180 réponses à ce sujet

[Chrom72]

Nostalgia is a little of it, but it's far from the biggest factor. I didn't play the series until a couple years ago and I think it's outstanding.

1) Story
The story is one of the best in gaming history. It's also in my opinion the best story Bioware has ever done for a game (on the whole, but most specifically for BG2). I don't say that lightly either, considering that I think Bioware over the last decade or so has been the best in the industry in the story department. KOTOR comes close, and ME (minus the ending) and DA (minus the railroaded final choice between mages and templars in DA2) are great.

2) Companion Characters
The companions in Baldur's Gate are arguably among the best in any RPG. Each had a very distinct personality, and they all came with their own set of believable (well, mostly believable anyway) issues.

3) The Villain (BG2)
As has been mentioned above, Jon Irenicus is one of the best villains (The best in my opinion) in gaming history. He's a perfect mix of cunning and ruthlessness, with a scope of power that makes him more than a worthy match for any protagonist. As the thread hasn't spoiled anything yet, I'll refrain from mentioning any major plot points, but suffice it to say he provides both a highly personal and world-threatening presence.

There are more reasons, but these 3 I listed are ones that nostalgia can't be used to explain away. They are also things that time and more advanced technology can't wipe away. No matter how much better graphics and gameplay are improved, these things are always timeless. And all that is without even getting into the world itself, or the latitude they give you to create your character. The only real certainties about the main character(before you take control of the character) are that they are a Bhaalspawn and they were raised with Imoen in Candlekeep by Gorion. All other things before the game starts can be up for debate.

Modifié par Chrom72, 26 janvier 2014 - 10:19 .

[byeshoe]

Chrom72 wrote...


2) Companion Characters
The companions in Baldur's Gate are arguably among the best in any RPG. Each had a very distinct personality, and they all came with their own set of believable (well, mostly believable anyway) issues.
 

montaron! you are sooo aggravating!! tis disturbing to my demeanor!

[Yendor_Trawz]

EJ107 wrote...

I think nostalgia has a lot to do with why people like it so much. As somebody who was too young for it at the time but has looked at it after growing up on more recent stuff I really don't think it compares to modern stuff at all. I'm sure it was great when it was released, but it isn't particularly relevant now.

Yeah, here you inadvertantly pointed to why it was great and is still great now.

It was great on release, whereas DA2 sucked immediately.

It's still being talked about 16 years later. In 16 years time BW, if they exist, will probablly have disavowed DA2 as something they even ever made.

Also, in 16 years time, tell me if you like DAO merely for nostalgia's sake, or because it was good.

[Eurypterid]

KristofCoulson wrote...
 And I am now trying to make Icewind Dale 2 play on windows 7. Wish me luck.

Should be no issue. I have it running on my Win7 64 bit rig. If you're using a larger resolution than the default though, you'll run into two places where it will require you to reduce the resolution to 800x600 or a script won't fire and you can't progress. Other than that it works flawlessly.

[Luccy]

the most epic memory about bg 2 for me was an unparalelled **** fight between viconia, aerie and jaheira.
romanced all three and thus triggered the funniest conversations ever... good times.

- characters - the companions were awesome (some to hate, some to love), the villains were awesome
- dialogues
- the unexpected around every corner  (in oh so many ways...)
- scale? definitely scale!
- possibilities... i dont want to know how many hours i spend just on rolling characters ^^


i mean, in some of those areas da:o stirred old memories, got close... but it wasnt quite the same.

[addiction21]

Yendor_Trawz wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I think nostalgia has a lot to do with why people like it so much. As somebody who was too young for it at the time but has looked at it after growing up on more recent stuff I really don't think it compares to modern stuff at all. I'm sure it was great when it was released, but it isn't particularly relevant now.

Yeah, here you inadvertantly pointed to why it was great and is still great now.

It was great on release, whereas DA2 sucked immediately.

It's still being talked about 16 years later. In 16 years time BW, if they exist, will probablly have disavowed DA2 as something they even ever made.

Also, in 16 years time, tell me if you like DAO merely for nostalgia's sake, or because it was good.

In 16 years I will still bill laughing at people arguing over what games are better.

Openly mocking how far up their head is up their ass because they believe what games they like and tout around like badges means anything other then supplicating their inferiority complexes

In 16 years I will be 58 hopefully retiring or doing that soon and never wanting for a good game just like I am now.

[Yendor_Trawz]

addiction21 wrote...
[
In 16 years I will be 58 hopefully retiring or doing that soon and never wanting for a good game just like I am now.

There will still be times you will be wanting for a good game depending on your definition thereof. They are getting thinner on the ground, imo.

I'll be getting one of my hologram nurses to do everything for me, so it won't matter.

[Il Divo]

Baldur's Gate 1? Absolutely nothing, at least having played it after every other Bioware game (starting from NwN up through ME2 sequentially).

It may have been considered innovative for its time, but many elements are mediocre looking back. Characterization was non-existent amongst your party members. Dialogue was laughably bad and artificial (and at times very limited). And the main plot is treated as an after thought, consisting of a scavenger hunt across the Sword Coast for various letters detailing the BBEG's plans.

Toss on top of that DnD 2.0, vancian casting, and exploration at a snail's pace, and I'd say it's probably Bioware's worst game.

Compared even to other top down games of its time (like Planescape: Torment), there's really no comparison.

[addiction21]

Yendor_Trawz wrote...

addiction21 wrote...
[
In 16 years I will be 58 hopefully retiring or doing that soon and never wanting for a good game just like I am now.

There will still be times you will be wanting for a good game depending on your definition thereof. They are getting thinner on the ground, imo.

I'll be getting one of my hologram nurses to do everything for me, so it won't matter.

Funny my hope of retiring earl is based on creating the first hologram based table for things like table top RPGs, Warhammer and card games. Think Star Wars and C-3po playing that game with Chewie.  A dream since then and playing  20+ years ago.


But in short I got a 20+ year libary of games I will have more in the future and I am never in need of finding a new game. The Banner Saga just launched and  I am into my 3rd play-thru, BlackGuards I have been playing, Xcom Enemy unkown is on my play list, I have KoToR 2 new game starting, I still go to Borderlands 1,2 if friends are, just like Counter Strike, or even load up WoW when I feel the need.

I wont ever forget getting Baldur's Gate with one of my first paychecks and seeing they huge sleeve with all those discs. Imagine a game that was bigger then the hard drive on my computer. A abusive game because I was not familiar with the setting or rules and on a rainy day I stayed in school longer to pick the brains of the D&D group.

My problem is with "Its not BG so its wrong" If it does not recreate BG in every and any way its bad or a lesser game because of that. Especially when it comes to BIoWare. Look at the games they created before Baldur's Gate (and the differences between 1 and 2) and then everything after that.

Rambling like I do. I will now go sulk about missing games like Wing Commander that had as much choice and consequences as the great all time RPGs.

Modifié par addiction21, 26 janvier 2014 - 11:54 .

[Realmzmaster]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

I played on. I refused to reload unless the main character the Bhaalspawn died. If I just defeated one of the dragons or an especially tough boss I would decide to lose the character or have the character resurrected.

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

It is no more contrived than having companions in the group who fundamentally do not agree with you, but still travel with you and help you.

[Fast Jimmy]

What made the BG series great?

Volume.

The series boasts one of the highest word counts for a video game (possibly one of the highest, ever). The number of conversations, options, dialogue and overall content is, truly, staggering. Coupled with the D&D rule set that allows for a great level of flexibility when handling any situation, t is why it is a great game to go back and play, simply because there is options and routes that, while not always scripted, are viable and possible.


One very telling fact about today's game development philosophies is that they could not make the BG series again. The word count is too high for full-voice acting, or even the "all but the PC" level of voice acting. The price and disc space would be too much. That says a lot about the new way of designing games, but, at the same time, it also tells the story of BG.

BG 1 + 2 were created near the height of their respective models (the IE-type games) and had unheard amounts of resources put into them for their genre. And, of course, the talent at Bioware who saw a chance at creating something much more monumental than I think anyone truly understood going in. It led to a perfect storm of design, resources, talent and supported medium (the Forgotten Realms setting) that was able to create a product that was truly right for its time and audience. That is why people are still talking about it today.

[Iakus]

[quote]Noctis Augustus wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nostalgia goggles.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Yup.  I've been replaying the Baldur's Gate series over the last few months (just finished the 4th level of Watcher's Keep in Throne of Bhaal) The game holds up, and the modding community exists (though it's smaller) to this day.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

It just goes to show that "cinematic"=/="dramatic

[The Serge777]

I've played the BG series multiple times and I can say that it was one of the defining moments in CRPG play for me. However, although it was fantastic (in no small part due to its use of 2ed D&D ruleset) it was not any more "perfect" than DA. Still, it set the foundations for what we've experienced in DA, ME, and similar recent BW games.

You have a great deal of agency, fantastic NPCs (particularly in BG2), wonderful, relatively complex antagonists, and superb storytelling.

If you can stand the old graphics, I strongly recommend playing the BG series as well as Planescape: Torment.

Just don't make the foolish mistake of comparing the BG series to DA. While the latter is a spiritual successor, it's not the same. Not better, not worse, just different.

[Iakus]

The Serge777 wrote...

Just don't make the foolish mistake of comparing the BG series to DA. While the latter is a spiritual successor, it's not the same. Not better, not worse, just different.

This is true, even DAO, while plugged as the spiritual successor to BG is still not the same (though I think it was one of Bioware's best games since BG2, which is saying a lot)

I think a lot of the anger about DA2 and the concern for DAI is that the series moved away from the spirit of Baldur's Gate after the first game.

[Vort3xX]

I like BG 1&2, far from the best games i have played but good, didn't care about the story at all since i keep Torment around around for that.

[Rotward]

I haven't played it, and I've heard great things about it, but I'm tempted to say "nostalgia"

[Yendor_Trawz]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

It is no more contrived than having companions in the group who fundamentally do not agree with you, but still travel with you and help you.

Or if you slaughtered Merril's whole clan, and she says absolutely nothing about it.

The argument that somehow the DA series is more realistic in terms of party makeup and compatability is a dead one.

Contrivance to progress the story is stronger than ever.

In fact, the whole accelerated persuasion system might be the biggest contrivance of all.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Baldur's Gate 2 had incredibly good pacing for a story-heavy game.

It had bucketloads of content that the player could engage at will and gave the player many ways to define their character in terms of dialog and decision making, but the content itself introduced the player into the game's main conflicts and story arcs and began to funnel them towards the main quest.

It became more linear after completing Chapter 2, but it took the player on a wild ride into a whole variety of places and locales (Asylum, Underdark, etc) before taking the player back to Athkatla, bringing up new story threads and allowing players to resolve unfinished ones from previous chapters before preparing yourself for the game's climax. This all ran concurrently with companion questlines that again, you could engage with at will.

I think the secret to BG 2 (not that fond of BG 1 myself, tbh) was the fantastic pacing accomplished through the sheer amount of interesting content and the level of attention given to player agency within the confines of a somewhat railroaded narrative game.

Personally, while the writing and the story is solid, they are overrated by gamers. I don't consider the writing in BG to be any better than in Fallout or Arcanum for example. And those games are more open when it comes to player agency. But they lack BG 2's pacing.

From that era, I think Bloodlines is it's closest comparison in terms of excellent pacing in an RPG (if only you didn't need to slog through the tunnels...)

Also applicable in Dragon Age 2's case, why it fails so hard, despite borrowing from BG 2's structure. Pacing, content, player agency.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Also applicable in Dragon Age 2's case, why it fails so hard, despite borrowing from BG 2's structure. Pacing, content, player agency.

I'd also argue that the underlying mechanics for DA2 were broken in principle, the false integration of the Save Import consequences diminished both the content of the vanilla portion of the game (as well as just stretching the general credulity of the setting) and the shallow characterization and interaction with the companions were also very strong reasons for this.



I would say DA2 bashing isn't really relevant in the DA:I forum, but since this entire thread is about BG, I'd guess it doesn't really matter.



That being said, DA:I has a very hard road ahead of it. Players want too many things, mostly because the series has a bad habit of trying to BE too many things. They are shooting for a semi-open world feel, but I feel expectations will fall short of the industry defaults of GTA or TES. They are sticking with the voiced protagonist but working to highly integrate player choice and agency along with a blank slate characterization, something, to my eyes, NO ONE has been able to do before. They are working to include tons of content, to fill their larger world and to give the gamer more bang for their buck, yet they also are shooting for the highest graphic fidelity of any game Bioware has created to date. And, finally, they are working to reclaim RPG mechanics roots with things like non-regenerating health, non-combat (Exploration) skills, racial choice/customization and more control over party equipment... but then they also are chasing an action, hack n' slash type feel to combat, with the goal that a player can equally enjoy (and succeed) using an approach that is all tactical or all action based.

That list is insane. Games have struggled intensely to try and balance just one of these tasks, with few having a rate of success, yet DA:I is looking at tackling ALL of them. I'd ask anyone to just sit a second and mull over that for a minute.



I'm not going to say anything as dire as "DA:I will either be magnificent or a total flop," because that is, largely, not true. But chances are, it will be remarkably difficult to unite all of these huge design conflicts together under one banner and have it all come out as even mediocre, let alone good or exceptional.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

DA:I is likely a make or break game for the series. A low-key conservative sequel would not return the kind of sales BioWare would be looking for. Outlook for a fourth Dragon Age are not optimistic unless DA:I can replicate DA:O sales numbers IMO.

Might as well be ambitious with it. 

As for the massive feature list, I think synergy is the key. Hate to use buzzwords, but games like Fallout and Deus Ex have crap combat and poorly executed mechanics. What makes them brilliant is how everything in the game seems to gel and be designed for a purpose, how the story and gameplay seem to support each other and how they always look to promote player agency and signs of emergent gameplay.

I'm not saying that DA:I needs to go in that direction, but even if it's particular elements are executed badly in isolation, it depends on how it comes together as a whole.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 27 janvier 2014 - 12:52 .

[spirosz]

I don't remember, but did DA ][ advertise having a save import?

[Fast Jimmy]

spirosz wrote...

I don't remember, but did DA ][ advertise having a save import?

I'm not sure if "advertise" is the right word, but there was discussion both when DA:O came out about how decisions from the world would be imported into future games, as well as confirmation and acknowledgement that DA2 would be using those decisions to present content.

I don't think many people who played DA:O and subsequently purchased DA2 were surprised that the game included the ability to carry over choices/saves, let's just put it that way.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

DA:I is likely a make or break game for the series. A low-key conservative sequel would not return the kind of sales BioWare would be looking for. Outlook for a fourth Dragon Age are not optimistic unless DA:I can replicate DA:O sales numbers IMO.

Might as well be ambitious with it. 

As for the massive feature list, I think synergy is the key. Hate to use buzzwords, but games like Fallout and Deus Ex have crap combat and poorly executed mechanics. What makes them brilliant is how everything in the game seems to gel and be designed for a purpose, how the story and gameplay seem to support each other and how they always look to promote player agency and signs of emergent gameplay.

I'm not saying that DA:I needs to go in that direction, but even if it's particular elements are executed badly in isolation, it depends on how it comes together as a whole.

A sort of "if you're gonna get wet, might as well go swimming" type of philosophy?

I could see that. However, my concern is that Bioware's most recent attempts at innovation have often left consumers feeling less than blown away. That's certainly no reason for them to not try such things (especially since they have been given a more generous 3 year window to do so), but, at the same time, my feelings of confidence that new innovations will be hugely successful, especially when many of them appear to be derivative of other IPs/genres, is less than rocksteady.