4 réponses à ce sujet

[blazin130791]

ok so DA is one of the best RPGs i've played in a long time. i don't find it as re-playable as BG2 though, i think this is cus of the smaller party size, less challening/optional battles and t he feleing i'd allways missed something. anyone else find they feel that way about DA?

this is not me trying to say the game is bad, i love it and if i thought it was **** wouldn't be so botehred about not being able to replay it 50 times lol.

[Adria Teksuni]

I think I only replayed BGII a few times because it was so insanely long. Hundreds and hundreds of hours. On the one hand, I like that I can create a new character in DA and expect to have them play the entire game through in a lesser amount of time.



On the other, WANT MOAR!

[whtnyte-raernst]

I think I can sum my feeling up best with a Redcliff example.

I'd been through Redcliff part 1 3 times. One on a full play through and twice on different backgrounds.

I stared another PC and decided to do and in depth play through trying to find things I'd missed before and do things differently.

This time, before heading to the castle, Eamon gave me a helmet that I'd never heard of before. Now I can't wait to see what other little touches I can uncover!

[blazin130791]

i liked the hundreds of hours BG gave me, it made it feel much more epic rather than short story.



what was it that made BG so replayable?



also the BG community was great and peopel would do no-reload challenges, play with a party of just paladains, no mages, or whatever. the options where more varied cus there was more classes, more quest, bigger story, more room in your party.



i guess DA is jsut getting my appetite going for more.

[phordicus]

unless you're an EA marketing shill, BG & DAO should never be compared.