60 réponses à ce sujet

[keesio74]

I finished my first playthrough of DAO and absolutely loved it. One of the best CRPGs I've ever played. However on this forum I've heard people going on about BG/BG2 and how that is still the best CRPG. Googling around, it seems that many people (not just in this forum) still feel the same way. I've never played BG or BG2 (actually DAO is the first CRPG I've picked up in quite some time) so I'm considering trying it out to see what all the hype is about. However I'm wondering if I will get disappointed simply because the games are so old. I saw some screenshots and obviously they just can't compare to graphics these days. So even if the story and gamplay is awesome, just the dated engine itself might bring the rest of the game down for me. What do you think? Is it still worth the spin? But I guess for fans of BG/BG2 it will be hard to say, cause I think it is very different for someone who has fond nostalgic memories of an old game to be able to go back and play it and enjoy it vs someone who has never played it to try it out and go "man this looks old". I recently replayed Might and Magic 3 - Isles of Terra (1993) and loved it again but I'm sure someone new to the game would be like "what the heck, this looks crappy".

[phordicus]

search for BG Tutu. it lets you play the whole BG saga using the BG2 engine.  then visit these places for tweaks, fixes, and other enhancing mods:
http://www.pocketpla...mambo/index.php
http://modlist.pocketplane.net/
http://www.shsforums.net/

it will still show its age in that it's a fixed isometric camera (a la diablo) showing sprites running around on fixed art (albeit beautifully done). of course, the 2nd ed ad&d rules can have a steep learning curve if you're not already familiar with them (especially magic). other than those two issues, someone that enjoys DA should be able to enjoy BG at least as much (doesn't work the other way around as much).

Modifié par phordicus, 01 janvier 2010 - 06:50 .

[keesio74]

phordicus wrote...
 of course, the 2nd ed ad&d rules can have a steep learning curve if you're not already familiar with them (especially magic).

hmmm... well I was very familiar with 1st ed ad&d back in the day. I think I was picking up 2nd ed when I stopped playing. But I am at least somewhat familiar with it. And I was pretty familiar with Forgotten Realms (which I believe BG was based on). So that part I am not concerned about. It's more the game being so old that after DAO, it will look like crap (graphically and such).

[NDAv]

phordicus wrote...

search for BG Tutu. it lets you play the whole BG saga using the BG2 engine.  then visit these places for tweaks, fixes, and other enhancing mods:
http://www.pocketpla...mambo/index.php
http://modlist.pocketplane.net/
http://www.shsforums.net/

I would suggest not to install any mods when playing BG the first time through. In fact, I think is better for someone not to mod any game before they have even played it.

Modifié par NDAv, 01 janvier 2010 - 07:08 .

[phordicus]

keesio74 wrote...

hmmm... well I was very familiar with 1st ed ad&d back in the day. I think I was picking up 2nd ed when I stopped playing. But I am at least somewhat familiar with it. And I was pretty familiar with Forgotten Realms (which I believe BG was based on). So that part I am not concerned about. It's more the game being so old that after DAO, it will look like crap (graphically and such).

not to be a dick, but if one of your major concerns about playing a 10-year old cRPG is graphics, don't bother.

[NDAv]

In some ways I actually prefer the graphics of BG over that of DA:O and other modern games. But that's just me.

[pitlord_special]

The environments in both BG games are pretty well done (though you can only see them from a fixed perspective so not entirely surprising). The character sprites aren't all that detailed but you can tell them apart easily enough based on class/race/sex. Probably the only bad thing about the graphics is that the low 4:3 resolutions look even worse on a widescreen LCD compared to the CRT monitors that were the norm back then.

[phordicus]

NDAv wrote...

I would suggest not to install any mods when playing BG the first time through. In fact, I think is better for someone not to mod any game before they have even played it.

really?  some mods are virtually de rigeur on players' wish lists for any game (infinite stacks for potions, for example).  others are convenience (more places to rest).  it's not like we need a new batch of RPG purists.  some players, and just by reading the threads here -- that's a lot, wouldn't get past the Candlekeep intro without some of the other hand-holding mods.
a few types of mods, mostly mechanics and gameplay ones, are truly better used after sampling the BG world on its own.  new kits and NPCs, spell system overhauls, and AI enhancements fall into these categories and are best evaluated once you've got something to compare them to.
nice thing is, all of the mods are explicitly explained in their purpose and function so anyone with enough intelligence to install a mod can surely decide if it would suit them or not.

[The Capital Gaultier]

It does look crappy. It's worth installing and giving a few hours to see, at least.

[phordicus]

pitlord_special wrote...

The environments in both BG games are pretty well done (though you can only see them from a fixed perspective so not entirely surprising). The character sprites aren't all that detailed but you can tell them apart easily enough based on class/race/sex. Probably the only bad thing about the graphics is that the low 4:3 resolutions look even worse on a widescreen LCD compared to the CRT monitors that were the norm back then.

there's a widescreen mod, too.

(fullsize: http://img.photobuck...icus/bg2ss1.jpg)

[amrose2]

I have a feeling most people are just nostalgic. It's the same with Final Fantasy, nearly everyone will say FF 7 was the best.

[ModForFun]

NDAv wrote...
I would suggest not to install any mods when playing BG the first time through. In fact, I think is better for someone not to mod any game before they have even played it.

bad bad bad advice boo will smite you for your evilness..... some of the mods out there such as The BG2 Fixpack are pretty much neaded, it would also be wise to install David Gaiders ascension mod and quite a few others.
But I do agree a first timer may be overwhelmed by the tutu or big world mod thus is wise not to get carried away, go with the above mentioned mods maybe add a companion mod such as Fade (which I highly recommend) and the banter packs found on gibberlings3.net and shsforums.net

amrose2 wrote...

I have a feeling most people are just nostalgic. It's the same with Final Fantasy, nearly everyone will say FF 7 was the best.

not at all, I myself and many others still play and still mod for bg1 and bg2, it has a die hard community thats very much alive and kicking.

Modifié par ModForFun, 01 janvier 2010 - 07:53 .

[StarMars]

It's the traditional isometric 2D view common in games during that time so I don't you'll find the graphics that bad. I'd rather call it artwork than graphics actually.

[SleeplessInSigil]

 Try Planescape: Torment. Every other game's storyline will seem like a nursery rhyme in comparison. 

[NDAv]

ModForFun wrote...

NDAv wrote...
I would suggest not to install any mods when playing BG the first time through. In fact, I think is better for someone not to mod any game before they have even played it.

bad bad bad advice boo will smite you for your evilness..... some of the mods out there such as The BG2 Fixpack are pretty much neaded, it would also be wise to install David Gaiders ascension mod and quite a few others.

When I said mods, I wasn't referring to fixpacks and other usermade patches, as those are merely meant to fix mistakes by the developer, and bring the game experience closer to what the developers intended.

The TuTu mods definitely do not fall into that category. They are mods not a fix. And I would argue that the G3 fixpack is is the same way as it does make some questionable changes, but that is a whole other debate. Bottom line is, anything that clearly labelled as a mod should not be installed for someone's first experience of the game, or any game.

And personally, to this day, I have only ever played BG1 vanilla with the only fixpack installed. And BG2 only with fixpack and true grandmastery mod.

[jorghis]

At the time it came out BG2 was my all time favorite game. However, I honestly do not think it stands up very well to a game like Dragon Age even neglecting technological differences.



One of the reasons people liked those games so much is that they were so good relative to everything else at the time. Most of the things that made those games great seemed so outstanding because noone else had them. The gorgeous backgrounds (for the time), the scripted encounters, the npc interactions, the detailed storyline, etc. All were FAR superior to everything else out at the time. But can you seriously claim that the NPC interactions in BG are even a tenth as detailed and flushed out as the ones in Dragon Age? If you go from DA to BG expecting a similar experience I suspect you will feel that the characters are shallow and one dimensional with very limited interactions.



Amazing for its time, but I honestly think that people are remembering the gameplay as being better than it actually was. I think a lot of people will buy BG and be disappointed because they expect the same level of flushed out characters and gameplay as exists in DA. Which is really too bad, because it probably was the best RPG of 10+ years ago.

[phordicus]

jorghis wrote...

One of the reasons people liked those games so much is that they were so good relative to everything else at the time. Most of the things that made those games great seemed so outstanding because noone else had them. The gorgeous backgrounds (for the time), the scripted encounters, the npc interactions, the detailed storyline, etc. All were FAR superior to everything else out at the time.

the exact same thing applies to DA except that, ta-dah, BG already set the standard.

But can you seriously claim that the NPC interactions in BG are even a tenth as detailed and flushed out as the ones in Dragon Age? If you go from DA to BG expecting a similar experience I suspect you will feel that the characters are shallow and one dimensional with very limited interactions.

first, NPC interaction is a nice part of a cRPG, and the BG handling of it was correctly praised.  DA, on the other hand, merely took one of the most notable aspects of BG and took it to ludicrous extremes.  maybe in this generation of glittering vampires and cyndi lauper wannabes does excessive dialog equal character development, but it honestly does nothing to improve the game overall other than serving as some sort of interactive biography with your party members.  just because they provide more details to a character's background doesn't mean that character gained depth if those details only develop one aspect of their personality or motives.

Amazing for its time, but I honestly think that people are remembering the gameplay as being better than it actually was. I think a lot of people will buy BG and be disappointed because they expect the same level of flushed out characters and gameplay as exists in DA. Which is really too bad, because it probably was the best RPG of 10+ years ago.

i still mod for BG so this whole "nostalgia" tactic is yet another fallacy.  DA's gameplay is sophomoric compared to BG's, which, target demographic considered, is exactly how it should be.

one last time for emphasis:  excessive detail <> depth. 

[westiex9]

Nah i loved baldurs gate but saying its still the best RPG is just nostalgia in my opinion, Dragon age is the Future and All shall tremble before its epic Digital rampage!!!

[StarMars]

You're clearly not putting the tech differences aside when comparing these 2 games.

One of the reasons people liked those games so much is that they were so good relative to everything else at the time.

But that's how it should be. It shows how the game stood out above the rest. You should only compare a game with the others during the time of its release. That's why we have Best Games of All Time and BG2 is always on the lists.

Just imagine BG2 with pretty, 3D characters and game world and voiced-out dialogues. Now THAT would be amazing and DAO would surely pale in comparison considering BG2 had more classes and options.

But can you seriously claim that the NPC interactions in BG are even a tenth as detailed and flushed out as the ones in Dragon Age?

Please tell me you're exaggerating. I can't compare the NPC interactions between the 2 yet but one-tenth is just too much. Remember that BG2 has 6 chars.

Modifié par StarMars, 01 janvier 2010 - 09:41 .

[jorghis]

It is not necessarily the fact that DA provides more details and opportunities for interaction than BG does in regards to characters. I was thinking more along the lines of how so many characters fit the mold of 'good' or 'evil' a little too perfectly. In DA noone was really strictly good or evil, it really seemed like they acted and made decisions in the way a real person would. I am surprised you would say that only one aspect of a character's personality or motives was ever developed in DA, that is kind of how I felt about BG. I really thought DA improved things in that regard.



In particular the first BG really did not flush out many of the characters at all. There were many who you just picked up and they were effectively just party member number 5. BG2 did much a better job though, that one probably stands the test of time better than BG1. I will say one good thing about BG2 in relation to DA, I think its quests were better, the job board quests in DA were kind of lame compared to the more complex quests in BG2.



Maybe as a modder for BG you have gotten a sense of depth for both the characters and the world that someone who is just playing the campaign through would not get. That is not intended to be a insult, just pointing out that your experience and feelings towards the characters are not likely to be the same as a 'normal' player.



Do not get me wrong, I loved the BG series when I was a teenager, attacking it is a somewhat uncomfortable position for me. But I honestly have a tough time imagining myself never having played BG, going from DA to BG1 and enjoying it as much as I did the first time around back when there was nothing anywhere near as good as either BG or DA to compare either game to.

[westiex9]

As Duncan might say " There is no Turning back!"...well unless you want to(but that kind of ruins the quote....DOH!!)

[Darrian3p]

The Baldur's Gate series is the golden age and pinnacle of roleplaying games. I mean, BG1 came out when I was in 8th grade so I have a special connection to it, gets me goin yknow. But yeah, games nowadays have some amazing graphics tis true, but most despite all their visual grandeur fall faaaar short of achieving the levels of storyline depth, spirit, and sheer character of games like BG1&2 and Planescape: Torment.



Along the same lines of what someone else said...If you find yourself unable to enjoy it based primarily upon the graphics, you were never a real gamer to begin with. Fact 'o life right there

[jorghis]

StarMars wrote...

You're clearly not putting the tech differences aside when comparing these 2 games.

One of the reasons people liked those games so much is that they were so good relative to everything else at the time.

But that's how it should be. It shows how the game stood out above the rest. You should only compare a game with the others during the time of its release. That's why we have Best Games of All Time and BG2 is always on the lists.

Just imagine BG2 with pretty, 3D characters and game world and voiced-out dialogues. Now THAT would be amazing and DAO would surely pale in comparison considering BG2 had more classes and options.

It is not just graphical technology which has advanced.  Gamers who care about storylines have higher expectations for the creativity that goes into a game.  The most popular RPG of 1997 ( a year before BG1) was Diablo, a game with basically non-existant character development and plot.  While there are still games where the storyline was clearly an afterthought out there, fans of story driven games have several titles they can sink their teeth into these days.  There were very few other games which even attempted to develop characters backstories to the degree that BG1 and 2 did in the late 90s.  That is what I was trying to say when I claimed that BG1 and 2 were so exceptional relative to the other stuff that was out there at the time.

[westiex9]

Baldurs gae had an awesome storyline But Dragon age provides a far more complex and reactive world, Modern roleplaying has finally entered a mature stage in which morality is grey and choices have far Reaching consequences. Without the games of the past Dragon age wouldnt be here but to say the past is better then what we have now is a very flawed statement.