99 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

termokanden wrote...

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!

Make no mistake: I fully accept the role Baldur's Gate played in laying the foundations for everything else in the WRPG genre. You'll never hear me say "I wish Baldur's Gate 1 had never been made". That would mean KotOR and Jade Empire would never have been made. And that I cannot allow.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 août 2012 - 03:54 .

[Il Divo]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
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.

Good point, and I have heard of that kind of stuff happening with friends who have played Medieval. That's why one thing I'm excited about which they are doing with the enhanced edition is bringing in alot of the BG2 influences which didn't exist in the original.

[Rockworm503]

LOL I'm one of Bioware's biggest critics these days and even I think the OP is full of ****

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

J. Reezy wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

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.

And therein lies the problem. Like I said, you might want to look up the definition of truth somewhere.

The truth can be subjective or absolute depending on the assertion, the assertion that none of Bioware's other titles released to date have come close to rivaling BG2 is one that I agree with and thus in my mind it is true, you may have a different opinion and thus the assertion is false, the truth isnt always absolute.

greengoron89 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

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!

It does not matter - the mindset people like this have is universal. Their opinion is founded mostly on nostalgia, and as such I find it difficult to take anything they say seriously.

That is funny, I hold similar views on those who hold Bioware's more recent (though not most recent) games in such high regard though it has more to do with the scarcity of Bioware's brand of RPG and peoples views of the EA takeover rather than nostalgia, the difference between us however is that I have actually played the games in question where you have not.

While your assertion may have some truth about it in regards to Baldur's Gate I do believe there was something special about Baldur's Gate 2 that that goes beyond mere nostalgia.

[Blastback]

Baldur's Gate 2 came together in a way that made it more than the sum of it's parts better than any game I can remember. Though other games have in fact done better with many of those individual elements.

[Rockworm503]

Seriously Capcom hasn't made anything good since Megaman X!

[Blastback]

greengoron89 wrote...

@Gandalf - That may be so, and I'll play both games myself in time. Still, in every fanbase you have these dusty old purists who hate on everything a developer makes past the first few games. Their opinion is often founded solely on nostalgia, so it makes it difficult to take what they say with anything but a grain of salt.

That said, I think Dragon Age 2 and ME3 were pure tripe - the last truly great game by BW that I played was DA:O, and it seems that's the way it will stay... EA or not tbh. I get the feeling things would be no different if EA were to quit meddling so much, or be cut out of the picture entirely.

While I don't think that anything that Bioware has made has ever been quite as good as Baldur's Gate 2, I loved everything they've done up until DA2.  I just think that they managed something truley special in BG2 that they haven't been able to match.  But I will also agree that some of that has to do with playing the game when it came out verses later.

[Il Divo]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


The truth can be subjective or absolute depending on the assertion, the assertion that none of Bioware's other titles released to date have come close to rivaling BG2 is one that I agree with and thus in my mind it is true, you may have a different opinion and thus the assertion is false, the truth isnt always absolute.

And that's all fine, but when you use lines like "not many people would like to admit it but it is true", you're engaging in contradiction. Truths that change from person to person are called opinions.

By claiming that people should just "admit it", you're attempting to assign an objective factor to BG2's claim as Bioware's best game where none exists. Ultimately, everyone thinks what they believe is "true".  Why would anyone admit to something that they don't consider to be true?  

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 août 2012 - 04:42 .

[Rockworm503]

Il Divo wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


The truth can be subjective or absolute depending on the assertion, the assertion that none of Bioware's other titles released to date have come close to rivaling BG2 is one that I agree with and thus in my mind it is true, you may have a different opinion and thus the assertion is false, the truth isnt always absolute.

And that's all fine, but when you use lines like "not many people would like to admit it but it is true", you're engaging in contradiction. Truths that change from person to person are called opinions.

By claiming that people should just "admit it", you're attempting to assign an objective factor to BG2's claim as Bioware's best game where none exists. To rephrase: why would anyone admit to something that they don't consider to be true?  

You're arguing with someone who insults people for not hating Heavy Rain.  The concept of opinion is beyond him 

Modifié par Rockworm503, 12 août 2012 - 04:42 .

[Il Divo]

Rockworm503 wrote...

You're arguing with someone who insults people for not hating Heavy Rain.  The concept of opinion is beyond him 

Hrrmm, this might be fanning the flames then, but I loved Heavy Rain.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Il Divo wrote...

And that's all fine, but when you use lines like "not many people would like to admit it but it is true", you're engaging in contradiction. Truths that change from person to person are called opinions.

By claiming that people should just "admit it", you're attempting to assign an objective factor to BG2's claim as Bioware's best game where none exists. Ultimately, everyone thinks what they believe is "true".  Why would anyone admit to something that they don't consider to be true?  

Ok I will concede that, perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part.

Rockworm503 wrote...

You're arguing with someone who insults people for not hating Heavy Rain. The concept of opinion is beyond him

I am sorry but any opinion that states Heavy Rain is anything other than complete garbage is simply not an opinion I can accept.

[Gatt9]

J. Reezy wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
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.

From what I've learned in Game History, this generation is moving along eerily similar to 1983.

I'd actually say it's uniquely catastrophic.

This generation's characterized by a couple of primary themes in business strategy...

-Repeat whatever games sold well yearly or every other year.
-Find a way to sell the game on Day 1,  even if it means being dishonest about the game.
-Monetize the games any way possible (Hostage content,  Day 1 DLC cut from main game,  Online Pass)
-Rely on the "Press" to berate the consumers if they challenge it.

So where we're at today is that Gamers see games as a decreasing value for the dollar,  because most games are now ceasing to be a $60 purchase and becoming a unknown amount of money.  Further,  the Gamers don't have any idea if the game is anything like what the company described,  and the Gaming "Press" isn't going to tell them.  Then if the Gamers dare to complain,  the Gaming "Press" attacks them.

Worse,  all they're doing is reiterating the same couple games over and over.  No new IP's, no new stories,  just keep shoving out the same game over and over.  Not too different from how the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th franchises were treated.

So they're going to launch $500 consoles,  and Publishers are going to release Yet Another Version of the same shooters they've been releasing for the last 7 years,  with some unknown "Revenue initiatives" built in,  and the Industry thinks people will buy it.

What's going to happen in the next 18-24 months is:  Alot of the core market is going to take a "Wait and see" approach waiting for the next generation of consoles to release something other than Halo 8 and CoD 16,  the Publishers are going to take massive losses,  and become unable to create new titles in time to convince people to convert.  Then we'll get an 83'ish crash.

The next generation of consoles is already doomed by the Publishers who're unable to think of anything but rehashes and finding ways to gouge customers.

@Gandalf - That may be so, and I'll play both games myself in time. Still, in every fanbase you have these dusty old purists who hate on everything a developer makes past the first few games. Their opinion is often founded solely on nostalgia, so it makes it difficult to take what they say with anything but a grain of salt.

OTOH,  in every fanbase you have very young people who condemn anything not created in the last 3 years as "Outdated" without knowing why those mechanics were in place,  and rather than have an open mind and try to learn about the medium and it's wide range of possibilities,  they just label anyone who doesn't say "The last 5 years of gaming are the greatest ever!" as "Purists".

The reality is,  it's not "Nostalgia",  or "Purists",  it's that people enjoyed the core mechanics featured prominently in games prior to the 360/PS3 generation.  You're not a fan of those mechanics?  Nothing wrong with that.  I don't like Baseball,  but I'm not going to tell baseball fans their game is old and outdated.

As I said previously,  you really need to be more open minded.  All you're doing is communicating to the reader that you're close-minded and intolerant,  and whatever message you may have hoped to convey is completely undermined by that. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 12 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[Joy Divison]

greengoron89 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

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

That I do.

It is rare that one will openly admit their opinion is meaningless and based on absolutely nothing.  I salute you sir for your honesty

[Insaner Robot]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

I am sorry but any opinion that states Heavy Rain is anything other than complete garbage is simply not an opinion I can accept.

You don't have to accept it, that's the thing about an opinion, everyone's is valid.

And it makes me sick.

On topic (ish)


BG2 for anyone playing new today could be a trial, graphically it will not have aged well as visuals have advanced so much. It's party and enemy a.i. will seem lacklustre. For someone who can get past that however they will discover a world and a story with a surprising amount of freedom.

There something going on everywhere, most characters either have a story of their own or are involved in someone else's tale, side quests everywhere, I seem to remember entire locations who were not connected to the main quest at all. On my first playthrough I must have played between forty or sixty hours before realising "I'm still on chapter 2!" But I'd already explored most of the sword coast and met multiple companions, seen other planes and more.

If someone could objectively say 'okay yes the graphics aren't good and the gameplay seems a little slower than I'm used to, but I'm going to give this a chance and learn those crazy DnD rules (cast a spell once per day, hah). Then that person could be in for a treat after their trial.

Modifié par Insaner Robot, 12 août 2012 - 07:08 .

[Blastback]

Il Divo wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
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.

Good point, and I have heard of that kind of stuff happening with friends who have played Medieval. That's why one thing I'm excited about which they are doing with the enhanced edition is bringing in alot of the BG2 influences which didn't exist in the original.

So you enjoyed BG2, just not the original?  Have you tried the tutu mods?

[Squiggles1334]

LOL people complained a lot about how Dragon Age 2 reduced its role playing options in dialog to three basic personas of nice, mean, and witty/charming and how Mass Effect games had a dialog wheel that reduced you to either a paragon or renegade, but they seem to forget that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 pretty much had the same depth of dialog options, dialog options that rarely even had any impact on your character other than maybe having two or three ways to solve the occasional talky side quest. You also hardly ever had any sort of influence over your Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 companions (you can't even initiate dialog with them when they're following you) except for a very rudimentary and optional romance, not nearly the level of influence and interaction that you had with a game like Dragon Age. Neverwinter Nights had way more role playing depth in its dialog despite having what most considered a weak campaign. The expansions were good fun though (in my opinion), and the included toolset allowed the community to breathe extra life into the franchise, extending its life and relevance by years.

Modifié par Squiggles1334, 12 août 2012 - 11:31 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Squiggles1334 wrote...

LOL people complained a lot about how Dragon Age 2 reduced its role playing options in dialog to three basic personas of nice, mean, and witty/charming and how Mass Effect games had a dialog wheel that reduced you to either a paragon or renegade, but they seem to forget that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 pretty much had the same depth of dialog options, dialog options that rarely even had any impact on your character other than maybe having two or three ways to solve the occasional talky side quest. You also hardly ever had any sort of influence over your Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 companions except for a very rudimentary and optional romance, not nearly the level of influence and interaction that you had with a game like Dragon Age. Neverwinter Nights had way more role playing depth in its dialog despite having what most considered a weak campaign. The expansions were good fun though (in my opinion), and the included toolset allowed the community to breathe extra life into the franchise, extending its life and relevance by years.

What you chose was what you said in those games though, unlike Mass Effect or DA2, because they had non-retarded dialog systems.

Paragon, renegade, whatever. When the game just repeatedly pulls crap you didn't choose after offering you a fake choice, that's a gigantic FU to the player every time.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 août 2012 - 11:35 .

[Squiggles1334]

But it doesn't change the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age: Origins had way more role playing depth via dialog than the original Baldur's Gate games ever had yet some people here prop them up as the apex of RPGs.

[Gotholhorakh]

Squiggles1334 wrote...

But it doesn't change the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age: Origins had way more role playing depth via dialog than the original Baldur's Gate games ever had yet some people here prop them up as the apex of RPGs.

If dialog was the secret ingredient, things would be the other way around. It is not.

You will notice that the more cinematic BioWare get, the crappier the game gets and the more ill-received. All that despite the dialog being something people loved about their best BioWare games.


That is because they have seized on something which is not the sole selling point of their games at all.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 août 2012 - 11:51 .

[Blastback]

Squiggles1334 wrote...

But it doesn't change the fact that Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age: Origins had way more role playing depth via dialog than the original Baldur's Gate games ever had yet some people here prop them up as the apex of RPGs.

I've said it before and will say it again.  As far as individual gameplay elements go, Baldur's Gate 2 has been repeatedly bested.  It's how the game came together that makes it special.  Plus the D&D world and rule system.  And a great story line.  And the sheer size and scope.

[bussinrounds]

Give me a game with good tactical combat/mechanics and a thin justification for going deeper into the dungeon or wherever and you can keep your "roleplaying".

Besides, you do know that combat is a part of this mythical “role-playing” that’s supposed to exist in RPGs, right? You can fight like a fighter, hide in shadows/pick pockets like a thief, cast with mages/priests etc. Roleplaying means you're just playing according to your character.

Not that I don't enjoy games with good 'story' elements, (loved Planescape ) but to make it like it's the be all end all when it comes to 'roleplaying' is just dumb.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 13 août 2012 - 04:01 .