53 réponses à ce sujet

[Erszebeth]

I don't know how many times I played BG2 SoA, but I remember my first playthrough clocking well over 100 hours.



The replayability is also up there with all the spells to try or squaddies to enroll. A lot of creativity there, with characters like Minsc, Jan Jansen or Edwin that don't use Bioware's regular character tropes.



And there's is the mods that add endless hours of fun and replayability. Edwin romance ? Funniest mod ever. Want to redempt Jon Irenicus and have him in your party ? You can do that too with The Longer Road.



As it is, Dragon Age can't hold a candle to his ancestor... Yet. But DAO has yet to reach is maturity. Let's wait the extension and a few big mods before passing a judgement.

[pathenry]

Much of this game's 'content' is just cutscenes. Its the cheap way to go. BG2 had alot of actual content.

Replayability of actual content? -> Yes.

Replayability of big mouths flappin about the Maker? -> ESC, ESC, 1, ESC, 1...

[Yrkoon]

Ryngard wrote...

I think a lot of you are having... skewed memories of the past. Not slamming you or the game, however... BG isn't quite as huge as you remember nor is it the holy grail of games.

Dragon Age took me roughly 60 hours to get through, the old Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger games took roughly 40 hours. I doubt that holds true if I replayed them now.

Unless you've played BG in 2009/2010, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

I played BG2  a few times in 2009.

Yes, it's alot larger than DA:O...   Even when its a replay.  And its easy to measure since the two games seem to be set up in a similar fashion.


For example:     Both games have "major Quest areas" which  have their own story and which take quite a bit of time to complete individually.


DA:O major quests/areas:
1) Brecilian forest(and town)
2) Circle tower (and Fade)
3) Orzamar (and Deep roads)
4) Redcliffe (village and castle)
5)  Urn of Sacred Ashes
6) Denerim/Alienage
7) Fort Drakon
8) Lothering
9) Origin



BG2's Major Quests/Areas:
1) Irenicus' dungeon
2) Athkatla
3)Seeing Eye  (the dungeon and the sewers)
4) Windspear Hills (and Firkraag's dungeon)
5) Umar Hills (the town and the dungeon)
6) Planar Sphere
7) Planar Prison
8)TradeMeet (The city and the druid forest)
9)Bodhi's Dungeon/Graveyard catacombs

But that's just chapter 2/3

We then have:

10) Brynlaw/Spellhold
11) The Underdark  (which is massive.  It includes a city, and 3  large dungeons, as well as a large cavern))
12) Sahuigan/underwater City
13)  Suldanessalar/tree of life
14) then finally... Hell

Oh wait, I forgot...  BG2 also has the individual class strongholds....



To say that BG2 is twice as long as DA:O is probably an exageration.... of DA:O.    In reality,  DA:O is about as large as the first 2 chapters of BG2....

Modifié par Yrkoon, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:51 .

[Solitarynight]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ryngard wrote...

I think a lot of you are having... skewed memories of the past. Not slamming you or the game, however... BG isn't quite as huge as you remember nor is it the holy grail of games.

Dragon Age took me roughly 60 hours to get through, the old Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger games took roughly 40 hours. I doubt that holds true if I replayed them now.

Unless you've played BG in 2009/2010, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

I played BG2  a few times in 2009.

Yes, it's alot larger than DA:O...   Even when its a replay.  And its easy to measure since the two games seem to be set up in a similar fashion.


For example:     Both games have "major Quest areas" which  have their own story and which take quite a bit of time to complete individually.


DA:O major quests/areas:
1) Brecilian forest(and town)
2) Circle tower (and Fade)
3) Orzamar (and Deep roads)
4) Redcliffe (village and castle)
5)  Urn of Sacred Ashes
6) Denerim/Alienage
7) Fort Drakon
8) Lothering
9) Origin



BG2's Major Quests/Areas:
1) Irenicus' dungeon
2) Athkatla
3)Seeing Eye  (the dungeon and the sewers)
4) Windspear Hills (and Firkraag's dungeon)
5) Umar Hills (the town and the dungeon)
6) Planar Sphere
7) Planar Prison
8)TradeMeet (The city and the druid forest)
9)Bodhi's Dungeon/Graveyard catacombs

But that's just chapter 2/3

We then have:

10) Brynlaw/Spellhold
11) The Underdark  (which is massive.  It includes a city, and 3  large dungeons, as well as a large cavern))
12) Sahuigan/underwater City
13)  Suldanessalar/tree of life
14) then finally... Hell

Oh wait, I forgot...  BG2 also has the individual class strongholds....



To say that BG2 is twice as long as DA:O is probably an exageration.... of DA:O.    In reality,  DA:O is about as large as the first 2 chapters of BG2....

Completely agreeded... BG2 was epic... and its amazing that i was reading my game informer back in dec and it was saying 200 games of all time... and BG2 was ranked i believe in the low 40's and i find it amazing that such a great and amazing game is still relatively unknown compaired to games like DA:O... I will always have a speical place in my gaming collection for BG2 to me... I wish there could be a source release of BG2 ; ; *sniffles* or alteast a redistruption but i'm not even sure who owns those copy rights anymore it was atari but i think they lost them... *shrugs* anyway... tis the legacy of Bioware none the less

[MerinTB]

Wow.



My memory of that game must be really skewed. Of all the games I've played that I thought "wow, this game is really long " (Oblivion, Fallout 2, FF 3/6, Wasteland, DAO) I don't remember thinking that at all with BG2. I mean, with the expansion Throne of Bhaal, sure, but by itself? Each "area" doesn't take any long than areas in DAO. I just did Irenicus's dungeon a couple weeks ago, reading everything (not skipping) in like twenty minutes. Far shorter than an Origin story. And I freaking hate Irenicus's dungeon (and Irenicus.) Boo-freaking-hoo, he's not a "sparkly vampire" anymore. Blech.



It's odd, I used to somewhat praise BG2 to friends and try to get them to play it - but after all the overenthusiastic and (IMO overblown) praise of it, I've become far more critical of the game.



I guess I'll have to put PST on hold (still as ungrabbing of my attention as previous plays, though all the mods made the graphics far less painful to experience) and go back to my BG2 playthrough to clock how long it takes me.



I've got 128 hours and 98 hours for two playthroughs of DAO. Let's see if my third playthrough of BG2 cracks 80 (which would still be impressive for a game normally and 80 hours is about what I think BG2 (no expansion) took me the first time.)

[Treason1]

..Meh, I was going to say quite a bit, but decided to just sum it up:



The Baldur's gate series was awesome. I still play BG2, with and without all the extra mods. It's longer than DA:O. Then again, it's been out longer. DA:O is still within it's first few months of existence. It's far too soon to be doing comparisons of this nature.



..Then again, maybe it's a backhanded compliment to DA:O, that people want to compare it to past epic games, already.

[Racca12]

 I do agree that Baldur's Gate II was a bigger game. Athkatla itself was probably larger than most of the areas in DA. However, I don't think it's fair to compare it to 2 for a few reasons. 1, BGII did not have to render anything really, thus making it easier to create larger areas. 2, you should be comparing it to the first in the series. Baldur's Gate was actually roughly the same size as DA:O and was less impressive and immersing. Even the city of Baldur's Gate was nothing like the City of Athkatla in BGII. When BGII came out, it was such a great leap forward. So if BIoware upon making a sequel, follows the same structure they did with the BG series, then DA2 will be much bigger than its predecessor. 

Oh, and for those of you hesitant to play BG2 again because of the starting area, there's a nifty little mod that can take it away, teleporting you to the end with all of the loot and gold you could have collected. I believe it's called 'Dungeon-Be-Gone'

[MerinTB]

Racca12 wrote...
Oh, and for those of you hesitant to play BG2 again because of the starting area, there's a nifty little mod that can take it away, teleporting you to the end with all of the loot and gold you could have collected. I believe it's called 'Dungeon-Be-Gone'

I already finished it - it's always later that I tend to get bored with the game.

And that would feel like a cheat, I had heard of that before.  Thanks, though!

Who knows, maybe a third playthrough will rekindle the magic.  I was enamored with it after the first and second playthroughs.

[mchsiung]

Baldur's Gate II was definately longer than DA:O. Through doing all the side quests (all class strongholds, trademeet, windspear hills/firekraag, and all parts of the city) + the underdark + xpac, I finished with at least 120+ hrs of gameplay.



After completing 1 Dragon Age playthrough with all the sidequests I could do, I logged around 50 hrs of gameplay. I guess you could say that the reason DA:O feels longer is due the long loading times when traveling from say Orzammar to the Anvil or Denerim to Redcliffe, but that's probably just me.

[TheMufflon]

Yrkoon wrote...

BG2's Major Quests/Areas:
1) Irenicus' dungeon
2) Athkatla
3)Seeing Eye  (the dungeon and the sewers)
4) Windspear Hills (and Firkraag's dungeon)
5) Umar Hills (the town and the dungeon)
6) Planar Sphere
7) Planar Prison
8)TradeMeet (The city and the druid forest)
9)Bodhi's Dungeon/Graveyard catacombs

You forgot De'Arnise Hold.

[Yrkoon]

MerinTB wrote...
 I just did Irenicus's dungeon a couple weeks ago, reading everything (not skipping)   in like twenty minutes.

There's nothing to  read in Irenicus' dungeon.   

Irenicus' dungeon is about fighting.

 

And I freaking hate Irenicus's dungeon (and Irenicus.) Boo-freaking-hoo, he's not a "sparkly vampire" anymore. Blech.

Huh?

[TyroneTasty]

Yrkoon wrote...

There's nothing to  read in Irenicus' dungeon.   

Irenicus' dungeon is about fighting.

There is the library where Imoen reminsices about Candlekeep. You can find several books on the shelves but no one read those I guess.

[Bibdy]

More content, less options.

There's quite a lot of cool stuff in Dragon Age you won't witness playing through even twice.

In BG2 you can pretty much discover everything in 2 playthroughs. It just takes a long time to visit everywhere and clear everything out.

Modifié par Bibdy, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:03 .

[Seagloom]

I agree with the sentiment that Baldur's Gate 2 was longer than Dragon Age, but not solely based on areas. Bibdy got it right in extremely succinct fashion with his first sentence; whether he intended the meaning I took from it or not. What made BG2 so huge was not its dungeons or how many of them are. Although there were more than DAO and the maps are definitely larger. No, where it surpasses DAO is sidequests. BG2 had a ton of them. The moment you step into chapter 2 NPCs bombard you with quests. Every class also has a stronghold, which comes with yet more quests. It was also the first BioWare game to experiment with companion side quests, so there were a few of these too.

One of them, namely Jaheira's, had several layers to it. Whereas DAO's companion quests are all brief fed-ex or kill and report affairs. I can only recall one party member quest like this in BG2--Cernd's... and it was comparable to Morrigan, Leliana, or Sten's in length easily; despite Cernd being one of the most neglected NPCs by the devs.

BG2 just felt dense. There was so many little things in most of its areas, and they felt less like set pieces. Playing DAO, I often get this feeling that every area is backdrop set up behind a theatre stage somewhere; because they feel so small in comparison.

Modifié par Seagloom, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:15 .

[MerinTB]

Yrkoon wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
 I just did Irenicus's dungeon a couple weeks ago, reading everything (not skipping)   in like twenty minutes.

There's nothing to  read in Irenicus' dungeon.   

Irenicus' dungeon is about fighting.

Uhm, most of the dialog in the game is not spoken.  You have to read it.   You could speed up time on a replay by not reading the dialog since you already know what is going to be said and just quickly chosen your responses if you have them otherwise skipping through it.

Yrkoon wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
And I freaking hate Irenicus's dungeon (and Irenicus.) Boo-freaking-hoo, he's not a "sparkly vampire" anymore. Blech.

Huh?

"Sparkly vampire" is how I now refer to high-fantasy elves (Tolkien-esque elves) - "sparkly vampire" being in MY urban dictionary meaning "too perfect; prissy; beloved by a devoted following who can see no flaw in them; something made by a writer to represent perfection in their story, often as a foil to all the bad around said creation" - and is derived from the "vampires" from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series of novels, where vampires are not destroyed by the sun but they glow instead.

Without me spoilering the main plot of BG2 to explain further, if you've finished the game you should now be able to understand my point about Irenicus (IMO the whiniest, most pathetic of villains.)

[Bibdy]

BG2 also, often, gave you reasons to revisit old areas, particularly with the randomly occuring party-member related plots or the stronghold plots. It felt more like a living world, in that sense.



Its one of the things that made every playthrough intriguing, because these things occurred randomly. In DA:O it seems as if its a matter of visit and area, hold down the tab key, click everything usable and move on, never coming back. Even doing that in BG2 you'd still have to come back to this area for one reason or another. With regards to party members, yeah, you basically start their storylines on your own terms, at your own pace, which just feels a bit dull. You know that if you flood them with gifts and keep talking to them, at your own pace, you'll eventually get the NPC-related plot.

[MerinTB]

Bibdy wrote...

More content, less options.

There's quite a lot of cool stuff in Dragon Age you won't witness playing through even twice.

In BG2 you can pretty much discover everything in 2 playthroughs. It just takes a long time to visit everywhere and clear everything out.

I think this is probably the truth.  My second playthrough, where first I played a Lawful Good Wild Magic Mage and secondly played a Chaotic Evil Cleric of Talos, saw little new in the game outside of my party members and a different stronghold (both big things, not knocking them, but the majority of the game, even playing evil as versus to good, went more or less the exact same way.)

I found this at the Planet Baldur's Gate site -

For comparison, in BG2, there are over 3900 lines of recorded dialogue,
twice of that in BG. The number of words in dialogue has increased to
800,000 from 500,000 in BG. In BG, the main plot took 50-60 hours while
everything took around 150 hours; in BG2 these are 50-60 hours and
200-300 hours, respectively. The class-specific subplots (stronghold
quests) alone make up over 50 hours of gameplay.

If that's even half-true, then BG2 has to be much larger than DAO.  I think that's an exaggeration - there is no way that BG2 on one playthrough is 300 hours - unless you clock having to repeat battles if you keep losing them, and in that sense DAO's playthrough times that people report (I'm assuming using the in-game "time played" stat) doesn't count reloads.

I should bow before the experience of people who've played the game more times than me, but I dunno.  I think Bidby's on the right track.

One playthrough of BG2 is probably longer than one playthrough of DAO.  But the replays of DAO can be vastly different where the replays of BG2 will be vastly the same.

[Seagloom]

MerinTB wrote...

Without me spoilering the main plot of BG2 to explain further, if you've finished the game you should now be able to understand my point about Irenicus (IMO the whiniest, most pathetic of villains.)

I will say one thing about Irenicus: his story is a lot less sympathetic without P&P knowledge of the Forgotten Realms, and elven culture in particular. Something the game itself does very little to expand on for the player. I felt his actions were easier to understand after reading the Complete Book of Elves and a raft of second edition Realms material. Problem is, no one should need to do that.

I liked Irenicus, but I still feel BG1 had the stronger plot and more interesting villain despite a few clichés.

[MerinTB]

Seagloom wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Without me spoilering the main plot of BG2 to explain further, if you've finished the game you should now be able to understand my point about Irenicus (IMO the whiniest, most pathetic of villains.)

I will say one thing about Irenicus: his story is a lot less sympathetic without P&P knowledge of the Forgotten Realms, and elven culture in particular. Something the game itself does very little to expand on for the player. I felt his actions were easier to understand after reading the Complete Book of Elves and a raft of second edition Realms material. Problem is, no one should need to do that.

I liked Irenicus, but I still feel BG1 had the stronger plot and more interesting villain despite a few clichés.

Meh, I'm biased on a couple levels.

Villains seeking some personal goal that, if you remove his methods at achieving that goal (and Irenicus's were foul), is not really that evil and just more selfish fail to inspire a sense of awe in me.

Secondly, I particually despise elves.  I think if elves were real I'd probably be quite racist.  I dunno.  I've always strongly disliked them in fantasy.

Hopefully not spoilering too much with the next sentence - but considering my second point, Irenicus's "curse" was, to me, a blessing.  Like all those stupid super-hero stories where the people with powers whine about being cursed with extra cool abilities.

[SweetMagooMagoodle]

i know a few posters have already made this point but I think it is worth underscoring -- it is not fair to compare DA:O to BG2... compare it to BG1.



[I have played the entire Bg series maybe 14 times -- most recently 1 yr ago)



I am in my second playthrough of DA:O and I love it -- i can't get it out of my head, to the detriment of my work and family. During both playthroughs there have been a few moments were I felt sucker punched emotionally (in a good way) -- all reminiscent for me of the BG series.



BG2 is, though, a far superior game-- but BG2 is far superior to BG1 as well (in my opinion -- i respect those who prefer BG1 for the exploration and tactics differences). BG1 was the first go -- and a great one. But it is smaller, simpler, less emotionally engaging, and has less re playability (for me) than BG2.



DA:O is the first go for this new franchise. Hence, comparing BG1 to DA:O -- i think DA:O comes across extremely well -- at least the equal of BG1.



here is what i am hoping in terms of quality, enjoyment, variety, and replayability.

DA:O = BG1

DA: Awakenings = TOSC (which was a great add on -- better than BG1 proper)



If we are fortunate enough to get a DA 2 in the years to come, THEN, let's talk comparison to BG2. For now, i am happy to keep BG2 on its pedestal while simultaneously celebrating and reveling in DA



(Funny how NWN 1 and 2 are not even in the discussion.)



on another note -- the flaws and bugs of DA -- do folks remember how incredibly buggy parts of BG (especially BG2) were when it first came out. Remember the nightmare that was the Jaheria romance -- ugh, was that frustrating. Still frustrated by beastmaster and Wizard slayer classes. Remember how overpowering archer was in SOA but how useless in TOB? (Still true). I actually think the roll out of DA and its quirks and bugs has been -- while far from perfect -- as good if not better than the initial releases of the BG series.



thanks, bioware. Can't wait for what comes next. Guess I gotta play ME 1 now before ME 2 comes out.

[Seagloom]

MerinTB wrote...

Meh, I'm biased on a couple levels.

Villains seeking some personal goal that, if you remove his methods at achieving that goal (and Irenicus's were foul), is not really that evil and just more selfish fail to inspire a sense of awe in me.

Secondly, I particually despise elves.  I think if elves were real I'd probably be quite racist.  I dunno.  I've always strongly disliked them in fantasy.

Hopefully not spoilering too much with the next sentence - but considering my second point, Irenicus's "curse" was, to me, a blessing.  Like all those stupid super-hero stories where the people with powers whine about being cursed with extra cool abilities. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

I get where you are coming from, but Irenicus was evil for reasons unrelated to his goals. The act that led to his punishment was a clear example of unchecked pride and ambition. He was willing to doom his people to elevate himself. The game tries to give him an out by saying Bodhi prodded him towards it, but ultimately it was his choice to make, and he made it.

After his curse, he does a few things not at all related to his end goals that indicate how vile he is. Take the three dryads you meet in his dungeon. When you first speak to them it is strongly implied he has raped all three of them, and Imoen as well. Not because it helped accomplish his goals the way his experiments and torture of Charname and Imoen did. But because he was trying to reconnect to emotional states that were stripped from him by the curse.

He comments on this when Ellesime confronts him. How he tried to cling to his memories of love and happiness, then the memory of those memories, until finally there was nothing left but a void. At that point all he had to live for was his original goal because there was nothing else left. He was existing, not living.

Then there were the experiments in his dungeon. Elves that left with him. He saved the life of a mortally wounded friend by pinning him in an undying state for so long, the elf begged to be released into oblivion. Irenicus "helped" and then cast him aside completely in favor of studying Charname and Imoen. He enslaved that djinn and put a geas on a certain NPC; not because it directly served his plans, but because they were simply useful to him, or might be at some point.

I thought there was a lot more evil to Irenicus outside of what he does to accomplish his goal. You just need to keep an eye out for it.

Edit: I should point out I'm not a big fan of elves myself. I was back then, but have since shed my fascination with them for similar reasons. I blame Tolkien. <_<

Modifié par Seagloom, 22 janvier 2010 - 10:32 .

[Seagloom]

SweetMagooMagoodle wrote...

i know a few posters have already made this point but I think it is worth underscoring -- it is not fair to compare DA:O to BG2... compare it to BG1.

The comparison is being made because DAO is a huge game and touted as BioWare's best yet by many players. As Baldur's Gate 2 previously held the uncontested honor of longest RPG BioWare ever made, I would say comparing the two makes a great deal of sense.

Modifié par Seagloom, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:01 .

[Sylixe]

bjdbwea wrote...

If you take just BG 2 without the expansion, the first DA playthrough might last nearly as long. Though in BG 2 the fights are more difficult and diverse, and you'll have to spend more time there and with your strategies. Half of DA on the other hand consists of cutscenes and dialogue, which is perfectly fine, but reduces the replayability - especially since you don't have the amount of really different decisions that you have in ME, and BG 2 as well. As soon as you start to "ESC" your way through some conversations, DA is decidedly shorter than BG 2.

This is pretty much spot on.  I definetly agree with the fight difficulty as well.  On my 3rd and 4th play through for achievements i was ESC like mad through all the conversations.

SweetMagooMagoodle wrote...

i know a few posters have already made this point but I think it is worth underscoring -- it is not fair to compare DA:O to BG2... compare it to BG1.

[I have played the entire Bg series maybe 14 times -- most recently 1 yr ago)

I am in my second playthrough of DA:O and I love it -- i can't get it out of my head, to the detriment of my work and family. During both playthroughs there have been a few moments were I felt sucker punched emotionally (in a good way) -- all reminiscent for me of the BG series.

BG2 is, though, a far superior game-- but BG2 is far superior to BG1 as well (in my opinion -- i respect those who prefer BG1 for the exploration and tactics differences). BG1 was the first go -- and a great one. But it is smaller, simpler, less emotionally engaging, and has less re playability (for me) than BG2.

DA:O is the first go for this new franchise. Hence, comparing BG1 to DA:O -- i think DA:O comes across extremely well -- at least the equal of BG1.

here is what i am hoping in terms of quality, enjoyment, variety, and replayability.
DA:O = BG1
DA: Awakenings = TOSC (which was a great add on -- better than BG1 proper)

If we are fortunate enough to get a DA 2 in the years to come, THEN, let's talk comparison to BG2. For now, i am happy to keep BG2 on its pedestal while simultaneously celebrating and reveling in DA

(Funny how NWN 1 and 2 are not even in the discussion.)

on another note -- the flaws and bugs of DA -- do folks remember how incredibly buggy parts of BG (especially BG2) were when it first came out. Remember the nightmare that was the Jaheria romance -- ugh, was that frustrating. Still frustrated by beastmaster and Wizard slayer classes. Remember how overpowering archer was in SOA but how useless in TOB? (Still true). I actually think the roll out of DA and its quirks and bugs has been -- while far from perfect -- as good if not better than the initial releases of the BG series.

thanks, bioware. Can't wait for what comes next. Guess I gotta play ME 1 now before ME 2 comes out.

It's perfectly valid to compare the two unless you are afraid that BG is actually superior to DAO, which IMO it is.  You will NEVER get the replayability value or the sheer difficulty level BG had from DAO.  That's fine though because todays gamers don't want difficult or lengthy.  They want it short, quick and in their face and then trade it in at their local Gamestop.

Modifié par Sylixe, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:11 .

[Tosheroon]

DKJaigen wrote...

@lobsang

I wonder how long ago you played BG2. i do agree that bg2 is slightly longer then Dao but the combat was extremely easy safe for the red dragon and the demi-lich. melee classes where boring mage class was way OP and could clear an entire room of baddies with one spell not to mention that combat was just way to easy (thank god for ascension mod) also equal conversations? come on mate doa is way better especially in group conversations. Some people have rosy colored goggles about BG2. and while bg 2 was epic (especially for that time) dao is way better. first walk through was 70 hours in dao . in bg2 it was 50

Cease your wondering... I played through the entire BG series twice during 2009 and just installed it on my upgraded Windows 7 system a few days ago, in preparation for another run through. I am without a doubt nostalgic for my first ever playthrough of BG back in 1999 but I am also intimately familiar with it in the present.

Perhaps, though, the differing play-styles of the people posting here goes some way to explaining the contrasting viewpoints. If you are talking about difference in length between the main story arcs in both games, I would say that BG2 only edges in front by perhaps 10-15 hours. Taking the side-quests and class-quests into account though, BG2 is surely far superior to DA:Os somewhat anaemic offerings.

Although, really, what is the purpose of all this debate anyway. Play and enjoy both games as the mood suits you! 

[Yrkoon]

Seagloom wrote...

SweetMagooMagoodle wrote...

i know a few posters have already made this point but I think it is worth underscoring -- it is not fair to compare DA:O to BG2... compare it to BG1.

The comparison is being made because DAO is a huge game and touted as BioWare's best yet by many players. As Baldur's Gate 2 previously held the uncontested honor of longest RPG BioWare ever made, I would say comparing the two makes a great deal of sense.

Not to mention the actual,  stated, Bioware marketting claim  of  DA:O   being the "spiritual successor"  to the BG games.

If the creators themselves see fit to compare the  two, I don't see why we can't...

Modifié par Yrkoon, 22 janvier 2010 - 09:34 .