99 réponses à ce sujet

[Rinor]

greengoron89 wrote...

Rinor wrote...

Is this supposed to mean something?

Basically, I'm pegging your opinion on this matter as being skewed by nostalgia and devoid of any real value.

You do not consider BG2 to be Bioware's magnum opus? Furthermore, you do not consider it timeless? Well, it's your opinion and I'm not fond on shoving my opinion down your throat, just let me be clear that I replay BG2 on a regular basis (every other year) and can safely say that this, along with Planescape: Torment, marks the time WRPGs peaked. There's no nostalgia clouding my judgement. The Gamefaq forums on BG2 are surprisingly alive as well. It's being played as we speak.

Or do you genuinely consider the Dragon Age franchise a step forward?

Modifié par Rinor, 11 août 2012 - 11:49 .

[Gotholhorakh]

bussinrounds wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Yeah, BG itself was pretty dry - I sometimes wonder whether people have actually played it.

I just don't see what's wrong with BG 1. I did play it, and probably a bit too much. I loved it. It did something I hadn't seen in a game before.

  Pretty dry = not enough romances

Haha, I see what you did there (although I'm not a big fan of the romances in RPGs myself).

I just mean that while it's a good game (enough so that my enthusiam is engaged for BG:EE), it wasn't as strong a showing as BG2.

greengoron89 wrote...

I consider Dragon Age: Origins one
of the greatest games I've ever played..

Me too - I felt it rekindled some of the feelings you got while playing BG2 - and it could really strike a chord here and there. I very much remember the satisfaction of finishing that game. Combat was still better (it was slightly more interesting, had much better encounter design, and just felt more right) in BG2/IW, but you can't have everything I guess.

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Also on this topic i can take it
serious cause your argument is meant to be conclusive as if tastes are a
matter of factual basis but it is not possible because tastes are a
matter of opinion. :s

You can just act like everybody already knew this is all opinion, and that opinions are subjective, because everybody did.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 août 2012 - 12:13 .

[Dominus]

You'd likely only be right in the point that people will unanimously agree that Baldur's Gate 2 was one of their best works. Whether it is or isn't the "best game ever" as far as BioWare is concerned is (as has been previously stated several times) a simple matter of opinion. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life trying to overanalyze a game company, though I will note what did and didn't work for me in a given title. Every game has its merits and demerits. Jade Empire has a unique take on Chinese mythology and well-written story, while lacking the combatative polish that would've knocked it out of the park. Mass Effect has a combat system that set a precedent in the industry and had a significantly cinematic take on RPGs(to the detriment of other fans), though people can rightfully say the writing is no magnum opus.

But if you really want to host a topic proclaiming a one-sided argument, that's your choice I suppose. Anyone who's been on this website long enough has likely seen something similar to the topic before.

Thanks for your opinion.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Who cares?

Considering how game development works out, a lot of games are flukes.

Also, I was not impressed much by BG 1 and while I enjoyed BG 2 a lot, neither of them could match the Fallout games for me. I suspect if I played BG 1 before BG 2 and the Fallout games, my opinion would be different, but I played it after those games.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 12 août 2012 - 12:46 .

[spirosz]

All I read was "I" thought "x" was better than the rest because "I" think, blah blah. I think KOTOR is their best game, I guess that was a fluke as well, as Jade Empire, ME1, ME2, etc.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

J. Reezy wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Anyway I gotta agree with Rinor here on nearly everything here, not many people would like to admit it but it is true.

You might want to look up the definition of truth somewhere.

It is true as far as I am concerned, I really dont care if you have a different opinion or think that Bioware is getting better with every new game they release, I do see where Rinor is comming from and share his opinion for the most part, it is definately something I have noticed as well. While I do enjoy most of the games Bioware has released after the Baldur's Gate series none of them have that spark of brilliance that BG2 had.

[Blastback]

greengoron89 wrote...

I consider Dragon Age: Origins one of the greatest games I've ever played, and KOTOR is not far behind. Great games are still being made to this day, despite what some "old-school" gamers might want people to believe - and often, the titles they tout as immortal are outdated piles of offal that have been improved upon a hundredfold since their time.

I'll not say that about the BG games as I haven't played them, but I'm not gonna pull any punches - a lot of folks like you are full of it, and I invest little faith in their overly nostalgic rants and raves.

Nostalgia is certianly a factor, and I'll be the first to admit that in a lot of ways individual game design elements have improved.  But Baldur's Gate 2 came together as the sum of it's parts more than any other game I've played.  And it's scope is just breath taking.  Also, I'm a huge fan of the real time turn based combat system.  And I enjoy the everything plus the kitchen sink worlds of DnD more than any other fantasy world I've encountered.

Plus the story is just cool and really fun.

[AlanC9]

When I replayed BG2 last year I was shocked at how dated it seemed. I hadn't realized how much better DA:O was until I had them side-by-side.

[Godak]

Rinor wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

Ah, gotta love these threads where the old fogeys crawl out of the woodwork and talk about how much better things were back in their day - you begin to understand why they stayed in the woodwork in the first place, and prefer that they crawled back into it.

Is this supposed to mean something?

I think he's insulting you.

Quick! Tell him to get off your lawn. It's your yard, gosh darn it, and it just won't do for the chrysanthemums to be trampled on.

[Il Divo]

termokanden wrote...

I just don't see what's wrong with BG 1. I did play it, and probably a bit too much. I loved it. It did something I hadn't seen in a game before.

I'm not going to go so far as to make a general rule here, but I'd wager that when someone played Baldur's Gate can have an impact on their enjoyment of it. If you played BG when it was brand-spanking new, then you have seen it at the height of innovation. If you played it after KotOR, Jade Empire, the ME series, and the DA series, (as I have), then you've seen everything that Baldur's Gate inspired, but with updated graphics, features, dialogue etc. That's not to say someone who goes from Bioware's new games to their old games won't enjoy BG, but in many ways it's a more primitive form of what Bioware began to focus on in the future.

Just a few of my personal examples:

I love how much emphasis Bioware places on narrative and did not enjoy that the first half of the story involves scavenging letters across the Sword Coast.

I love Bioware's emphasis on character conversations, and in-depth character quests , and did not like that you rarely (if ever) have a full on conversation with any squad-member in Baldur's Gate,or that their backgrounds were reduced to a paragraph of text.

My point is that, while not a guarantee, there are a number of different things a player could love about later Bioware games that would make playing Baldur's Gate difficult, if not impossible.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 août 2012 - 05:38 .

[Il Divo]

Rinor wrote...

You do not consider BG2 to be Bioware's magnum opus? Furthermore, you do not consider it timeless? Well, it's your opinion and I'm not fond on shoving my opinion down your throat, just let me be clear that I replay BG2 on a regular basis (every other year) and can safely say that this, along with Planescape: Torment, marks the time WRPGs peaked. There's no nostalgia clouding my judgement. The Gamefaq forums on BG2 are surprisingly alive as well. It's being played as we speak.

Or do you genuinely consider the Dragon Age franchise a step forward?

Just to be clear: would there be anything wrong if someone were to answer no, no, and yes, to your questions?

[Gatt9]

greengoron89 wrote...

I consider Dragon Age: Origins one of the greatest games I've ever played, and KOTOR is not far behind. Great games are still being made to this day, despite what some "old-school" gamers might want people to believe - and often, the titles they tout as immortal are outdated piles of offal that have been improved upon a hundredfold since their time.

I'll not say that about the BG games as I haven't played them, but I'm not gonna pull any punches - a lot of folks like you are full of it, and I invest little faith in their overly nostalgic rants and raves.

I'm going to have to disagree with your commentary here.

First,  you iterate that great games are still being made to this day,  but honestly,  they aren't.  Look back at this generation objectively,  and you'll find that this generation is largely berefet of greatness.  Sure,  you have the occasional gem like Gears of War 1,  but largely what you have is endless rehashes.  Look back at this generation's big titles and what do you really have?

-Several different versions of the original Halo.
-Several different versions of Resident Evil,  each stepping further away from Horror to be more like a Shooter.
-Several different versions of Gears of War,  and several different copies of Gears of War.
-Numerous versions of Call of Duty.
-A Final Fantasy game legendary only for it's linearity.
-Dead Space which is becoming more like Call of Duty.
-A ridiculous number of music games which consisted of pressing a button at the right time,  a form of gameplay often critized when we discuss Dragon's Lair and Space Ace.
-The Elder Scrolls with fewer RPG mechanics in each iteration,  fewer features in each iteration,  and more bugs.
-Syndicate,  X-com,  and Fallout being "Reimagined" as Shooters,  because there weren't enough of those already.
-I'll admit Assassin's Creed is a standout title.

Contrast that to other generations.  Pick any generation or platform,  and I can list numerous titles that were new IP's and often brought new ideas to the gameplay.  This generation is characterized only by it's amazing flood of games all being rehashes of a fairly standard Shooter formula,  and the few that were breakouts were either quickly changed to be more like a standard shooter,  or copied so profusely that they became tired in record time.

To take the stance that this generation possesses greatness in any significant measure indicates that this is your first real generation. 

The reason that "old-school" gamers claim things were better previously,  is simply because they were.  Previous generations actually brought new IP's to the table,  and had more diversity than "Shooter in brown palette or shooter in gray palette".

As far as your offal comment goes,  you might want to back off that statement.  If it wasn't for that "Offal",  you wouldn't have a single game.  Further,  pretty much everything you might want to praise,  is a result of that "Offal". To be very blunt,  a statement like that telegraphs to the reader that the poster is likely an early teenager,  and immediately invalidates everything you wanted to convey.  That kind of closed-minded assertion is characteristic of the very young,  and indicates the speaker has little understanding of the topic.  It's the equivalent of stating "All movies prior to Avatar are offal",  "All books prior to Harry Potter are offal",  or "All music prior to Lady Gaga is offal".  It states to the reader that you are not an actual fan of the media form.

In fact,  many development houses will specifically require their teams to play earlier titles prior to developing modern games.  A good example is Firaxis,  who had all of it's employees play the original X-com if they hadn't already played it.  It's a very common event.  Full Sail,  and Universities that offer game design classes,  require their students to play that "Offal" in order to learn how to create great games today. 

I'd also strongly argue about things being improved "A hundred fold",  since this generation consists of endless shooters with only the most basic elements of the genre,  and what little else that's left is so streamlined it's become equivalent to the design patterns of the early 90's. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 12 août 2012 - 05:42 .

[termokanden]

Il Divo wrote...

My point is that, while not a guarantee, there are a number of different things a player could love about later Bioware games that would make playing Baldur's Gate difficult, if not impossible.

Sure, I think that's probably it as well. Unfair comparisons to newer games. You just have to understand that Baldur's Gate paved the way for a lot of that. And now people just think it's flawed because the model was later refined in a sequel!

[Gotholhorakh]

Il Divo wrote...

I'm not going to go so far as to make a general rule here, but I'd wager that when someone played Baldur's Gate can have an impact on their enjoyment of it. If you played BG when it was brand-spanking new, then you have seen it at the height of innovation.

For me, it's kind of a similar point (even if it doesn't fit the rule you didn't make ), initially, it was great - it was when BG2 came out that it really paled in comparison, and until we could tutu it, I don't think I would have bothered replaying it after BG2, tbh.


There are other games which were fine 'til the sequels showed us how it was really done, and which you wouldn't recommend to people - for instance, the first Medieval: Total War compared to Rome etc.

greengoron89 wrote...
the BG games as I haven't played them

Ha, yet you have probably 3 times in this thread, derided other people's opinions on the matter as basically worthless.

I think that's bloody hilarious!

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 août 2012 - 11:56 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

BG series is a set of stories that is labeled as video games! NWN series is more fun and preferable.

[Joy Divison]

greengoron89 wrote...

I'll not say that about the BG games as I haven't played them, but I'm not gonna pull any punches - a lot of folks like you are full of it, and I invest little faith in their overly nostalgic rants and raves.

Wait...So you never actually played these games and yet know the "old fogeys" are "full of it"?

Nice...

[bussinrounds]

As far as the actual gameplay/combat goes, all efforts by Bio after BG2 were really simplified/dumbed down/casualized/streamlined... Whatever you wanna call it.

To me, gameplay comes first when talking about GAMES. Yea, there's some exceptions where the 'story' elements (writing,dialogs,choices & consequences) are so well done (Planescape,Bloodlines, adventure games) that the sub-par gameplay can be overlooked, but that's a rarity.