Rinor wrote...
Elton John is dead wrote...
Dragon Age: Origins wasn't set in the dwarven underground city "most of the time"
Perhaps I worded that poorly. I meant the section in the dwarven city was incredibly tedious. As was much of the game in my opinion but I do give Bioware credit for trying.
NWN1 was pretty good too and had more classes, races and deeper customization than Baldur's Gate. It also had a pretty good multiplayer experience allowing people to be dungeon masters and the final expansion had plenty of choices, consequences, great characters and well-written quests to be considered a great RPG. The story in the final expansion was amazing too and contained some very good twists and really good multiple endings.
Jade Empire I couldn't care for. KOTOR I haven't played. ME1 was decent. ME2 was good but it showed Bioware's decent into action-RPG territory more so than ME1 (which was an action-RPG too but I found it didn't focus on action too much).
Aside from your slight glorification of NWN, at what point do we disagree? I'm not saying everything Bioware did after BG2 was bad; my point was that BG2 was a huge fecking spike in terms of quality compared to Bioware's output prior and especially after its release. Some of the releases in the past century were memorable, others were not - no big deal but I see very little indication that Bioware could pull off another Shadows of Amn ever again.
In that I think Dragon Age: Origins was an epic RPG and greater than Baldur's Gate in some aspects. Hordes of the Underdark was also greater than Baldur's Gate in some aspects too. Mass Effect 2 had a brilliant story and the companion quests were awesome. Also consider Dragon Age and Mass Effect being new universes with a huge background of interesting lore. I actually read up on almost all of Dragon Age's lore because of how interesting and fascinating it was.
For me to actually care for the worlds in the games along with the characters in them IMO says that Bioware weren't doing wrong by Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect.
They're doing wrong now though by decending deeper and deeper into action-RPG territory where they are clearly focusing on action and appealing to the action/shooter crowd rather than their fan-base. Origins also had a lot of traditional RPG elements and was based around statistics and rather original combat whereas Dragon Age 2 was a button masher at times.
Did Origins contain the same depth as Baldur's Gate 2? No. Not in terms of customization, party members and gameplay but it's definitely the most recent RPG out there which actually feels traditional and contains a lot of depth. The only other RPG out there that is recent and contains traditional RPG elements is Dark Souls and that's a totally different RPG from Origins as it's more of a dungeon crawler. Then of course there's The Witcher 2 but the customization isn't really that deep compared to Origins which had three classes, three races, six origins, six sub-classes and a variety of skills to learn. Origins (like Dark Souls and The Witcher) had choices with actual consequences (example: Redcliffe gets destroyed if you refuse to help the townsfolk). I've played through both Baldur's Gate and Origins several times and I can say that I like Origins better simply due the choices and how different each playthrough truly feels.
Quite frankly there's few RPG's out there nowadays which can even compare to Origins which felt like a blend of traditional old RPG meets modern traditional RPG.
Of course in combat mechanics, exploration and freedom, Baldur's Gate beats every recent Bioware title hands-down.
Modifié par Elton John is dead, 13 août 2012 - 11:10 .
Retour en haut
