180 réponses à ce sujet

[Noctis Augustus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nostalgia goggles.

Nonsense. I played the Baldur's Gate series *after* Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 and I consider Baldur's Gate 2 the second best game I've ever played. Nostalgia is irrelevant.

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Player agency.
Minimal interruptions of gameplay for cinematics and enforced pacing.
The ability to handcraft your own story, or at least actively co-create it via emergent narrative.
Blank slate, rather than pre-defined character provides optimal character definition and role-playing opportunities.

This. Control over your character is the most important feature of an RPG. Be it decisions, dialogue, customization, etc.

[Gervaise]

The Baldur's Gate series was great but there were elements in it that have re-surfaced since that annoyed me, that is being railroaded at certain points into doing something that you personally would never do. The one that continues to stick in mind is setting out to confront the vampires, having arranged with various allies to meet you at their lair. Now it stands to reason that any one with sense would set out for the location by day, when vampires are not active, so you could meet up with your allies in safety before confronting them. But no matter what time you set out, the game manipulated it so that you always arrived after dark, with fatal consequences for at least one of your party. At similar situation occurred at your arrival at the Asylum.

Similar situations arose in DA2. For example, if there was a killer on the streets who sent their victims lilys, would you not warn your mother to take care? Would you not tell the rest of the household to keep a watch out for such "gifts".

Again, if you had a friend, who you knew to be unstable, who started acting even more oddly, got you to collect some strange items, and then admitted they had lied to you, if you did not want them to cause any more harm, wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep from doing so? Yet we were even presented with the absurd situation of being able to go to Cullen and warn him with the friend still part in your party and yet he was still able to leave the Gallows a free man.

And of course then there was ME3 - enough said.

So I agree with all the points Ieldra makes about what made BG series so good, but remember they were not without faults which have continued to re-surface in later games. I don't mind lack of player agency and being forced to follow a particular path and having no control over the direction the story takes, provided it does not insult our intelligence.

[Maria Caliban]

Eurypterid wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Totally relevant topic for these forums as the Dragon Age team have been trying to figure this one out for years but to no avail.

I love the BG series. Probably in my top 5 favorites list, but IMO, much of the greatness of the series is nostalgia driven.

I think it's a classic game; it was both remarkable for its time and has had a long lasting impact on cRPGs. It's not 'great' compared to contemporary games made for contemporary audiences, but it was great for its time.

[Khayness]

The epic scale is still unmatched. Both in gameplay and story.

You start running away as some poor lad and try to not get eaten by bears, but by the end you are getting attacked by a frickin' army of giants and you can tackle dragons with ease. And the narrative follows accordingly, which is the most important part.

[Ieldra]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As opposed to what's been said abovethread, the main character was definitely not a blank slate. They had a fixed history and background and a fixed father figure. That made it possible to make them a story hook and that was a strength of the game, not a weakness.

That depends, I suppose, on how one defines blank slate.  Although it is true that the PC had a fixed background, it was entirely up to the player to determine how and how much that background influenced their thoughts, feelings, filters, personality, and decisions.  Even though our backgrounds and ancestry are identical, each of my siblings and I have very, very different personalities, opinions, and approaches to life.  One has only to take a look around these forums to see that 100 different people can all experience the same thing yet come away with 100 completely different interpretations of what it was they experienced.

Some context from wiki:
Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more literally, "scraped tablet") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.

They were as much defined as Hawke......with the exception of the voice. That Hawke came across as more defined was more due the fact that a default face was available and that this face was used all over the place in marketing - and because of the example of DAO, which let you choose your character's backstory and play a part of it. That was a new and immediately very appreciated feature in DAO, and its loss in DA2 was felt keenly. 

The backgrounds, perhaps - but the PCs in BG and DAO had much greater latitude in who they could become.  The physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The fact that Hawke often said and did things I did not expect and insinuated motives that were different from what I had established made it impossible for me to ever feel that I was role-playing that character.  I had no such problems with the Bhaalspawn or Warden.  As one small example, I played Wardens who were uncomfortable being leaders, and others who reveled in it; some that were shy and stoic and others outgoing and expressive.  DA2 did not afford anywhere near that degree of freedom in character definition.

You are correct, but restrictions in what the main character can do *in* the game are a problem of player agency, it has nothing to do with them being a blank slate at its start or not. BG's main character was no blank slate by any definition, but I did say that BG2 and DAO found the sweet spot in player agency.

As for Hawke vs. Bhaalspawn: it might surprise you to hear me say that, but Hawke had actually *more* roleplaying opportunities. Yes, there were situations where Hawke's lines said or suggested things we didn't want (though never to the same extend as Shepard's), but BG2 did not have more options but less opportunities to say anything meaningful at all, with the result that many traits you imagined your Bhaalspawn to have were never expressed but also never contradicted, leaving them intact in your mind.

About DAO, I find it very hard to assess its freedom of expression fairly compared to DA2's. It feels more free and some things definitely are more free, but DAO has those problematic lines as well - things you don't want to say which are tied to decisions you want to make. Not many, but they exist. The thing is: you never hear them, and because of that they have less impact. DAO has freer expression, no doubt, but the difference may be smaller than we might think because every spoken line your character would never have said hits you in the face like a hammer, while just reading the line only makes you frown...and move on.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 janvier 2014 - 08:16 .

[Jorina Leto]

Nostalgia

[Sanunes]

Honestly, I think it has more to do with us as players then what BioWare put into the game itself, yes there are going to be some areas that will be superior for some people because it hits certain elements. One example could be dialogue, even if there were only six available dialogue options like the modern games going back and reading those lines of text you could influence how it was presented with how you imagine it being, now with people not wanting to read a book while playing a game the emotion and flow of the conversation is more directed.

Speaking for myself my age also has a lot to do with it, for I have experienced more things outside of the game and understand how things work more then when I did when I first played Baldur's Gate 15 years ago. I don't think any game will be as good as the ones I enjoyed back then, because as a person I am completely different.

[Nole]

It's old school, bro.

And "everything was better before".

[Ieldra]

Gervaise wrote...
So I agree with all the points Ieldra makes about what made BG series so good, but remember they were not without faults which have continued to re-surface in later games. I don't mind lack of player agency and being forced to follow a particular path and having no control over the direction the story takes, provided it does not insult our intelligence.

I agree about the examples you mentioned, but I think this is a general problem of storytelling: it isn't at all easy to let your characters make non-stupid mistakes that bring about the situation you want if *you* know the perfect solution. Dramatic concerns add their own restrictions. The problem "We'll attack the vampires by night, yay! What could possibly go wrong?" could've been avoided by letting you arrive by day and not making Bodhi confront you out in the open. The vampires would have still been able to confront you in the dark underground. However, as odd as it sounds, I can tell you from experience that you don't always see these easy solutions, and the development history may add its own problems. Imagine that someone made the scene we got happen by day. Then a game tester comes along and says: "Err...vampires out by day. Shouldn't happen." and you need to correct the scene but don't have the resources to remake it at a different location. What will you do? Switch to night. Almost no effort, right? A typical example of the rule of unintended consequences. 

So I tend to forgive such things if they're rare enough. Don't get me started on ME3 though. That was a prevalence of forced protagonist stupidity I've rarely seen in any other story.

(I recall when I was helping someone with plotting a story, the writer and I came across a similar problem. We debated for two weeks, two or three hours per day, and when we found the solution, it was so simple that it was incomprehensible that we hadn't thought of it before. As a designer of a commercial game, you usually don't have that time to find a solution)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 janvier 2014 - 08:44 .

[Noctis Augustus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Totally relevant topic for these forums as the Dragon Age team have been trying to figure this one out for years but to no avail.

I love the BG series. Probably in my top 5 favorites list, but IMO, much of the greatness of the series is nostalgia driven.

I think it's a classic game; it was both remarkable for its time and has had a long lasting impact on cRPGs. It's not 'great' compared to contemporary games made for contemporary audiences, but it was great for its time.

Absolutely. That's why there are people investing their money on promises of spiritual successors to those "not "great" compared to contemporary games made for contemporary audiences" type of games. That's why a digital distribution website was created just for those type of games, and is currently very popular. That's why someone like me who played those games a decade after their release, considers them above modern games in terms of intrinsic quality.

[Challseus]

1) Tactical combat with 6 party members
2) Music

[Pasquale1234]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for Hawke vs. Bhaalspawn: it might surprise you to hear me say that, but Hawke had actually *more* roleplaying opportunities. Yes, there were situations where Hawke's lines said or suggested things we didn't want (though never to the same extend as Shepard's), but BG2 did not have more options but less opportunities to say anything meaningful at all, with the result that many traits you imagined your Bhaalspawn to have were never expressed but also never contradicted, leaving them intact in your mind.

Yes, that is an issue.

It may be that the devs did not intend to provide such latitude in role-playing, but they did not prevent it.  That changed with DA2, so one type of role-playing that was formerly possible is no longer supported.  This is why I interpret Hawke to be pre-defined and entirely Bioware's character, where I have a great deal of personal investment in the Bhaalspawn and Warden.

[Lord Raijin]

I never played  Baldur's Gate. What is it about?

[ghostzodd]

It wasn't dumb downed to *attempt* to appeal to  a larger audience

[Ieldra]

Noctis Augustus wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Totally relevant topic for these forums as the Dragon Age team have been trying to figure this one out for years but to no avail.

I love the BG series. Probably in my top 5 favorites list, but IMO, much of the greatness of the series is nostalgia driven.

I think it's a classic game; it was both remarkable for its time and has had a long lasting impact on cRPGs. It's not 'great' compared to contemporary games made for contemporary audiences, but it was great for its time.

Absolutely. That's why there are people investing their money on promises of spiritual successors to those "not "great" compared to contemporary games made for contemporary audiences" type of games. That's why a digital distribution website was created just for those type of games, and is currently very popular. That's why someone like me who played those games a decade after their release, considers them above modern games in terms of intrinsic quality.

You are a minority. Those who are frequent visitors of GOG are a minority. Big enough that the site can make profit from them, given that the old games cost almost nothing and need almost no resources to store and run compared to modern games, but still a minority. Also, we older gamers tend to be influenced by nostalgia. If you actively try to disregard the nostalgia factor, things become much murkier.

I have no doubt that a story like that of the BG series would be very well received today. However, gameplay is overcomplicated without necessity (probably due to the D&D license) and the presentation is outdated. Roleplaying in dialogue is actually more limited than you might recall, and not overall better than the better modern examples (say, DAO).

Don't misunderstand me: I do want those spiritual successors, to the point that I have significantly invested in Pillars of Eternity. However, they will not be great without evolving some elements beyond those of the old games significantly, and not just in graphics. 

[Firky]

For me it was just a world to get lost in. I was studying at uni at the time and working at the supermarket and it was an amazing way to unwind.

It wasn't really "open world" but there was so much to just wander and do in Chapter 2/3. A zillion quests. Then, you got onto the linear-ish path which entirely felt like you were trying to crawl your way back to the sun, in a compelling kind of a way.

And so much gear to shuffle around and read descriptions of.

There's a $16 GOG copy (for both) or a $20 (each game, I think) enhanced edition. The EE essentially adds tweaks and 4 characters. (But there are already a million characters.)

[Realmzmaster]

Nostalgia has nothing to do with my continued playing of BG1 and BG2. I also regularly play NWN1 and 2. I am checking out BG1:Reloaded which is BG1 using the Neverwinter 2 engine. BG1 and BG2 are simply great games that for me have stood the test of time.

The series does not hold the gamer's hand like crpgs now. The BG series was not afraid of having characters die in a tough fight or simply because the gamer underestimated the enemy. A character could permanently die and that character's quest or story would be lost. Or the party could raise enough money to have the companion resurrected. It was unlikely that you cleric would be of high enough level until BG2 to do the task. That is a decision that does not exist in the DA series, because the companions cannot die unless it is scripted.

Also if companions did not like how the main character conducted themselves the companion would leave or complain incessantly about the main character lack of morals or being too moral. Some companions would not even join the party!

BG series had the gamer make tough choices. You had companions who literally wanted to kill each other. Certain combinations of party makeup were explosive.

The Bhaalspawn was just as defined as Hawke. The difference is that the Bhaalspawn allowed for more head cannon for some gamers.

[Maiden Crowe]

Ieldra2 wrote...
However, gameplay is overcomplicated without necessity (probably due to the D&D license)

In what ways would you say?

[Yendor_Trawz]

Yeah I'd like to dismiss those nostalgia claims too. I'm playing BG2 now for the first time and having a blast.

It's challenging and really tests your tactical skill and party management.
Advancement is only drip fed and there are very few easy encounters or short cuts.

The DA series mostly looks good because its a movie interspersed with some RPG action.
BG looks like a game.and right now I feel like playing a game more than watching a movie. I really don't care if the graphics are dated if there is a great story and characters and I'm not being railroaded down an easy quest line that doesn't really match my intentions.

There is a strong sense of exploration (especially in BG1) and a big cast of interesting and funny characters.

If you've been raised on DA type games the interface and graphics will be a shock. There are no awesome buttons and you will actually have to think about what you're doing. Hawke would be screaming for his zombie mommy after 2 minutes.

Also, get off my lawn.

[Ieldra]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for Hawke vs. Bhaalspawn: it might surprise you to hear me say that, but Hawke had actually *more* roleplaying opportunities. Yes, there were situations where Hawke's lines said or suggested things we didn't want (though never to the same extend as Shepard's), but BG2 did not have more options but less opportunities to say anything meaningful at all, with the result that many traits you imagined your Bhaalspawn to have were never expressed but also never contradicted, leaving them intact in your mind.

Yes, that is an issue.

It may be that the devs did not intend to provide such latitude in role-playing, but they did not prevent it.  That changed with DA2, so one type of role-playing that was formerly possible is no longer supported.  This is why I interpret Hawke to be pre-defined and entirely Bioware's character, where I have a great deal of personal investment in the Bhaalspawn and Warden.

If you examine DA2's dialogue carefully, you will notice that overall, the DA team really did make an effort to cover as many angles as possible. This becomes very obvious if you compare it to ME3 where no such effort is discernible. The problem is that with a voiced protagonist, if you fail even once it's like a kick in the face for a passionate roleplayer, and even if you notice the problem early, adding a spoken line takes a lot of planning while adding a written line is easy.

So I see DA2 more as a failure to reconcile the demands of roleplaying with the restrictions of a voiced protagonist, rather than a game which was never intended to provide the ability to make the protagonist your own. Having said that, it may not be possible to reconcile those aspects completely, given the economic constraints of game development. We'll see how things go in DAI.

[Mistress9Nine]

Giant space hamsters!

[Dubozz]

Commander Shepard. Too bad he is dead and under the pile of rubble.

Modifié par Dubozz, 26 janvier 2014 - 09:51 .

[Hrungr]

I have to say, I'm continually impressed by how many people remember the Balder's Gate series so vividly. I've owned every D&D licensed game put out on the PC, and I've played the BG series multiple times. But honestly, 16-ish years after the fact, my memories of it are... vague at best.

That's not to say I don't have fond nostalgic feelings towards the old-isometric gameplay, I've invested in Pillars of Eternity, but I can't say I have any burning desire to replay that particular series.

[wsandista]

The ability to consistently role-play a character however you wish, the atmosphere, the feeling of triumph as your party goes from a ragtag group of adventurers to a force that reckons with the divine, good music, several god mods.

[Ieldra]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The series does not hold the gamer's hand like crpgs now.

This is a real issue indeed. The absense of quest markers creates a much more intense sense of exploration.

The BG series was not afraid of having characters die in a tough fight or simply because the gamer underestimated the enemy. A character could permanently die and that character's quest or story would be lost. Or the party could raise enough money to have the companion resurrected. It was unlikely that you cleric would be of high enough level until BG2 to do the task. That is a decision that does not exist in the DA series, because the companions cannot die unless it is scripted.

Tell me, who really played on when a beloved companion died, instead of reloading?  I do regret that the newer games don't even have the option for a more "ironman" playstyle, but I think it was one for a tiny minority. That they removed it in favor of other features, that I understand. 

Also if companions did not like how the main character conducted themselves the companion would leave or complain incessantly about the main character lack of morals or being too moral. Some companions would not even join the party!

I found that rather annoying. You are not evil enough? WTF? Very contrived. I'd rather have characters react to specific actions like in DAO - or even DA2, where some characters could leave and not return based on what you did, in case this has been forgotten. I see the nostalgia factor at work indeed.  

BG series had the gamer make tough choices. You had companions who literally wanted to kill each other. Certain combinations of party makeup were explosive.

And how plausible was it that these characters were in the same group in the first place?

The Bhaalspawn was just as defined as Hawke. The difference is that the Bhaalspawn allowed for more head cannon for some gamers.

That is true. I'm not sure I prefer that, though. I guess it depends on the exact prescription the game makes. Hawke never bothered me that much. The traits I wanted my Hawkes to have mostly fit neatly into the spaces the game left me to fill. It was different with Shepard.