124 réponses à ce sujet

[Lughsan35]

Why do most of the 'objections' come from complete pyschopaths that are upset that they cannot play chaotic stupid and kill everything..??

[Rhys Cordelle]

Lughsan35 wrote...

Why do most of the 'objections' come from complete pyschopaths that are upset that they cannot play chaotic stupid and kill everything..??

Because D&D has ruined them for anything else.



Dragon Age isn't about having complete freedom. It isn't a sandbox game.

[Blakes 7]

Must you pigeon hole everybody who likes d&d? While I agree dragon age isn't a sandbox at least bg2 had large enough side quests for that to not be an issue.

[Auraad]

Giygas Starman wrote...

Why are you even trying? Successor, spiritual, sequel. Dragon Age: Origins is a classic RPG, not DnD. It has elves, dwarves, orcs (darkspawn, okey, whatever) and dragons. DnD treated those races in a way, as does this world (what is the name of the world of Dragon Age anyhow??).

Why are you comparing it to Baldur's Gate so much? Do you really want this game to be like an old RPG that you clearly have set a much higher standard/value on.

It's like if I played Modern Warfare 2 and then wanted it to be as truly badass as Doom. My opinion; Doom can never be matched. Such comparison is really... well, unnecessary.

I want to know this from you instead. Did you enjoy playing Dragon Age? Did you have fun playing said game for what it is? If so, that's a blast! You got what you paid for I hope. If not, well... too bad, maybe next game! ^^

Because ... BIOWARE started this? They brought up the whole comparison with the BG series - so, it's valid to measure DA:O against BG ... and fails.
DA:O is just too different - some things are better, many things are worse. Anyway, it's a good game - I don't regret the spent money, but it's FAR FAR FAR from BG ... (which is, again, for some players good, for others bad)

[Wissenschaft]

radioactivewiz wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

I think that when they said "spiritual successor" they did not mean "it's a sequel with a different name name" but more "I am the ghost of rolepaying games past... woooooo".

This is something they explained later. Quite simple really. BG simply won't exist ever again because console gamers and other idiots allow for games to be released with not even half the content that BG had. Like how some reviews said COD MW2 had a good single player campaign....

No, because it would cost to much to make a game with as much content as BG. Thats why a game so big will never be made again.

[Wissenschaft]

I for one think this game is better than Baldurs gate. Does this make me weird?

[Astralbean]

The main thing that separates BGII from Dragon Age for me is that BGII had side quests, not a TON of them, but they were long side quests and I really enjoyed doing them every time I played the game.

Dragon Age has a lot of side quests, but they're really just chores. No decent rewards, no epic adventures, just boring chores.

[Vormaerin]

Hmmm.



Both start out with "you are screwed, go stop the bad guy"

Both quickly turn to "chose your own path through the side quests"

Both say "time is of the essence", but you are a moron not to do all the possible quests.

Both have NPCs with extensive backgrounds and personal plots.

Both jump back on the railroad after a while of open adventuring.



BG2 is somewhat larger of a game, though that has to do with changes in the graphics requirements, I think. Its easier to have fewer long dungeons and more short encounter areas in this game.



Spiritual successor does not mean "clone". It means game in the same style. You may prefer one or the other game's specific mechanics or storyline, but its clearly the same style of game.

[Krigwin]

Vormaerin wrote...
Why?  What was better about BG2?  This is a discussion thread.   Posts saying  "Don't discuss this because I'm right and that's all that matters" aren't contributions.

If you can spell out what is better about BG2, there's be something to discuss.   Combat in BG2 was a lot more varied and interesting.    The cost of art assets these days seems to severely limit the range of foes one can fight in a single game.

But what makes BG2's story and RP better than DA; O?

Well, everything has already been elaborated upon in detail on these forums, but here's the short version: more menacing, charismatic villains, deeper and more strategic combat system, more interesting and elaborate sidequests, more fitting music, deeper character creation system, more dynamic and varied party interaction and construction, deeper and more complex inventory and exploration, and a more epic and player-focused plot.

Don't get me wrong, DA:O is a terrific game, but it is a shell of potential compared to BG2, which was a colossus and to this day remains the pinnacle of party-based adventuring. In a comparison between the two, DA:O is as if someone took BG2 and sucked it dry until all the meat was gone and all that was left was a barebones game.

DA:O is only the first game in the franchise, that is certainly true, and I would love for Bioware to come full circle and make a Dragon Age 2 that is every bit as amazing as BG2 was, but I'm afraid like many others I'm going to have to play the pessimist and say all we have to look forward to are more consolized and watered-down games and tons of DLC.

[The Capital Gaultier]

DA:O is a better game than BG2. Bioware's learned a lot and applied it quite well.

[Wissenschaft]

That a laugh. Loghain is just as deep and well protrayed character as anyone in BG. I really love Loghain, even though I always want to kill him.

[Allattar1]

I personally loved both. It has been ages since playing BG so I wont try and say what is better, as nostalgia and the more recent playthrough will taint my responses.



However I loved the characters, there interaction, and this game made me really hate a few of them...

In short it worked was enjoyable.



Plus, I reall really hate sweeping generalisations that some people will use.

like.

"Most people agree BG was better than DA:O"

What people? who did you ask? what was the sample size of the survey.

My own sweeping generalisation for any sweeping generalisation I see is that most people who use a sweeping generalisation are just stating there own opinion and haven't asked anyone else.

[Jonfon_ire]

Aye, I'd agree that DA:O is a better crafted game than BG2. It hasn't had the same impact on me as BG2 but realistically it couldn't really. That game came out of nowhere for me and totally blew me away (I walked into a games shop having never heard of it and picked it up).



The plethora of DLC items in the new game weakens it for me too. Part of the charm of BG2 was finding an irritating talking sword in a sewer or discovering Daystar and having it available when facing swarms of vampires. In Dragon Age chests rarely contain anything good at all, and a lot of boss types carry weak items too and getting Item of Super Power simply for registering your game rather than earning it during the game sorta weakens the fun for me a tad.

[Malkut]

here's the short version: more menacing, charismatic villains,

One talented voice actor that everyone is in love with.

deeper and more strategic combat system,

Cast Breach to remove Stoneskin, and True Seeing to remove Invisibility.  This makes mages vulnerable to melee and arrows.

Congratulations, you've mastered all the complexities of Baldur's Gate 2's combat system.

more interesting and elaborate sidequests,

For the most part, I'll give you this one.

more fitting music,

It was pretty forgettable, IMHO.

deeper character creation system,

Overcomplicated to the point of sheer stupidity.  Do we really needed barbarians, rangers, fighters, AND paladins, considering that all any of those classes ever do is hit enemies with sticks?  Do we really need mages AND sorcerers?  Did you ever notice how half the primary character stats are relatively useless for any given character?  Would any character ever want an 18 in CHA?  How about all those low-level spells that don't scale and gradually lose their usefulness?

There are a thousand classes in D&D-style games, but they only really cover about four archetypes to varying degrees: fighters, rogues, mages, and healers.  Dragon Age just folded healers and mages together, and made those archetypes the classes.  Thank you Bioware for cutting away D&D's fat.

Granted, we could use more skill trees and more complex specializations, but that's what sequels are for.

more dynamic and varied party interaction and construction,

I'm not even sure what this means.  For the most part, these things are the same in DA:O as in Baldur's Gate.

deeper and more complex inventory and exploration,

Inventory wasn't more complex, just more limited.  I don't even know how exploration is different in this game.  Seems pretty much the same, to me.  There's a map, and you click where you want to go, and you go there and explore it.  Even the little mini-encounters on the map are pretty much identical.

and a more epic and player-focused plot.

Set in the nonsensical framework of the Forgotten Realms: AKA the worst setting of all.

[Vormaerin]

Krigwin wrote...

Well, everything has already been elaborated upon in detail on these forums, but here's the short version: more menacing, charismatic villains, deeper and more strategic combat system, more interesting and elaborate sidequests, more fitting music, deeper character creation system, more dynamic and varied party interaction and construction, deeper and more complex inventory and exploration, and a more epic and player-focused plot.

The archdemon kind of sucks, granted.   But Loghain and Howe are as well developed and menacing as Jon and his sister, IMHO.    Not sure what you mean by the combat system being more strategic.  Unless you mean there's more of the D&D rock/paper/scissors approach to magic in BG2?    Rogues and Fighters are certainly more versatile and interesting in DA than in BG, where you basically just have point and click for them.   What was deeper about 2nd edition character creation?   You picked a class.  You had only minimal choices about what do at each level, unless you were a spellcaster.   I'm not sure there's more party interaction, unless you just mean you can have a bigger party.   I can't quite figure out how the plot in BG2 is more epic, though it is certainly more personal.

Side quests you have a point.   Those are certainly more elaborate.   At least in terms of total number of fully fleshed out areas.

Music I don't remember at all from BG2, so I'll take your word for it.

Umm, are you seriously suggesting that a more complex inventory is actually better?

[Krigwin]

Malkut wrote...
One talented voice actor that everyone is in love with.

I liked Sarevok more than Irenicus, but I'm sure I'm the only one. Doesn't change the fact that they are both, however, built up better as menacing villains and central to each game while, even though Gaider put so much into Loghain, he's not even the main villain of DA:O. I do love Loghain, but please, he cannot compare to Sarevok or Irenicus. Most people do not even get the full impact of Loghain because they never read the book, but man that first time Sarevok made his entrance, or Irenicus slaughtering the Cowled Wizards... classic moments of gaming.

Cast Breach to remove Stoneskin, and True Seeing to remove Invisibility.  This makes mages vulnerable to melee and arrows.

Congratulations, you've mastered all the complexities of Baldur's Gate 2's combat system.

This is coming from someone who has played WoW since launch: DA:O's combat is even more simple than WoW's. Even Dawn of War 2 had better boss fights than DA:O, and that's not even an RPG.. The most complex fight in DA:O is arguably the Corrupted Spider Queen. Please try comparing that to the Spellhold Irenicus fight, or the Firkraag fight, or... pretty much any of the boss fights from BG2. And let's not even get into the ToB fights. Even the ordinary monsters in BG2 have a dangerous, hard quality to them, and the game throws you curveballs all the time like random petrifications and MIND FLAYER LOL. Almost every single fight in DA:O can be reduced to a tank and spank. And lest we forget, BG2 came out nine years ago.

And, come on. Auto-resurrection? Regenerating health?

It was pretty forgettable, IMHO.

This one is purely subjective, but still, I defy you:

Overcomplicated to the point of sheer stupidity.  Do we really needed barbarians, rangers, fighters, AND paladins, considering that all any of those classes ever do is hit enemies with sticks?  Do we really need mages AND sorcerers?  Did you ever notice how half the primary character stats are relatively useless for any given character?  Would any character ever want an 18 in CHA?  How about all those low-level spells that don't scale and gradually lose their usefulness?

There are a thousand classes in D&D-style games, but they only really cover about four archetypes to varying degrees: fighters, rogues, mages, and healers.  Dragon Age just folded healers and mages together, and made those archetypes the classes.  Thank you Bioware for cutting away D&D's fat.

Granted, we could use more skill trees and more complex specializations, but that's what sequels are for.

But most of the flaws you speak of still exist in DA:O. Half of the abilities in this game are complete garbage, attributes are still useless for many classes, and I would not agree that lowering the number of classes is a good thing. I for one miss proper Bards, Druids, Clerics, and Paladins. The class lore, so to speak, has also been toned down significantly as well. The only one that is really given any thought is the Orlesian bard, and again you'd have to read the books to get the most out of that one. Even the Legion of the Dead is more interesting than "we mad" dwarven barbarians and the demon-driven blood mages, that's only something that's been used in fantasy since... ever. Other "classes" like ranger and champion don't even get stories!

I'm not even sure what this means.  For the most part, these things are the same in DA:O as in Baldur's Gate.

Let me elaborate. In BG2 party members had minds of their own, purposes in their lives. They had their own quests for the most part that required your assistance, you had to work for their aid. They had their own opinions on things and didn't always agree with your decisions. They didn't always play nice with each other either. It was only a matter of time before Edwin tried to poison Minsc's food and Keldorn tried to stab Viconia in the face. Party size was larger as well which gave you more freedom with constructing a balanced group.

In DA:O your happy sunshine puppies and flowers squad of righteousness ambles across the prairie like a tight-knit family. Leliana's calling Sten a softy and Alistair and Zevran are making bets on how long it takes for Morrigan to crack. Crisis moments are few and far between, any disagreements can be solved by shoving shiny objects into their laps, and the most elaborate companion quest there is involves going to a shack accessible from the world map to fight a boss with thirty seconds of buildup. You're supposed to be gathering an army to represent all civilization and face down an unstoppable evil that seeks to destroy everything but for some reason you only have nine champions to take with you, and that's including the dog.

Inventory wasn't more complex, just more limited.  I don't even know how exploration is different in this game.  Seems pretty much the same, to me.  There's a map, and you click where you want to go, and you go there and explore it.  Even the little mini-encounters on the map are pretty much identical.

This one probably needs more explanation as well.

What I meant was, the item/weapons/armor system in general was larger, more varied, and better designed in general. Weapon and armor types mattered. Quick-use items actually existed. You had to manage your party's inventory instead of simply auto-looting everything you come across and buying more backpacks when you can't carry any more.

Half the weapons and armor you find in DA:O are completely useless and there is little to no item progression. Merchants carry selections divided into two categories: generic items you'll never use, or epic items you won't be able to afford until the Landsmeet. Your tank can go from Oathkeeper to Keening Blade easily, and some items like Vanguard and Summer Sword are worthless by the time you get them. And let's not even talk about the mage armor selection, let's not even go there.

As for the exploration, what I meant by that was the areas were more varied and interesting, as well as vibrant, than DA:O's. This one is pretty subjective so I'm not going to press it further, but I will say DA:O's dungeon grinding is about as repetitive as it gets and the dungeon setup is made like this game came out in 1995 - every area is one of four types: small or large room and small or wide hallway. Our areas range from volcanic caves to frosty mountain caves. All we need is an icy area full of frozen ponds!

Set in the nonsensical framework of the Forgotten Realms: AKA the worst setting of all.

Purely subjective. But no matter how much you might detest the Forgotten Realms, no one can deny that Ferelden is the Arkansas of Thedas and the entire lore and backstory of the world feels like it was cobbled together from fantasy novels and the most generic mishmash of religion imaginable. All we need in the sequel is a Grey Warden named Jusus who ends up spreading the Chant across the world and saving mankind, and for it to be revealed that it was Flemeth's mother, named Evia or something, who was the one who converted the Tevinter Imperium to the worship of the Old Gods and this story is complete. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely room to grow, but let's not try comparing settings now when Ferelden so far has been more bland than porridge.

As for the sidequests, I would certainly argue that this is the heart and soul of the WRPG genre. Someone else on this forum said it best: DA:O has no sidequests, only sidetasks, and the feel of progression and party-based adventuring is almost fully gone, especially as DA:O uses level scaling liberally.

Anyways, I wanted to avoid debate on this because, as I said, DA:O is only the first game in the franchise, the industry is moving towards a more dumbed-down and consolized direction in general, and it's unfair to compare it to the colossus that is BG2, even if it was Bioware themselves that first made the comparison. DA:O certainly looks prettier, and it is packed with features the WRPG genre has learned through harsh experience, but once the glamour fades you'll realize it's not nearly as polished as one might first believe and looking at Bioware's exciting new DLC approach, one can't help but defeatedly lower their expectations.

[Niten Ryu]

Lughsan35 wrote...

Why do most of the 'objections' come from complete pyschopaths that are upset that they cannot play chaotic stupid and kill everything..??

To be able to roleplay Chaotic Stupid is part of CRPG legacy. You can be utter douchebag in Ultima Underworld as well as in Baldur's Gate or Fallout. This means it's a choice and if that choice is no longer in some games (like in Dragon Age), it's only natural that some players like me miss that feature.

For me Chaotic Stupid characters always meant freedom from the boring stories that developers try to forcefeed us. Waterchip? Who cares... Gorion? You should have died years ago... Being Gray Warden? Fine, you poison me, now I'll take my revenge on everything and everyone. Bioware obviously don't want this as they worked really hard with the story. They feel (and majority of the players agree) that story is one of the best parts of the Bioware brand. Personally I find 'em average at the best, like something that we cooked up in 80's PnP roleplaying sessions.

There's nothing wrong to roleplay a "good" character. I often do it on my first run and generally Bioware creates choices that make perfect sense for the good character. You save the day, the cat from the tree, banish demons, kill army worth of bad guys and big bad boss. You can't do the opposite in many of the modern CRPGs.

[The Capital Gaultier]

Niten Ryu wrote...

There's nothing wrong to roleplay a "good" character. I often do it on my first run and generally Bioware creates choices that make perfect sense for the good character. You save the day, the cat from the tree, banish demons, kill army worth of bad guys and big bad boss. You can't do the opposite in many of the modern CRPGs.

That's true - you can't play an evil person in many modern CRPGs.  But you can in DA:O, so what's your point?

[Niten Ryu]

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

Niten Ryu wrote...

There's nothing wrong to roleplay a "good" character. I often do it on my first run and generally Bioware creates choices that make perfect sense for the good character. You save the day, the cat from the tree, banish demons, kill army worth of bad guys and big bad boss. You can't do the opposite in many of the modern CRPGs.

That's true - you can't play an evil person in many modern CRPGs.  But you can in DA:O, so what's your point?

Yes, you can be evil but not Chaotic Stupid. You can't ruin the day, Burn the tree with cat, summon demons, kill army worth of good guys and ally up with the big bad boss. I used "good" because I don't really know the opposite term for the "Chaotic Stupid". "Lawful smart" don't sound right because you don't always follow the law (ie looting everything that's not nailed down). Maybe "smart utilitarian" might be better.

[The Capital Gaultier]

Niten Ryu wrote...

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

Niten Ryu wrote...

There's nothing wrong to roleplay a "good" character. I often do it on my first run and generally Bioware creates choices that make perfect sense for the good character. You save the day, the cat from the tree, banish demons, kill army worth of bad guys and big bad boss. You can't do the opposite in many of the modern CRPGs.

That's true - you can't play an evil person in many modern CRPGs.  But you can in DA:O, so what's your point?

Yes, you can be evil but not Chaotic Stupid. You can't ruin the day, Burn the tree with cat, summon demons, kill army worth of good guys and ally up with the big bad boss. I used "good" because I don't really know the opposite term for the "Chaotic Stupid". "Lawful smart" don't sound right because you don't always follow the law (ie looting everything that's not nailed down). Maybe "smart utilitarian" might be better.

Ah, yes, you are right - and I agree; that isn't possible.

[Allattar1]

It would be interesting to allow someone to be chaotic stupid.
Then about the point you do go stupid, the game comes down on you with the proverbial ton of bricks.

"Haha I killed that peasant for looking in my direction, and to loot his shirt off his back."
"Woops there goes the Templar guard at the chantry, wheee bye bye revered mother lololol...
Only to find waiting for you 20+ templars, half the village that where waiting for you, and a cutscene of your pc's body as it jerks its last moments on the gallows.

In a nod to yes, you can be an ass, but you will lose, and lose heavily if you do.

Edit:
And for anyone who wants to do these things, this game is not about being evil as possible and being a sandbox.  It is telling the tale of the Grey Wardens who save Fereldan.  Your hardly saving Fereldan if your busy killing it.

Modifié par Allattar1, 02 décembre 2009 - 11:24 .

[Malkut]

Krigwin wrote...

I do love Loghain, but please, he cannot compare to Sarevok or Irenicus

Loghain is exactly the same as Irenicus: a bombastic, hammy speech delivering psychotic twit obsessed with revenge.  Written by the same person, even.  Only difference: the voice actor doesn't give us naughty dreams.

*wistful sigh*

The class lore, so to speak, has also been toned down significantly as well. The only one that is really given any thought is the Orlesian bard, and again you'd have to read the books to get the most out of that one.

See, this is where I think your major malfunction is.  This stuff?  Does NOT belong in a video game.  It belongs in a book detailing a PNP setting.  That's why it appeared in BG; because someone else had already written it.

No game company is ever going to set down and create a setting with as much meaingless crap as the Forgotten Realms, because they aren't trying to sell a new $30 book filled with worthless minute every three months.

Maybe we'll learn more, once they release the Dragon Age PNP game, and start milking it like the filthy cash cow that it shall no doubt be.

But most of the flaws you speak of still exist in DA:O.

To a far, far lesser extent, yes.  There is still room for improvement.  Still, no Goodberries.  A step in the right direction, that is.

for some reason you only have nine champions to take with you, and that's including the dog.

Six player party limit says what?

What I meant was, the item/weapons/armor system in general was larger, more varied, and better designed in general. Weapon and armor types mattered.

. . . yeah, and they still do?

Quick-use items actually existed.

Poisons, traps, grenades . . . .

You had to manage your party's inventory instead of simply auto-looting everything you come across and buying more backpacks when you can't carry any more.

As opposed to bag of holding?

Half the weapons and armor you find in DA:O are completely useless and there is little to no item progression.

There actually is an item progression.

And let's not even talk about the mage armor selection, let's not even go there.

Oh, Robe of +2 AC vs Slashing, how I miss thee!

Purely subjective. But no matter how much you might detest the Forgotten Realms, no one can deny that Ferelden is the Arkansas of Thedas and the entire lore and backstory of the world feels like it was cobbled together from fantasy novels and the most generic mishmash of religion imaginable.

Yeah, FR's religious system is way more original than any of the three fully fleshed out religions in this game.

"Shar is evil and dark, because she is dark and evil and wants to destroy the world.  Her followers believe in being mean. She is also Ed Greenwood's Mary Sue, just like all the other gods, and the Seven Sisters, and Elminster, and that faux-Galadriel chick that runs Silverymoon.  You know, the one Greenwood plays at cons, and uses to get other plays to have live, in-person phone sex with him across the table.  That one.  Turns out, she's kind of a skank."

Forgotten Realms has a lot of subplots and irrelevant characters stacked on top of each other, but it really only has one overarching plot that ties into the entire setting: the gods are either stupid or inept or evil, and because of that, the world is going to explode, and it's up to you to save it.

Hence, Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par Malkut, 02 décembre 2009 - 11:26 .

[Ponce de Leon]

Wissenschaft wrote...

I for one think this game is better than Baldurs gate. Does this make me weird?

Everyone has its own opinions. I respect that, even though I can't agree. This doesn't make neither me nor you weird.

At least, that's what I think should be normal...

[Urik187]

lorderon99999 wrote...

I did not what another BG but I wanted a game based on the same formula of BG...this one wasen't...and that ghost is evil

here is what i dont get.

you go out and buy the game.
you register the game,
make an online profile

and then all you can do it ****???
WTF man???

I really hate ppl like you. you do something just so you can talk crap about it. irratates the crap outta me. if you dont like the game sell it to a second hand store and delete your online account instead of being a ****

[stan_hg]

dark-lauron wrote...

Volourn wrote...

DA is vastly superior to BG2. It is deeper, more complex, and simply awesome.

All I gots to say is DA Ogre > BG Ogre

'Nough said.

But remember that BG ogres said "Me will smash your face!" or ogre magi "Mwahahahahah" and when they attack "Iiiaaah!" and when they die "IIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAH!" That's superior

Secondly, Gaxkang is much inferior to the full power of Kangaxx. Dragon Age characters don't even have means to protect from his spells!

But more on topic, they are two games apart. I cannot call DA:O the spiritual successor of BG, at least, not in every aspect, but that's what makes DA:O good. We don't want copies of older games. If we'd want them, then we're ruined already.

ill gladly pay for BG2 made with todays game engine