84 réponses à ce sujet

[Torrius]

I think we simply need to wrap our heads around the expression "spiritual successor", because it's actually a pretty vague statement. It's not a sequel, nor is it a successor to BG or NWN. "Spiritual successor" simply implies that the devs tried to carry on the general "spirit" of what BG was about. It's a new game, and it can be like NWN in some ways, but it has some of the "soul" of BG. The question of course is not how close it will be to that game, but what really is the heart and soul of Baldur's Gate that helped us enjoy it? And do the devs see the same qualities about BG that we did?

Modifié par Torrius, 15 octobre 2009 - 04:52 .

[AClockworkMelon]

I really don't think it's a successor of anything. I think they're just paying fanservice to the guys and gals who played BG.

[Arandomindividual]

I wonder why they feel they need to cling to Baldur's. This is a great product, there's no need to dig up Baldur's Gate when promoting this.

[AClockworkMelon]

Agreed. I'd rather they stand on their own when promoting what's likely to be a brilliant product. Maybe they feel they owe BG something? But honestly it seems like it could be just as much a successor to NWN or hell even ME. All these games follow the same thread.

[Mordaedil]

Arandomindividual wrote...

I wonder why they feel they need to cling to Baldur's. This is a great product, there's no need to dig up Baldur's Gate when promoting this.

Well, you could tell that to people in an outrage over Neverwinter Night's "suckiness" back in 2003.

[Sheylan]

Tarreth wrote...

Allow me to help by starting anew...with Monkey Island.

Well gee, I feel a little guilty now...

Arn't you a little short to be a storm trooper?

[AClockworkMelon]

Sheylan wrote...

Arn't you a little short to be a storm trooper?

Great, kid. Don't get cocky.

[Torrius]

When 900 years old, you reach… Look as good, you will not.

[Arandomindividual]

I need to freeze something then crush it into pieces and lastly, melt it with a fireball.. and then freeze it again.



Anyway.. I think people have way too high expectations for this game.. It'll be fun and a good time for RPG fans, but for the rest? I'm not sure!

[AClockworkMelon]

People had high expectations for KOTOR and ME, too! Bioware has yet to disappoint me.

[K3m0sabe]

Tarreth wrote...

In fairness, the original Baldur's Gate was very much like that, BG II was also quite personal until it hit you that Irenicus was trying to become a god.
ToB was very much a "save the world" style plot, even if you had certain personal motivations.
Considering we get entire origins to develop our backstory and character though, I'm not sure how you can't call it personally motivated, not to mention the character camaraderie.

As i recall, none of the BG games were about saving the world, they revolved around Bhaal, is resurrection, the stealing of is power and in ToB the ascension to godhood.

In Dragon Age the central theme is very much about saving the world.

[Ciller]

I think the confusion lies with the fact that BG was not 3D in the way DA is - a trait DA shares with NWNs. This may give the illusion that DA is similar to NWN, especially if you watch all the "game play" video where there is no user interface, the guy is using nothing but shortcuts, and its done from the same 3rd person perspective as NWN.

I am going to be playing this game in the same perspective that is used in BG, most of the time.

Modifié par Ciller, 15 octobre 2009 - 03:02 .

[brusin]

Well just a few reasons I think it is more of a NWN2 kind of rpg:
- 4 party members (BG had six)
- technically it looks alike to NWN2/ME. Dialogue cutscenes, armor/clothing/model design, overall feeling.
- restrictive area exploration. Few places to visit. Much like nwn2. (mostly just my speculations since we know little about the amount of different locations to explore in DA:O)
- plot similarities. Darkspawn horde = King of Shadows' army (BG series all had complex antagonists with a personality. Sarevok. Irenicus, nuff said. DA:O's plot looks overly Tolkienistic imo.)
- ruleset. You have to agree DA:O's ruleset is kinda simplistic in comparison with AD&D. Auto-level option also, just liek in NWN2/ME.
- setting. Ferelden is more like NWN's dull traditional Sword Coast than BG2's Amn.
- specializations. Looks much like NWN2's prestige class quest requirements.
- strategic combat. About the same difficulty as vanilla NWN2 from what I've gathered. Mostly because of simplistic ruleset, few spells/abilities and just 4 party members.
- holding-your-hand attitude. They choose a starting skill/spell/ability for us, your party members can't really die. Again, auto-leveling feature.
- character personalities. Cliche. You got wise/smartass female healer (Wynne/Elanee/Zhaeve), witch-girl with a pursuit for power (Morrigan/Quarra), a guy to squee over (Alistair/Bishop), Imoen-style innocent female thief (Leliana/Neeshka, Shandra personality-wise maybe), your traditional axe-swinging curse-spitting clan-honoring dwarf (Oghren/Khelgar), plain lawful boring guy with no sense of humour (Stern/Casavir), an elegant witty elven male character (Zevran/Sand), a golem/construct (Shale/Construct). DA:O also has a dog but well animal companion is cliche by itself imo unless it's magical/polymorphed. Thank God we don't have any eccentric bard/soceror midget cliche companion this time (Jan Jansen/Deekin/Boddyknock/Grobnar etc). So almost all the cahracters with the exception of the animal companion have their respective counterparts in the NWN franchise imo. Anyone in DA:O at least distantly resembling XZAR !!? Edwin? Minsc? Aerie? Yoshimo? Mazzy, Montaron and many others? Nah.
- DLC. Did BG series have ayn dlc? Nope.
- Toolset / World Editor. Again, BG did not have it, unlike both NWN games.
- origins. Aka the main overrated feature of DA:O. Well vanilla NWN did not have these as well as BG. ME and NWN2 on the other hand did and there were also in-game dialogue references to characher's origin/background. Though it looks like DA's origins' impact on story is going to be much more expansive and I honestly believe it's pretty innovative in crpgs, but the fact is (!), NWN2 had some background traits with in-gaem references while BG series did not have this feature.

I'm looking forward to see some distinctive BG similarities from you guys, not just 'IT HARS STRATERGIC COMBART!!!!1oneoen!!' or 'Character interactions are just like in BG!!!1'

And by the way, I'm not saying DA sucks in case you wonder.


 

Modifié par brusin, 15 octobre 2009 - 07:29 .

[Teemu733]

I think it's definitely going to be more like the Baldur's Gate games than Neverwinter Nights (the first one, never played the second).



The main reason is the way you actually play the game. In BG, you control a whole party and can micromanage everyone's actions in combat. You can move the camera across the battlefield for a better look at the fight. In one playthrough, you can experience what it's like to play as a mage, a warrior, and a rogue if you have these in your party.



In NWN the goal was to model tabletop RPGs where you traditionally control only one character. The way you looked at the world was from your main character's point of view, not the god view you had in BG.

[ovirkki]

I have to agree that DAO seems to be more NWN2 than BG. brusin gave good points, although some were quite far-fetched... Even though NWN2 was not Bioware's, similarities are also a good reminder for me to keep my personal hype of DAO at a bay. I can still remember how excited I was waiting for NWN2. It seemed to be so perfect combination of best parts of BG2 and NWN. Well, it didn't turn out to be that way...

[brusin]

Don't get me wrong, all of my points are open for criticism, I'm totally comfortable with that. I am also hoping to see some BG2 features which NWN2 does not possess, por favor, it would please me.

[Tarreth]

K3m0sabe wrote...

Tarreth wrote...

In fairness, the original Baldur's Gate was very much like that, BG II was also quite personal until it hit you that Irenicus was trying to become a god.
ToB was very much a "save the world" style plot, even if you had certain personal motivations.
Considering we get entire origins to develop our backstory and character though, I'm not sure how you can't call it personally motivated, not to mention the character camaraderie.

As i recall, none of the BG games were about saving the world, they revolved around Bhaal, is resurrection, the stealing of is power and in ToB the ascension to godhood.

In Dragon Age the central theme is very much about saving the world.

Irenicus becoming a god isn't something for the world, in particular the bits with Elves on, to be worried about?
Same with ToB. Do you really want a new trigger-happy god of murder killing people left right and center, throwing the balance out of whack, etc?

If you really want to continue your line of thinking, we could argue that this game revolves around saving Ferelden- your little corner of the world. If Ferelden falls, the world might not follow, but Ferelden'll be devastated.
 We could equally say that Morag and the medusa (NWN and SoTU, HOTU is admittedly less applicable here) would only ravage a small area, on a global scale, before getting seriously put down.
It's still not world-saving; yet, in each and every occasion, it's YOUR world being threatened. Your bit. Where you, Bhaalspawn, Adventurer, Noble, Commoner, Elf, Dwarf, Human, Whatever, are.

[K3m0sabe]

Its just my own view of the way the BG story line played out. At the time of the FR time-line that BG was set on, there were plenty of gods, minor or great deities that were evil trough and trough, if someone wanted to ascend and take Baahls place as the good of murder, his/her portfolio didn't directly imply that he/she would be able or want to provoke any kind of major catastrophe in Faerun.



I concur with your last paragraph, the world might not be in the balance in DA, but at least the threat is more ominous/evil without aparent justification for their actions beyond the need to be evil for evil's sake. At least until we play the game and see whats behind the darkspawns motivations.

[Torrius]

brusin wrote...

Well just a few reasons I think it is more of a NWN2 kind of rpg:
- 4 party members (BG had six)
- technically it looks alike to NWN2/ME. Dialogue cutscenes, armor/clothing/model design, overall feeling.
- restrictive area exploration. Few places to visit. Much like nwn2. (mostly just my speculations since we know little about the amount of different locations to explore in DA:O)
- plot similarities. Darkspawn horde = King of Shadows' army (BG series all had complex antagonists with a personality. Sarevok. Irenicus, nuff said. DA:O's plot looks overly Tolkienistic imo.)
- ruleset. You have to agree DA:O's ruleset is kinda simplistic in comparison with AD&D. Auto-level option also, just liek in NWN2/ME.
- setting. Ferelden is more like NWN's dull traditional Sword Coast than BG2's Amn.
- specializations. Looks much like NWN2's prestige class quest requirements.
- strategic combat. About the same difficulty as vanilla NWN2 from what I've gathered. Mostly because of simplistic ruleset, few spells/abilities and just 4 party members.
- holding-your-hand attitude. They choose a starting skill/spell/ability for us, your party members can't really die. Again, auto-leveling feature.
- character personalities. Cliche. You got wise/smartass female healer (Wynne/Elanee/Zhaeve), witch-girl with a pursuit for power (Morrigan/Quarra), a guy to squee over (Alistair/Bishop), Imoen-style innocent female thief (Leliana/Neeshka, Shandra personality-wise maybe), your traditional axe-swinging curse-spitting clan-honoring dwarf (Oghren/Khelgar), plain lawful boring guy with no sense of humour (Stern/Casavir), an elegant witty elven male character (Zevran/Sand), a golem/construct (Shale/Construct). DA:O also has a dog but well animal companion is cliche by itself imo unless it's magical/polymorphed. Thank God we don't have any eccentric bard/soceror midget cliche companion this time (Jan Jansen/Deekin/Boddyknock/Grobnar etc). So almost all the cahracters with the exception of the animal companion have their respective counterparts in the NWN franchise imo. Anyone in DA:O at least distantly resembling XZAR !!? Edwin? Minsc? Aerie? Yoshimo? Mazzy, Montaron and many others? Nah.
- DLC. Did BG series have ayn dlc? Nope.
- Toolset / World Editor. Again, BG did not have it, unlike both NWN games.
- origins. Aka the main overrated feature of DA:O. Well vanilla NWN did not have these as well as BG. ME and NWN2 on the other hand did and there were also in-game dialogue references to characher's origin/background. Though it looks like DA's origins' impact on story is going to be much more expansive and I honestly believe it's pretty innovative in crpgs, but the fact is (!), NWN2 had some background traits with in-gaem references while BG series did not have this feature.

I'm looking forward to see some distinctive BG similarities from you guys, not just 'IT HARS STRATERGIC COMBART!!!!1oneoen!!' or 'Character interactions are just like in BG!!!1'

And by the way, I'm not saying DA sucks in case you wonder.


 

Brusin I don't want to put this the wrong way and I hope to keep this as a thoughtful discussion about the games but... some of your points are valid but others are honestly just personal opinions that aren’t really supported. I’ll try to respond without sounding like a fanboy.

Points where I agree with you:
- 4 person groups are like NWN2, and less party members mean less strategy by definition.

- In terms of technology of course it is more like NWN2 as it is a 3D game that has evolved to the point where you don't need to craft CGI cutscenes outside of the game engine and be stuck with limited item customization on your in-game avatar like BG.

- Specialization quests are similar to prestige class quests (though I would argue that it is a good thing that your character has a reason to have learned new skills rather than somehow magically get more experienced and know how to do new things).

- The fact that you can't die and go unconscious is like NWN2 and it is indeed a "hold-your-hand" mechanic.

- The DLC and toolset were things introduced in NWN2 and were not in BG (though again... why is this a bad thing? It is an evolution of the RPG and if BG3 came out someday it would most likely have these things don't you think?).



Points where I disagree with you:
- In terms of technology, the whole "overall feeling" of NWN2 is a personal opinion that seems to be affected by the fact that they both run 3D engines and so have similar looks. Technology to me is not what defines an overall game “feeling” to me.

- DA’s restrictive area exploration and how dull the campaign setting is: Relative to NWN2 and Baldur's Gate in terms of how linear they were and how more or less interesting compared to DA, you really have nothing at all to back this statement up?

- Plot... BG was about a hero who didn't know how powerful he was (Bhaalspawn), got swept up in an arch-villain's plot (Sarevok), and eventually had to stop him from starting a war by personally defeating him. NWN2 was about a hero who didn't know how powerful he was (shard). gets swept up in an arch-villian's plot (Garius), and eventually have to stop him from starting a war by personally defeating him. You can't say it's close to NWN2 without saying it's close to BG... if anything, you could say that Bioware needs a new plot.

- Ruleset and strategic combat- I don't really agree with your overall assessment. The 3.5 rules were in some ways more complex than the 2nd edition rules especially in terms of character building (I know them from tabletop very well and leveling choices in 2nd edition were simplistic by comparison). The first and second editions did get into the small details of running a campaign, but in terms of character building the 3.5 rules were more complicated (almost to a fault). By saying the ruleset is dumbed down to me you are saying it is more like BG not less. Then again, we don't really know enough about anything to make that assumption. You could certainly unlock a whole array of abilities and spells via specialization that we are not aware of yet.

- Specializations- yes I did agree that the spec quest unlocking was like prestige class quests in NWN2, but you fail to mention where it differs and it is rather important to point out. The 2 spec system allows for some ability to control your characters development, but at the same time avoids the NWN2 "dip into fighter, dip into RDD, min-maxxing 4 different class characters" mess that came with the 3.5 D+D system. It seems to be somewhere in between the extremes of BG (very little class customization and very cookie cutter claases) and NWN2 (too much class customization and min/maxxing). It is like neither game but sort of a comprimise between them.

- "Holding your hand"- I completely agree with you on the death mechanic, but the fact that they choose your starting skills to tie into an origin/class choice as a design choice that doesn't make it any more like NWN2 over BG? Did BG have so many more options at character creation over NWN2 that would make this a valid point that it is like NWN2?

- Character personalities- BG certainly did have more colorful personalities compared to NWN1+2, though there were many interesting ones that weren’t cookie cutter. I think the problem with NWN characters was the execution and interaction rather than the uniqueness of the characters. Khelgar the dwarf who wanted to be a monk, the kobold bard Deekin who refers to himself in the third person and was a fanatical follower, the Kingmaker companions (alcohlic Azer, Raksasha wizard, the scarred nymph). These are all examples of characters that could have been better than they were… a lot of missed potential. DA characters have as much potential as any of the BG characters you named, but will they execute? I don’t think we know that yet.

- Origins- NWN2 really had nothing like these DA origin stories, and I think this is stretching the point to use this as a reason that it is similar to NWN. You might not like the origin stories, but to say it is like NWN because of the very simplistic “origin” traits you could pick in NWN2 is… stretching it a little don’t you think?

I might not be the best person to respond because I am very lenient with CRPGs… I like them and if they entertain me I don’t ask for much more. I’m a bit of an easy sell.

Modifié par Torrius, 15 octobre 2009 - 08:46 .

[Bara Rockfall]

Well it's really hard to say for sure since we have not played the game yet. From what we have seen though I think I'm going with BG. I think when asking or answering this question you need to look at theme and tone. Of course it will look and play more like NWN since that game was out later. I think the key here is story and scope. The whole high fantasy "it's up to you to save the world" bit.



I think I might be basis though since I nevr really liked NWN. I never really felt connected to it like I did in BG.

[Jab0r]

brusin wrote...

- DLC. Did BG series have ayn dlc? Nope.
- Toolset / World Editor. Again, BG did not have it, unlike both NWN games. 

Hey now, just because Bioware didn't release any official editors or mod systems doesn't mean they weren't out there.

You should try playing Return to Trademeet or Dragonlance some time. Or grab some of the "additional NPC" mods and play through with those.

Modifié par Jab0r, 15 octobre 2009 - 08:51 .

[brusin]

Torrius wrote...
Points where I disagree with you:
- In terms of technology, the whole "overall feeling" of NWN2 is a personal opinion that seems to be affected by the fact that they both run 3D engines and so have similar looks. Technology to me is not what defines an overall game “feeling” to me.

- DA’s restrictive area exploration and how dull the campaign setting is: Relative to NWN2 and Baldur's Gate in terms of how linear they were and how more or less interesting compared to DA, you really have nothing at all to back this statement up?

- Plot... BG was about a hero who didn't know how powerful he was (Bhaalspawn), got swept up in an arch-villain's plot (Sarevok), and eventually had to stop him from starting a war by personally defeating him. NWN2 was about a hero who didn't know how powerful he was (shard). gets swept up in an arch-villian's plot (Garius), and eventually have to stop him from starting a war by personally defeating him. You can't say it's close to NWN2 without saying it's close to BG... if anything, you could say that Bioware needs a new plot.

- Ruleset and strategic combat- I don't really agree with your overall assessment. The 3.5 rules were in some ways more complex than the 2nd edition rules especially in terms of character building (I know them from tabletop very well and leveling choices in 2nd edition were simplistic by comparison). The first and second editions did get into the small details of running a campaign, but in terms of character building the 3.5 rules were more complicated (almost to a fault). By saying the ruleset is dumbed down to me you are saying it is more like BG not less. Then again, we don't really know enough about anything to make that assumption. You could certainly unlock a whole array of abilities and spells via specialization that we are not aware of yet.

- Specializations- yes I did agree that the spec quest unlocking was like prestige class quests in NWN2, but you fail to mention where it differs and it is rather important to point out. The 2 spec system allows for some ability to control your characters development, but at the same time avoids the NWN2 "dip into fighter, dip into RDD, min-maxxing 4 different class characters" mess that came with the 3.5 D+D system. It seems to be somewhere in between the extremes of BG (very little class customization and very cookie cutter claases) and NWN2 (too much class customization and min/maxxing). It is like neither game but sort of a comprimise between them.

- "Holding your hand"- I completely agree with you on the death mechanic, but the fact that they choose your starting skills to tie into an origin/class choice as a design choice that doesn't make it any more like NWN2 over BG? Did BG have so many more options at character creation over NWN2 that would make this a valid point that it is like NWN2?

- Character personalities- BG certainly did have more colorful personalities compared to NWN1+2, though there were many interesting ones that weren’t cookie cutter. I think the problem with NWN characters was the execution and interaction rather than the uniqueness of the characters. Khelgar the dwarf who wanted to be a monk, the kobold bard Deekin who refers to himself in the third person and was a fanatical follower, the Kingmaker companions (alcohlic Azer, Raksasha wizard, the scarred nymph). These are all examples of characters that could have been better than they were… a lot of missed potential. DA characters have as much potential as any of the BG characters you named, but will they execute? I don’t think we know that yet.

- Origins- NWN2 really had nothing like these DA origin stories, and I think this is stretching the point to use this as a reason that it is similar to NWN. You might not like the origin stories, but to say it is like NWN because of the very simplistic “origin” traits you could pick in NWN2 is… stretching it a little don’t you think?
 

Torrius, you are right. Some of my points are vague and stretched indeed and based on nothing but my personal impressions and speculations which in turn are made of tiny bits of DA:O info I managed to scrape together so far. That's why. I already kinda disagree with some of my own statements (I can't help it, I'm one hundred percent chaotic IRL).

Still DA:O plot seems tolkienistic to me, you fight a horde of baddies who's intentions aren't quite clear until close to an ending, and even then it turns out to be just 'We destroy things. We evil'. Well I speculate on DA:O antagonists' intentions here. But still you fight darkspawn horde in DA:O, you fight undead army in NWN2, heck even in NWN you fight an army. You save Ferelden, you save the whole Sword Coast. Oh and one more important thing about plot! You gather allies for the battles with darkspawn all across Ferelden (I believe I'm not spoiling since it was hinted, no no, boldly stated in CC intro. And if I'm spoiling it's not a big deal anyway, I also happen to be ninety nine percent evil ), and by chance you do almost the same thing in NWN2 OC. So in both games you gather an army of different nations/races together as one force to epicly challenge THE EVIL ONE and his hordes. These look like obvious similarities, was really hard not to notice. It is definitely a heroic kinda plot, pretty LOTRish if you ask me, imo it appeals more to younger player base and makes little sense in a M rated game. BG series' plot? I think you can agree it's much more complex than that. Well I do hope and pray to Buddah everyday  for DA:O plot to be something special, I'm on your side here, but from what is revealed so far about DA:O I can only draw paralleles with NWN series plot-wise, sorry.

About character personalities, well maybe I am wrong in this case, I admit. DA:O's hopefully complex intriguing personalities are yet to be discovered. Don't mind me ranting about  personalities here, I'm just sad there is no romanceable Xzar or at least Edwin counterpart

The ruleset. Well it seems I'm not the one to draw conclusions here. Since, in truth, the ruleset in a crpg for me is mainly just the amount and variety of spells and abilities. I have an impression that BG's AD&D had at least twice as much wizard spells to choose from compared to DA:O, not counting druid/cleric ones. But yeah, this point does not prove relation to NWN, just a reason to whine, moan and **** about DA:O not being relative to BG ruleset-wise.

Origins. Well this looks pretty important to me. To be honest, I just tried to find similarities in some RPGs to the whole origins concept, but since it's rather innovative i just managed to recall NWN, NWN2 and ME. Well the background/origin traits in those aren't a big deal, really, as you have stated, but well since both NWN and ME are Bioware's titles I assumed the devs could have drawn the origins' inspiration and ideas from these games. Even if not, NWN series and ME might happen to contain an early and overlooked appearance of the origins concept in games, NWN:SotU being the earliest, I'd say. Not BG. Still seems like a strong point to me

Well in cocnclusion, I'm still standing by my original opinion, though not as sure and confident about some of my points. Still awaiting for people to post some BG features inherited by DA:O but not present in NWN2. Other than the 'atmosphere' and 'story deepth' and 'interactions'. We could only speculate on those at this time imo, untill we get our hands on what BW presents as the BG successor.

Don't mind my language, please, if you can. Thanks.

Modifié par brusin, 16 octobre 2009 - 12:03 .

[LadyKarrakaz]

BG more than NWN, because of the companion interactions. I really like it when it seems that your companions are alive, and are not some followers that only speak when asked. In NWN1, you could not even have access to the companions inventory, and could only order them to follow, wait...

[AClockworkMelon]

Purple Lady wrote...

BG more than NWN, because of the companion interactions. I really like it when it seems that your companions are alive, and are not some followers that only speak when asked. In NWN1, you could not even have access to the companions inventory, and could only order them to follow, wait...

This. The personality of the game is what makes it seem like BG to me.