138 réponses à ce sujet

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Volourn wrote...

" Pools of Darkness or anything"

A game so easy a 10 eyar year old can beat it no questions asked. No real thinkking involved.


"Seeing your party members that have been slain, just 'stand up' after a battle is beyond retarded."

Ignorance. They dodn't die. they fall unconcious. HUGE difference. (i still prefer the old fahsion way though peroasnally). Still, DA series is a much deeper and more complex game combat and role-playing wise than the Bg series. No contest. Anyone who has played both should know this unless they are pretending silly things like the BG warrior or rogue is so awesomely deep.

Not to mention that Fighters and Warriors only get bonus feats as their class features. I really think that Paladins are better, given that you can get access to spells.

[bussinrounds]

Volourn wrote...

" Pools of Darkness or anything"

A game so easy a 10 eyar year old can beat it no questions asked. No real thinkking involved.


"Seeing your party members that have been slain, just 'stand up' after a battle is beyond retarded."

Ignorance. They dodn't die. they fall unconcious. HUGE difference. (i still prefer the old fahsion way though peroasnally). Still, DA series is a much deeper and more complex game combat and role-playing wise than the Bg series. No contest. Anyone who has played both should know this unless they are pretending silly things like the BG warrior or rogue is so awesomely deep.

   So they would always fall unconcious and never get outright killed, no matter what ?   Yea, that's really cool.   

  Now your gonna tell me DA2 is tougher than Pools of Darkness ?  

  I never said 2nd edition fighters were 'incredibly deep'.

 Now I realize why ppl on the dex don't even bother discussing sh!t with you anymore.

[AlanC9]

bussinrounds wrote...
 So they would always fall unconcious and never get outright killed, no matter what ?   Yea, that's really cool.    

It's about as cool as everyone fighting at full strength and then suddenly dying. Both are silly. You can pick whichever flavor of silliness you prefer, but let's not pretend that either game is trying to be a serious simulation of anything.

[bussinrounds]

AlanC9 wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...
 So they would always fall unconcious and never get outright killed, no matter what ?   Yea, that's really cool.    

It's about as cool as everyone fighting at full strength and then suddenly dying. Both are silly. You can pick whichever flavor of silliness you prefer, but let's not pretend that either game is trying to be a serious simulation of anything.

    I'll take Gygax's rules/world over ones just thrown together.   That's why I prefer already existing p&p systems to be used over homebrew stuff.  Not as much thought goes into it and it comes off as being shallow because they have to make a game and create a world/ruleset also.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 02 avril 2012 - 10:56 .

[Volourn]

"So they would always fall unconcious and never get outright killed, no matter what ? Yea, that's really cool."

I never said it was 'cool'. Did you even read my post?


"Now your gonna tell me DA2 is tougher than Pools of Darkness ? "

It absolutely is. Did you actually play both games espicially POD? Not a ahrd game at all.


" I never said 2nd edition fighters were 'incredibly deep'. "

You claimed the Bgs eries was deeper and more complex than DA and tht DA was 'dumbed down'. That isn't the case and I gave the Bg fighter as compairson.


"Now I realize why ppl on the dex don't even bother discussing sh!t with you anymore."

Actually, they do disucss things with me. Youobviouslya r eno Codexer if you think otherwise. Only the ignorant, the cowardly, and the foolish don't discuss things with me because by doing so you can intake my awesome knowledge and become a better human being and actually know stuff about RPGs which you obviously do not.

[Yrkoon]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
Not to mention that Fighters and Warriors only get bonus feats as their class features.

And in  the BG games they didn't even get more than one or two of those for each class.

What could be more SIMPLE and brainless than a  Warrior in  Baldur's Gate?  You LITERALLY could do nothing in combat but a basic (auto) attack with your weapon.  You didn't get  Shield Bash, Assault, Overpower, Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, whirlwind attack, Punisher,  Riposte, or any such fancy schmancy special moves.... you know... like you did in Dragon Age: Origins.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Wait...DA is a more advanced combat and roleplaying experience than Baldur's Gate? *head explodes*

I actually prefered Baldur's Gate in almost every way. I still play it, I can't say the same for Dragon Age, even Origins. There's something more exciting about a spell system with ten times the spells (some redundant, some not) and possible character perminant deaths in any combat scenerio. It's also nice to have more class choices and depth of play in those choices than just three generic architypes with very limited feats divided up into specialist trees. While I like the idea of interacting spells or character abilities, Dragon Age cross class combos were few and far between. Also, when I play a cRPG, I am playing it to play a RPG, not to watch a movie. Keep the "cinematics" in the movie theaters, especially if they limit the RPG elements of the game. I think the tricky part for developers is restraining themselves, they aren't making freakin' movies, though they seem to wish they were at times and it ends up hurting the games.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Yrkoon wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
Not to mention that Fighters and Warriors only get bonus feats as their class features.

And in  the BG games they didn't even get more than one or two of those for each class.

What could be more SIMPLE and brainless than a  Warrior in  Baldur's Gate?  You LITERALLY could do nothing in combat but a basic (auto) attack with your weapon.  You didn't get  Shield Bash, Assault, Overpower, Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, whirlwind attack, whirlwind sweep, or any such fancy schmancy special moves.... you know... like you did in Dragon Age: Origins.

Well this is a comparisson of apples and oranges really since the BG titles were more party oriented, the control was up to the player over all their party members where in Dragon Age the emphasis is on the main character and not so much the entire party using strengths and weaknesses. There just isn't a comparisson with the strategies in combat situations between the two games.

But if we must compare, being a warrior in Baldur's Gate was about the much wider variety of gear, items and potions you could use. It was also about Multiclassing or Dual classing, which drives me nuts with DA:O and DA 2, how limited and simplified the class system is. There are few things more dull under then sun than creating a DA character and watching it "develop." The specs and statistics are just horrible, it's as bad as playing Diablo.

[Yrkoon]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
Not to mention that Fighters and Warriors only get bonus feats as their class features.

And in  the BG games they didn't even get more than one or two of those for each class.

What could be more SIMPLE and brainless than a  Warrior in  Baldur's Gate?  You LITERALLY could do nothing in combat but a basic (auto) attack with your weapon.  You didn't get  Shield Bash, Assault, Overpower, Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, whirlwind attack, whirlwind sweep, or any such fancy schmancy special moves.... you know... like you did in Dragon Age: Origins.

Well this is a comparisson of apples and oranges really since the BG titles were more party oriented,  the control was up to the player over all their party members where in Dragon Age the emphasis is on the main character and not so much the entire party using strengths and weaknesses. There just isn't a comparisson with the strategies in combat situations between the two games.

Not sure what relevance the dynamics of the party systems between the two games has, in a dicussion about which game was "simpler".  And I'm not sure there's any notable difference at all anyway.  Both the BG series and  Dragon Age Origins rewarded  a balanced party.    Both responded well to teamwork featuring the traditional roles of Warrior = Tank,   Spellcaster = Nuker/healer, and Rogue = covert glass cannon type/Sniper/backstabber/trap-disarmer/lockpicker.

So the only thing we can contrast is the depth and complexity of the individual components.  The BG series  (specifically, BG2)  definitely featured a  more complex spell casting system.  But that's all.  The huge edge goes to DA:O for  Warriors and Rogues

But if we must compare, being a warrior in Baldur's Gate was about the much wider variety of gear, items and potions you could use. It was also about Multiclassing or Dual classing, which drives me nuts with DA:O and DA 2, how limited and simplified the class system is. There are few things more dull under then sun than creating a DA character and watching it "develop." The specs and statistics are just horrible, it's as bad as playing Diablo.

No, you're not describing Complex vs. Dumbed down.  You're just describing different approaches to customization.  DA:O had specializations, instead of multiclassing.  Your Warrior could become a warrior who's also a berserker, a Templar, a Reaver  and a Champion. with whole skill trees for each.  Your Rogue could become an Assassin, and a Bard, and a Ranger and a Duelist.   Then Awakening added  even more specializations to be had.

Same thing with items.  Sure, BG has "more"... if your idea of more  is 1 million sets of armor  distinguishable only by how  enchanted they were (leather armor +1,  Studded leather armor +2,  Full Plate +4 of fire resistance, etc.), while DA:O  took a different route,  opting to use  different types of material to determine power and diversity  (Iron, steel, dragonbone, red steel,   Silverite, etc)

The BG series does boast a much wider range of weaponry, however, which is something I appreciate greatly, but it didn't do much with these differences.  There were no abilities/skills  exclusive to  using a Halberd vs. Using a spear (for example).  Or using a mace vs. using a longsword.  So that raised the question:  what was the point, beyond basic aesthetics?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[bussinrounds]

And the DA supporters continue to avoid the the topic of monster/enemy variety....

[Volourn]

not much difference for monster variety between DA and BG.

[Gotholhorakh]

BioWare is a big house with a lot of pressure on it to make money.

If they don't have any faith in the genre to make enough money, you will not see any more genre games from them. That's just how it is, I think.

As for feelings of betrayal etc. - I don't think that's because BioWare has this untarnished reputation - it's because they used an active franchise with a clamouring fanbase to sell a different, experimental product. It's not rocket science, if you radically change the product mid-story, and water down its faithfulness the genre to get more fans, existing fans will feel like they wasted their money. You are attempting to boost your business, and frankly you know you're mitigating the risk by exploiting lots of fans who will buy/maybe be pissed off. You know very well what the trade-off is there before you start.

Example: I thought Jade Empire was a terrible game, but you didn't see me complaining about it to everyone who would listen because I tried it out, discovered I didn't like it at all, and moved on. If they'd called it Baldur's Gate 3, I would have complained. Ditto NWN, KOTOR - it was easy to take or leave them because they were radical changes done in conjunction with a new product.

Even if they didn't seem to have lost faith in the genre, there is no reason BioWare couldn't just be on normal form -

• BG1, ok
• BG2, great
• IW, ok
• NWN, meh
• JE, meh
• KOTOR, ok
• mass effect, meh
• mass effect 2, meh
• DA:O, great
• Awakenings, ok
• DA2, musk of beelzebub
• I didn't buy ME3, but by all accounts it was great right up until the end

- now others will vary on that list, I might be a little harsh since I recently came off the BW kool-aid, but I expect nobody will love them all

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 03 avril 2012 - 09:08 .

[Yrkoon]

bussinrounds wrote...

And the DA supporters continue to avoid the the topic of monster/enemy variety....

Probably because it doesn't have squat to do with dumbing down.  The intelligence needed to wipe out the myriad of BG's Orcs, goblins,  gnolls,  Xvarts, bandits etc, is not any higher than what it takes to defeat DA:O's varieties of Darkspawn.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 09:44 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

Son Ov Mars wrote...

Scorcher24 wrote...

Stop the casualization of your games and get back to your roots.

That went out the door the moment BioWare was bought by EA....

You must be new to Bioware. You'd see that they've been getting progressively worse since before KotOR.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 03 avril 2012 - 11:07 .

[Seagloom]

Yrkoon wrote...

What could be more SIMPLE and brainless than a  Warrior in  Baldur's Gate?  You LITERALLY could do nothing in combat but a basic (auto) attack with your weapon.  You didn't get  Shield Bash, Assault, Overpower, Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, whirlwind attack, Punisher,  Riposte, or any such fancy schmancy special moves.... you know... like you did in Dragon Age: Origins.

That is true. You know what is funny about that, though? Baldur's Gate combat made me think. Despite single-classed non-spellcasting characters being basic I had to plan for harder encounters. In some cases, such as the beholder caves in the Underdark, I had to plan for an entire area.

DAO warriors and rogues had all these extra abilities that in the end of the day mostly amounted to jack all. Playing a tank? Activate shield wall or shield defense, taunt as needed to draw aggro. Two-hander or dual-wield? Cycle through the appropriate clickies; rinse and repeat. Every now and then, throw in a crowd control ability such as war cry, pommel strike, or the like. Rogue? Hardly mattered. Everything came down to activating momentum and positioning the rogue to backstab. Archers were even worse since auto attack was eventually far preferable to using trick shots. Mages had the most abilities via their spells, but most of them were redundant or of questionable worth. You could get through the whole game relying on a handful of good spells such as fireball, cone of cold, and blood wound.

I do concede that DAO may be more fun to play a warrior or rogue in if one enjoys taking an active hand in combat. However, taking that hands on approach is rarely necessary to ensure victory. Other than tanks, rogues, and offensively oriented mages, it is not even necessary to control party members in DAO at all. The tactics option can delegate all that to CPU.

What I'm getting at here is that while DAO warriors and rogues are most certainly not dumbed down compared to Baldur's Gate; that complexity does little to smarten up combat. I can only remember two battles in DAO where I really needed to think to win: the spider queen and Ser Cauthrien. And even in those cases, I found no use for most of the superfluous warrior and rogue abilities.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

Nordicus wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that Bioware has been making their games more and more casual since BG2.

Dunno if I'd use the word "casualization" but I agree that Bioware has been making too many compromises to fit the tastes of of a larger audience (funny how little 'art' and 'compromise' mix btw). Instead of trying to push the RPG genre forward, they're just watering everything down, giving us ever more shallow RPG mechanics with better action segments. Bioware's actions will hurt the entire genre in the long run, as they and Bethesda are the biggest WRPG developers right now. What was Bioware's last RPG innovation? Dialog wheels? Mixed blessing at best

No, Bioware and Betheshda are guilty of many things but neither they nor the publishers should be held accountable if their success influences other developers (such as Obsidian) to turn from their roots to try to be one of the big boys. Just because there are a few more people gaming now than last century and just because the casual market is a bit richer doesn't mean that the market for turn based or real time with pause has gone anywhere.

[Gotholhorakh]

Seagloom wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

What could be more SIMPLE and brainless than a  Warrior in  Baldur's Gate?  You LITERALLY could do nothing in combat but a basic (auto) attack with your weapon.  You didn't get  Shield Bash, Assault, Overpower, Sunder Arms, Sunder Armor, whirlwind attack, Punisher,  Riposte, or any such fancy schmancy special moves.... you know... like you did in Dragon Age: Origins.

That is true. You know what is funny about that, though? Baldur's Gate combat made me think. Despite single-classed non-spellcasting characters being basic I had to plan for harder encounters. In some cases, such as the beholder caves in the Underdark, I had to plan for an entire area.

DAO warriors and rogues had all these extra abilities that in the end of the day mostly amounted to jack all. Playing a tank? Activate shield wall or shield defense, taunt as needed to draw aggro. Two-hander or dual-wield? Cycle through the appropriate clickies; rinse and repeat. Every now and then, throw in a crowd control ability such as war cry, pommel strike, or the like. Rogue? Hardly mattered. Everything came down to activating momentum and positioning the rogue to backstab. Archers were even worse since auto attack was eventually far preferable to using trick shots. Mages had the most abilities via their spells, but most of them were redundant or of questionable worth. You could get through the whole game relying on a handful of good spells such as fireball, cone of cold, and blood wound.

I do concede that DAO may be more fun to play a warrior or rogue in if one enjoys taking an active hand in combat. However, taking that hands on approach is rarely necessary to ensure victory. Other than tanks, rogues, and offensively oriented mages, it is not even necessary to control party members in DAO at all. The tactics option can delegate all that to CPU.

What I'm getting at here is that while DAO warriors and rogues are most certainly not dumbed down compared to Baldur's Gate; those improvements do little to smarten up combat. I can only remember two battles in DAO where I really needed to think to win: the spider queen and Ser Cauthrien. And even in those cases, I found no use for most of the superfluous warrior and rogue abilities.

I think that's got more to do with aggro than anything else - which is to say DA:O lends itself to tank/h/dps.

I don't think that's necessarily bad, it's a whole heap of fun in fact and a positive addition to gameplay - although really it channels gameplay down the same path a LOT - there weren't many places in DA:O where you couldn't tank rush>aggro>shield tank>CC>DPS>repeat>job done, and only occasionally did you need to spam some health (I generally had one tank and 2 dps).

I say positive because it was most enjoyable, but it should probably have been balanced for variety - pulling aggro ought to be something that can be negated by a spell (destructive spell that divides a probability to kill/incapacitate by the number of players at the highest aggro level in your party, for instance). One of the things you got in BG2 that DA:O didn't do very much was encounters where your previous approach just wasn't going to work because the mooks ruined it.

I would have preferred that to happen in DA:O a bit - to go into a confrontation primed and ready... and have the enemy totally nail your favourite strategy out of nowhere - suddenly your DPS mage is silenced or an enemy took the initiative and Sleep'd your tank and you must just cope, which is all more encounter design and variety than AI - I would have liked to see more spells, more aggressive and varied use of those spells and skills by the enemy, more creatures/spells that ignore aggro or make you pull it with two players if it is to work, etc.

tl;dr - I think it was the encounter design in DA:O that makes it feel dumbed down for some people, not the skills and abilities. I was expecting DA2 to expand on that, flesh out what DA:O started and fulfil the promise and potential that DA:O showed.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 03 avril 2012 - 11:56 .

[Seagloom]

Those are good points, but I think it goes beyond that. There are too many junk abilities in DAO that are never necessary to win an encounter because the monster stats are not beefy enough to warrant the edge. Why waste my time using say, shattering shot to drop a target's armor when I can just kill them outright? Some talent lines, such as dual-wield for warriors have fewer filler abilities. Most however, do not. When I play a two-handed warrior for example, I use sunder arms and sunder armor to bump DPS up a bit. Not because I actually think dropping attack or armor is verry helpful outside the occasional boss fight.

That may be where DAO combat falters most for me. All most abilities do is push values up or down, provide a passive a bonus, or inflict a brief effect such as stun or knockdown. The latter two are useful. The former, not so much.

BG2 had fewer special abilities that contributed more to the outcome of a battle. I think a lot of that has to with how D&D makes abilities a limited resource. If I wanted to activate something like offensive spin, kai shot, or berserk, it had to count because there were only so many uses before the character needed rest. In DAO, I just fall back to auto attacking until fatigue fills up enough to spam another talent. Unless the warrior has death blow. Then I might not even need to wait. Do not get me started on mages and how easy it is to get infinite mana.

BioWare put a lot more thought into DA2's talent system with all the states and combo potential.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 avril 2012 - 12:24 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

lol using the least tactical BG as an example for DAO. Dunno about anyone else but I pretty much just attack moved my way through ToB. If you don't know what that means, attack move is a term used in RTS games in which the strategic element is so shallow that you basically just tell your troops where to go, watch them kill everything and don't ever intervene. You can do it with nothing but a mouse in real time, that is what ToB was and BGII wasn't exactly short on that kind of filler combat in between the boss fights and the various lairs of beholders, vampires and Illithid which is where the real challenge was at.

No, the greatest falling of DAO is that it was too easy to direct the flow of combat. I have to give Bioware a little bit of credit because they did make the enemies intelligent enough to attack your mages but that was all for nothing because someone on the gameplay team decided that they should give warriors abilities such as taunt and threaten. These abilities on a sword and shield warrior were almost enough to guarantee victory 100% of every battle because everyone would just gang up on that warrior and meanwhile I had Sten dealing 100 damage hits, Zevran backstabbing everyone and myself as the mage keeping everyone alive. So I was just attack moving through the whole game. Worked on Dragons too, eventually. Just takes a long time to kill with ranged attacks. Yawn.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 03 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[Yrkoon]

Seagloom wrote...

That is true. You know what is funny about that, though? Baldur's Gate combat made me think. Despite single-classed non-spellcasting characters being basic I had to plan for harder encounters. In some cases, such as the beholder caves in the Underdark, I had to plan for an entire area.

DAO warriors and rogues had all these extra abilities that in the end of the day mostly amounted to jack all. Playing a tank? Activate shield wall or shield defense, taunt as needed to draw aggro. Two-hander or dual-wield? Cycle through the appropriate clickies; rinse and repeat. Every now and then, throw in a crowd control ability such as war cry, pommel strike, or the like. Rogue? Hardly mattered. Everything came down to activating momentum and positioning the rogue to backstab. Archers were even worse since auto attack was eventually far preferable to using trick shots. Mages had the most abilities via their spells, but most of them were redundant or of questionable worth. You could get through the whole game relying on a handful of good spells such as fireball, cone of cold, and blood wound.

I do concede that DAO may be more fun to play a warrior or rogue in if one enjoys taking an active hand in combat. However, taking that hands on approach is rarely necessary to ensure victory. Other than tanks, rogues, and offensively oriented mages, it is not even necessary to control party members in DAO at all. The tactics option can delegate all that to CPU.

What I'm getting at here is that while DAO warriors and rogues are most certainly not dumbed down compared to Baldur's Gate; that complexity does little to smarten up combat. I can only remember two battles in DAO where I really needed to think to win: the spider queen and Ser Cauthrien. And even in those cases, I found no use for most of the superfluous warrior and rogue abilities.

 ^This is meaningless.   You are attempting to distinguish a difference  based on how "good" you are at DA:O vs. How not-so-good you were at Baldur's gate.    But there's no such difference, despite what your "personal perspective" would have you believe.     The  path to mastery is exactly the same for both games.... that is to say, once you discovered a formula,  it worked  all the time, against everything.    I remember my Solo Sorcerer  Run of BG2.  By the time I hit Chapter 3, the solution to   every single encounter, including boss fights and the Beholder Lair went as follows:

Step 1 -Timestop
Step 2 -Dragon's Breath
Step 3- Dragon's Breath
Step 4 -collect loot
Step 5-  Move on to next encounter.  Repeat step 1-4.

It's fail proof, since you're dealing with 2 spells that bypass magic resistance, one of which  instantly freezes  every opponent on the screen in place and the other that does ludicrous  AOE damage  (x2) to every opponent on the screen, enough to *literally* kill anything in the game.  Even Dragons.... and Kangaxx.

And don't get me started on my Solo Rogue run... where,  after chapter 2, I didn't fight.  Literally didn't need to fight anymore... Ever.  I just laid traps and everything died.  Including Irenicus.   You want a perfect example of  dumbed down, 'Press A to win" combat?  THERE it is.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[HoonDing]

Re: dragon's breath. What against creatures immune to fire? Or Demogorgon?

Modifié par virumor, 03 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[Yrkoon]

Demogorgon isn't in BG2, he's in Throne of Bhaal. And no biggie if you're up against fire immune critters, if a simple Death spell doesn't wipe them all out instantly, just replace Dragon's breath with Abi-Dhalzim's Horrid Wilting.

[Seagloom]

Yrkoon wrote...

^This is meaningless.   You are attempting to distinguish a difference  based on how "good" you are at DA:O vs. How not-so-good you were at Baldur's gate.    But there's no such difference, despite what your "personal perspective" would have you believe.     The  path to mastery is exactly the same for both games.... that is to say, once you discovered a formula,  it worked  all the time, against everything.    I remember my Solo Sorcerer  Run of BG2.  By the time I hit Chapter 3, the solution to   every single encounter, including boss fights and the Beholder Lair went as follows:

Step 1 -Timestop
Step 2 -Dragon's Breath
Step 3- Dragon's Breath
Step 4 -collect loot
Step 5-  Move on to next encounter.  Repeat step 1-4.

It's fail proof, since you're dealing with 2 spells that bypass magic resistance, one of which  instantly freezes  every opponent on the screen in place and the other that does ludicrous  AOE damage  (x2) to every opponent on the screen, enough to *literally* kill anything in the game.  Even Dragons.... and Kangaxx.

And don't get me started on my Solo Rogue run... where,  after chapter 2, I didn't fight.  Literally didn't need to fight anymore... Ever.  I just laid traps and everything died.  Including Irenicus.   You want a perfect example of  dumbed down, 'Press A to win" combat?  THERE it is.

^This is meaningless. See, I can do it too.

What you wrote is what I was basically getting at in my first post to this thread. That is, both games are easy and challenge the player in dissimilar ways not immediately apparent at a glance.

What I was getting at in the post you quoted was that for all its supposed complexity, DAO combat was very simplistic if you all one wished to do was finish the game. Mainly because there was little need to actually *understand* that complexity in order to progress. For the record, I did eventually get waaay better in Baldur's Gate after learning D&D properly playing NWN.

You are stating "Press A to win" as if click 1, 2, or 3 in DAO is this greatly complex and immersive thing that requires deep knowledge and skill. You can get through almost every encounter having Morrigan cast storm of the century or inferno through walls, if inclined. How is that so much better?

Bottom line: even if I agree DAO is not as simple as Baldur's Gate, it does not change that both games are pretty dumb on the whole.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 avril 2012 - 07:46 .