked somewhere in the middle was totally cool.

[Survalli]

speaking of creating a game world from scratch... Jade Empire and Mass Effect were better games. This game is more of a spiritual successor to NWN2 and than BG2. ive stopped playing DA everyday...ive become bored.

[Seifz]

xcorps wrote...

Sakiradesu wrote...

You guys make me want to try BG2. It's hard going back to lesser graphics though, now that we've been spoiled with modern graphics.

Lesser/dated != poor quality

The scenery in BGII is stunning, sometimes awe-inspiring.

No, I'm with the other guy here.  I tried going back to play BG2 again not so long ago and it was just impossible to get into it.  I already knew the characters, I already knew the story, the AD&D v2.0 combat system still sucked, and the graphics just made me want to punch kittens because I'm so used to 3D engines and pretty shadows and sparkly effects.

And really, who thought that AD&D v2.0 was suitable for CRPGs?  Especially with those damn kits!  Bah!

[The_KFD_Case]

french lies wrote...

I hate to say this, but I found the lore and setting of Dragon Age pretty shallow and disappointing. Much of this could probably be attributed to time constraints: Forgotten Realms as a setting had been developed and expanded on for almost 20 years by the time the original BG came out, with separate books for every continent and supplementary material for every god and race you could think of. Ferelden, by contrast, was created by a small group of people over one or two years at most and no matter how good you are there's no real way you're going to be able to add any real depth or weight within that time frame. Oh, and in addition to the setting, the designers/writers also had to come up with all the story, dialogue, quests and a whole new systems for spells, character progression and combat. It goes without saying that the quality wouldn't end up as consistent as when they only had to worry about a third of these things.

Everything feels like a cypher for something else - Darkspawn are orcs, Orlais is France, Antiva is Spain, Qunari are American Indians, the Chantry is the Protestant Church and so on. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with that way of designing a setting, these comparisons never really go beyond borrowing superficial characteristics like accents and stereotypical tripe like "the Orlais/French love wine and fashion".

The setting isn't terrible, don't get me wrong, but it bears all the hallmarks of having been designed around a game, as opposed to having had a game designed within it. For huge, lore-intensive games like this, an established license will almost always produce better results than trying to make up everything during a development cycle. That's why for me DA as an RPG falls short of Planescape and the two BG games.

I agree more or less with just about everything you typed above except perhaps for the last sentence (and I perceive The Chantry to be closer to the Catholic Church, but that's somewhat semantic). By the sound of your post I think I'm also a bit more forgiving because I do feel a genuine, deep rooted fondness for "Dragon Age: Origins". I've been waiting - albeit at times without realising it - for a game like this since I completed "BG II" some ten years ago. "Deus Ex" is in the same league as "BG II" in my opinion, and "The Witcher" and "Mass Effect" are very close if not quite there. Indeed, there quite a number of things about "Dragon Age: Origins" which reminds me of "The Witcher". I keep finding my thoughts and feelings returning to "Dragon Age: Origins" even when going about my daily work routines, private life, etc. and it is rare indeed that I feel such a connection with a game. My proverbial hat is off to the boys n' gals at BioWare for doing what they do so well once again. The world of Thedas does indeed lack the same depth and development that the world of Toril (aka. "Forgotten Realms") has, IMO, yet as you saliently pointed out that world has had decades worth of development and has already passed the point where its become a living part of contemporary Western culture for many of the people whom have ever dabbled in role playing games.

What I find far more deserving of criticism are the numerous tech issues many people have encountered with little official word or help, yet even this does not diminish what I consider the glory and beauty of the type of game that only seems to come along every so often over half a decade or two. "Dragon Age: Origins" will likely be my personal GOTY and it's well on its way to entering my personal "Top 10 Games of All Time (so far)".

[Seifz]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

What I find far more deserving of criticism are the numerous tech issues many people have encountered with little official word or help, yet even this does not diminish what I consider the glory and beauty of the type of game that only seems to come along every so often over half a decade or two.

Technical issues that haven't been addressed?  Like what?

[The_KFD_Case]

Terwox_ wrote...

The Baldur's gate 2 most off us remember have a heavy nostalgia filter on it. And A good portion off us also have the various fixes and tweaks that have come out for it since bioware stopped officially releasing patches for the game. So when it all comes down to it, wether you like to admit it or not. Baldur's Gate 2 was flawed. Not that I love it any less, don't get me wrong, I love that game to bits and pieces. I just possess the clarity off mind to see the game as it was, with flaws and all. At least some off the time.

Aye. I never did get around to using mods and extended life patches for "BG II & ToB" yet I did complete both and loved it. Very few games can stand with it IMO (see my previous post), yet if I were to pop in my "BG II" disc in the drive today I would likely find it infuriating in light of the limited resolution and control options. User interfaces have developed as have slick control schemes. Yes, yes! That's what the unofficial patches are for or so I'm told yet like others I find that "Dragon Age: Origins" stirs those same feelings deep, deep inside my heart and mind the way that "BG II" did. *bittersweet sigh*

[The_KFD_Case]

Astrid Bashir wrote...

Hey that is a very interesting topic

GO FOR THE EYES BOO!!!! GO FOR THE EYES!!!

I do not know if this will be bigger than BG2 but it actually has everything it needs to become and it feels like it.

What BG2 had was a solid framework that was FR. This framework is attempted here as well but it is still early to say to what extent it will be achieved although it feels almost there. You have to keep in mind that FR had a history of many many years before it became a computer game it had all the time it needed to mature.Had already pretty solid ruleset too.


For sure i am going to enjoy this game for a loooong time.
DLC will further improve and broaden the framework of this new campaign setting Bioware is creating.

It gave me a feel of what i called, what i felt it is, "a single player MMO". I would prefer it a bit more rich in enemy variation though

Good job Bioware you got my absolute attention once again. Thank you for this very very nice game!!

I am looking forward to play in the rest areas of this world and experience even more complex and advanced gameplay the ****s and brawls of Antiva, the richness and culture of Orlais...

As for the +2 and +3 swords that someone mentioned they are still there. Only this time you make them with runes

Regarding redoing BG2... well i would happily help anyone who will seriously attempt to make mods based on it.

BUTT KICKING FOR GOODNESS!!

Minsc FTW!!!  The force of nature that he was; so destructive that it just became breathtakingly beautiful.

[The_KFD_Case]

Seifz wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

What I find far more deserving of criticism are the numerous tech issues many people have encountered with little official word or help, yet even this does not diminish what I consider the glory and beauty of the type of game that only seems to come along every so often over half a decade or two.

Technical issues that haven't been addressed?  Like what?

Well, for one I only got the "Warden's Keep" DLC to download thanks to a manual download using instructions by and download material linked to by a fellow poster on this forum close to a week after I purchased it. I haven't even received a comment from the official tech support channels despite sending them a mail several days ago. Perhaps the issue has been addressed by one of the BioWare members yet if so then I haven't seen it (though that doesn't mean it couldn't happen). While some of the bugs and other issues have been fixed or worked around (thanks apparently to the efforts of volunteers whom are not affiliated with either EA nor BioWare - good on them; disgraceful for EA/BioWare) there are/were too many "XXXX Error" or "Screen goes black. I'm told it's ATI but ATI hasn't heard of this when contacted, so back to EA tech support, etc.", or DLC not being downloaded the way it's supposed to despite an auto updater and on and on.

I do not really expect any game to avoid bugs altogether these days, yet some of these things should not have passed the QA phase. It's simply not good enough and yes, I do expect better from a company like BioWare with the sterling reputation it has.