108 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

The story is better then BG already. Seriously, bg is just an adventure story. What made it great was where you going and what you were doing. You never asked why you were doing it or the value of the action you were taken that bw stories of today get the player to awnser. It was always black and white. what made bg great really was the gameplay.

 

 

The black and white bit was because of the alignment system and how the gods and religion works in the Forgotten Realms. The whole setting is designed to be black and white.

 

And the game (bg2) gives you loads of chances to answer why you are doing what you do. Its in the conversations with your companions, and important NPCs. The first one even has that.

[Deflagratio]

Can't really know until I play it, but certainly didn't stop people from dragging the positive OP through the dirt, flaying it living, and then urinating on the exposed muscle tissue before burying it on fire. (Yes, BSN is so vindictive/aggressive they've created a form of Fire that doesn't require oxygen)

 

Doesn't look like it'll play anything like old Bioware games to be honest, mixing both Legacy Bioware style play (Auto-tactical combat) and Real time action (Mass Effect/DA2)

 

World design seems like it's going right back to the 90's-2000's though. With huge areas to faff about in for hours on end. Definitely a good thing, and I think this is what brings it in closer to the BG games. For most/all of the new Bioware stuff, you're always led by the nose to narrative point-of-interests until the credits roll (With some minor freedom, Mass Effect 1 comes specifically to mind) but overall, exploration was never something really built upon since the go-go 90's at Bioware.

[Celtic Latino]

The semi-open world, the focus on party based combat, the interactions and dialogue for starters. 

 

Then you have the Inquisitor, who can open/close the Fade with his/her hand, which sort of gives a Bhaalspawn quality (in fact, its assumed the Inquisitor came from the Maker him/herself). But now, gender and race play a factor whereas in BG, there was some reference to gender (in 2 primarily, 1 not so much) but little to nothing of race from what I've experienced. 

 

Now, for superficial comparisons that may/may not be wrong: 

 

Vivienne = Dynaheir (haughty noble mage) 

Cassandra = Jaheira (righteous, in your face, alpha woman) 

Iron Bull = Minsc (minus Boo) (the strongman, boisterous personality) 

Sera = Imoen (naive, lovable, troublemaking scamp) 

Dorian = Edwin (minus the evil intentions but double on the wit and sarcasm) 

Solas = Xan...serious Xan vibe

Cole = no comparisons to really go on as far as I know

Blackwall = Keldorn maybe? But a less Paladin-y and more Grey Warden-y version 

Varric = mmm...can't really make any Baldur's Gate comparisons, more like the Garrus of Dragon Age

[aetheldod]

I hope nothing so we can finally disscuss Dragon Age without the myriad o people going why isnt Baldur´s gate , why doesnt play like Baldurs gate so on and on and on , sheesh let Dragon Age be its own thing and if you want more Baldur´s gate go play that.

[leaguer of one]

Yes some of them may still be there, but they are completely different people now. The mentality they had when working on BG is going to at least be pretty different to their mentality now. It would be like comparing 2006 Escape the fate with the 2014 Falling in reverse, sure some of the members are the same but they are completely different despite being the same genre. Not that change is a bad thing mind, it just means that DAI is going to be drastically different experience than what BG was. Which in my opinion is a good thing, as fun as BG was I don't really want that same experience released with a slightly different plot over and over again just for the sake of nostalgia.     

Only on the technical sense of scale,graphics,motivation of story, and character development. In bg and bg2, the entire motivation was to make an adventure story, over time the motivation change to wanting to ask the player hypothetical quests with the story. Character development even got better as character in bg1 and 2 are way more disposable and detached form the overall story and character became deeper as they become more linked to the story. The wide open world became narrower as graphics became an issue. In the end story is still bw's goal is still store heavy games and that has not change what change is how they do that. That change does not mean bw of old is dead.

[leaguer of one]

The black and white bit was because of the alignment system and how the gods and religion works in the Forgotten Realms. The whole setting is designed to be black and white.

 

And the game (bg2) gives you loads of chances to answer why you are doing what you do. Its in the conversations with your companions, and important NPCs. The first one even has that.

Not at all. I've play it from beginning to end. It never once made me question what I was doing, why I was doing it, and if it was right or wrong. They literately are no grey areas. Those character conversation never question that, it was more there to help them with their issues and about them this questioning anything.

[Rawgrim]

Not at all. I've play it from beginning to end. It never once made me question what I was doing, why I was doing it, and if it was right or wrong. They literately are no grey areas. Those character conversation never question that, it was more there to help them with their issues and about them this questioning anything.

 

 

You get plenty. Jaheira asks you what you plan on doing after the whole ordeal is doing. Yoshimo asks you why you got into adventuring, why you are doing what you do. The Yoshimo quest is pretty darn grey too. The guy is litterally forced to betray you. The dream sequences with Irenicus and Imoen lets you question alot of things. The entire Drow bit questions you alot. The game is riddled with conversations that asks you why you are doing what you do, what your goals are, what your morals are like.

 

You get around 20 conversations with each NPC. One of them starts their main quest. One is during their main quest, and one after. The rest are about things in general, and your character.

 

Don't skip through the conversations, mate.

[leaguer of one]

You get plenty. Jaheira asks you what you plan on doing after the whole ordeal is doing. Yoshimo asks you why you got into adventuring, why you are doing what you do. The Yoshimo quest is pretty darn grey too. The guy is litterally forced to betray you. The dream sequences with Irenicus and Imoen lets you question alot of things. The entire Drow bit questions you alot. The game is riddled with conversations that asks you why you are doing what you do, what your goals are, what your morals are like.

 

You get around 20 conversations with each NPC. One of them starts their main quest. One is during their main quest, and one after. The rest are about things in general, and your character.

 

Don't skip through the conversations, mate.

Nope,the questioner is just that and have no weight to the story or actions of that player, Your never tested with your morality nor push to a corner to have to choose belief or action or even if it was the right belief or action. The characters only ask you what you wanted do and motivations, you never tested them in game. Yoshimo's story is the only grey thing in the story but it never brought he player to any form of conflict. The dreams are more about what it mean to be a man and a god but it never really had any connection to the overall story. It just ended up being nothing more then Irenicus' fits of jealousy. And the Drow bit never placed you in any position of conflict, no slave kill or torture, no action you have to do to make sure you don't blow you cover, nothing. In fact Jade empire did a way better job of doing that same type of quest

 

And I did not skip over anything.  BG does not have issue like the virmire choice, or issue of a flawed government and an order trapped in Hubris vs a government about order who has to deal with a ruling class that's all about self interest like Kotor or Swtor. Nor does it have main villains who's motivations are more the power for power sake like Saren, Master Li and Logan. It never ask to pick duty and goal over individuals or get you to question it.

[pallascedar]

As for the writing, I get the feeling while playing though their recent games that the "problem" stems from a lack of diversity/sphere of experience in the writing team, rather than a lack of talent.  It's a bunch of Western woman and a gay dude, which is fine, from what I can tell from the forums, women and gay dudes love the writing.  I've been "meh" on it though, in general, I do get a chuckle out of it now and then. 

 

You realize that DA as a series has much greater diversity than Baldur's gate? Isn't David the only person who worked on the game that wasn't a straight man? Lukas and Patrick aren't western women, nor are they gay. Mike and Mark may not be writers but they still have important input into the creation of the game in general.

 

It's entirely legitimate to think that BG has better writing than DA. Just like its legitimate for me to think DA has better writing than BG. But don't blame your issues on the fact that DA is actually written by a diverse group of writers.

[Beerfish]

I think the point they wee making re DAI having something from BG1 is the aspect of discovery just for the sake of discovery.  It of course will also be taking this somewhat from skyrim etc.  We create large maps, there will be important locations you need to go to on these large maps.  There will also be a lot of things to explore on these maps that are not mentioned and are purely optional.

[L. Han]

You forgot the whole 'limited health' system they are going with now. 

 

While I never played that much Baldur's Gate (too old), I have played a bit of Icewind Dale and I noticed that resources were limited and any health you lose is permanent unless you rested, drank a potion, or your cleric still had healing charges.

[Rawgrim]

Nope,the questioner is just that and have no weight to the story or actions of that player, Your never tested with your morality nor push to a corner to have to choose belief or action or even if it was the right belief or action. The characters only ask you what you wanted do and motivations, you never tested them in game. Yoshimo's story is the only grey thing in the story but it never brought he player to any form of conflict. The dreams are more about what it mean to be a man and a god but it never really had any connection to the overall story. It just ended up being nothing more then Irenicus' fits of jealousy. And the Drow bit never placed you in any position of conflict, no slave kill or torture, no action you have to do to make sure you don't blow you cover, nothing. In fact Jade empire did a way better job of doing that same type of quest

 

And I did not skip over anything.  BG does not have issue like the virmire choice, or issue of a flawed government and an order trapped in Hubris vs a government about order who has to deal with a ruling class that's all about self interest like Kotor or Swtor. Nor does it have main villains who's motivations are more the power for power sake like Saren, Master Li and Logan. It never ask to pick duty and goal over individuals or get you to question it.

 

 

 

The Tears of Bhaal sequence? You can even sacrifice NPCs in that bit - for the sake of power. How does that not affect the actions of the player or the story? Letting Saemon live affects the story too.

 

The dreams have ALOT to do with the overall story. Its vital. It is not the real Irenicus in the dreams either. You really didn`t understand a thing about the game, did you? Its not Irenicus in the dreams. And its not Imoen.

 

The drow bit placed you in plenty conflict. You can kill that main drow fellow if you want, or fake his death. If you let him live he helps you out. You can kill the silver dragon for the drow (evil) or help save her eggs instead. Pretty much alot of conflict right there. You can kill the gnomes, or take a helmet back and tell the drow you did kill them when you didn`t.

 

Try NOT doing the drow priestess brain quest, and see if your cover gets blown. Or blow your cover through dialogue with the drow. Plenty oppertunities for you cover to get blown.

 

It very much has a flawed government too. Its corrupt bigtime. You even have to kill people involved with corruption.

 

Logan = Loghain? His motivations arn`t about power for the sake of power. He is afraid of a possible Orlesian invasion, and he feels the king is on the wrong track in his dealings with them... Saren desn`t want power for the sake of power either. Not at all, in fact. Seems we played different versions of those games. Very different ones.

 

Sarevok wants power for the sake of it. Every villain in Throne of Bhaal wants power for the sake of it. They all want to become the next god of murder. Hello?

[bondari reloads.]

Not reading thread replies for fear of spoilers, as I'm just half-way through BG2 (first time), and may I take the opportunity to say how much I enjoy repeatedly getting obliterated by vampires or some such even at normal difficulty? In the beginning, though - wth is a THACO and loads of tl;dr before leaving the first area. I would've never thought it possible to miss those walls of text.

Nice side effect, I see what you did there far more often than before.

 

OT: Depending on how well Pillars of Eternity will sell, there might be an incentive for Bioware to think about a spiritual successor to BG. I can see how fans from way back when might not think of DAI as exactly that. I should think it difficult to go back, seeing how DAI had different design guidelines to begin with, and I don't know about how the devs would feel about this.

Still, interesting topic

[andy6915]

Wish I could play Bulder's Gate. But no, I have a computer that probably would have trouble with a game 15+ years old. Too bad, I always hear great things about it from Bioware fans, it's apparently the game that put Bioware on the map. Wish they would release it to the PSN and Xbox market or something, with some minor changes to make it work on consoles.

[Vilegrim]

It's not in the same genre, it may be a good or even great game, but it is not the 'heir to baldurs gate' DA:O wasn't really either, but it was a great game, and 'spiritual successor' was not to much of a stretch. 

[Vilegrim]

Wish I could play Bulder's Gate. But no, I have a computer that probably would have trouble with a game 15+ years old. Too bad, I always hear great things about it from Bioware fans, it's apparently the game that put Bioware on the map. Wish they would release it to the PSN and Xbox market or something, with some minor changes to make it work on consoles.

 

 

Baldurs gate enhanced edition takes care of that problem.

[n7stormrunner]

important question...  what mods are you use because I have BG and BG 2 it does not look that good. also bad news friends BG is also an action rpg a slow, clumsy, story heavy one, but one nonetheless

[AlanC9]

I don`t see it at all. Da:I is an action\rpg. That is very far from the BG games spirit.

What's the difference? Seriously. DAI will have better combat animations and you can put the camera at a different angle, but other than that?

[AlanC9]

As for the writing, I get the feeling while playing though their recent games that the "problem" stems from a lack of diversity/sphere of experience in the writing team, rather than a lack of talent.  It's a bunch of Western woman and a gay dude, which is fine, from what I can tell from the forums, women and gay dudes love the writing.  I've been "meh" on it though, in general, I do get a chuckle out of it now and then. 

Hmm. Any idea what story elements this is about? I'm a straight white male myself, and the only difference I've seen in Bio's writing is that they have more wordcount and cinematics to play with these days. But I often find the tastes of other straight, white males --particularly ones who care about being such -- to be fairly embarrassing, so whatever it is i'm probably not sensitive to it.

[AlanC9]

 
You get around 20 conversations with each NPC. One of them starts their main quest. One is during their main quest, and one after. The rest are about things in general, and your character.
 

20? You sure you haven't installed a modpack and forgotten about it? I can't find that many, romance tracks excepted.

[andy6915]

Baldurs gate enhanced edition takes care of that problem.

How? They lowered the needed specs?

[aTigerslunch]

Curious about this.

 

Change is good or bad?   Should new games be the same as previous games?  Shouldn't they be newer, different, new things to explore? 

 

Could either play BG's over and over again for twenty years with no changes, read a book identical to all books, read over and over again be better choice?

 

I like the changes, I like games being different from each other, without diversity everything would be bland. Check out the new movie coming where it actually will emphasize this type of world. Everything is white, no differences, no change to schedules and one boy may alter this world to be diverse. 

 

I don't want DA:O or DA:I to be another BG, always move on for better. Living in the past doesn't really help, but keeping in mind of the past and learning from such as moving forward.

[leaguer of one]

The Tears of Bhaal sequence? You can even sacrifice NPCs in that bit - for the sake of power. How does that not affect the actions of the player or the story? Letting Saemon live affects the story too.

 

The dreams have ALOT to do with the overall story. Its vital. It is not the real Irenicus in the dreams either. You really didn`t understand a thing about the game, did you? Its not Irenicus in the dreams. And its not Imoen.

 

The drow bit placed you in plenty conflict. You can kill that main drow fellow if you want, or fake his death. If you let him live he helps you out. You can kill the silver dragon for the drow (evil) or help save her eggs instead. Pretty much alot of conflict right there. You can kill the gnomes, or take a helmet back and tell the drow you did kill them when you didn`t.

 

Try NOT doing the drow priestess brain quest, and see if your cover gets blown. Or blow your cover through dialogue with the drow. Plenty oppertunities for you cover to get blown.

 

It very much has a flawed government too. Its corrupt bigtime. You even have to kill people involved with corruption.

 

Logan = Loghain? His motivations arn`t about power for the sake of power. He is afraid of a possible Orlesian invasion, and he feels the king is on the wrong track in his dealings with them... Saren desn`t want power for the sake of power either. Not at all, in fact. Seems we played different versions of those games. Very different ones.

 

Sarevok wants power for the sake of it. Every villain in Throne of Bhaal wants power for the sake of it. They all want to become the next god of murder. Hello?

Everything you stated you can easily avoided with 0 consequence. The issue is not if you can do a violent thing or a non violent action to get to a goal. It's about the personal and internal conflict you would have when make the choice base of the results vs pros and cons. Choose to kill or not kill main drow guy does not bring any conflict of choice because one choice has no con. All the choices in the quest have choices with no cons. They all have choices were one choice has all pro's. I never sat and wonders what could go wrong if I did the more benevolent choice. Heck, I never even got to a point where I ask if it was tactically better to do the malevolent choices untill the last quest of the game.

And the brain quest was never about morality, their is nothing to make you not want to do it.

The issue is that I have not personal conflict in picking a choice. Their was nothing  that made me want to pick a malevolent choice on a moral ground. No choice like letting someone die to complete a mission, letting the council die because it's better to save more people, letting a corrupt leader in power to help uprise the low class, choices about safety vs free will. All I had were choice with a malevolent choice with little pro's and some con's and benevolent choices with nothing but con's. Even if the malevolent choice had pro's it was so short termed it made no impact to the plot.

 

 

On the dreams that was Irenicus, if it was not then I would have nothing to do with the game story being that the dreams we about godhood vs mortality. We never even had that concept effect the overall plot until thrown of Bhaal. The issue those dream a dressed were not even address in the story of bg2 but in an expiation. The only think they have connection to in the story is Irenicus' obsession with god hood. That was him in the mc dreams. That was Irenicus' goal, why would it not be him in the dream?

 

And you don't get my point about the villains I said their motivation were not about gaining power for power sake unlike Irenicus.

The issue here that a villian that want power for power sake as little to no depth. Their no different then Cobra commander. Heck, they allowed Sarevok  to come back just so they can add more depth to his character. Irenicus on the surface had a show of a great villian but take the dramatics and flare away and you just go some whinny guy going on about why he was punish for doing wrong and why he was not a god.  It was like seeing the man behind the curtain in the wizard of Oz.

 

Over time in the future game villian are given more depth, motivation and complexity. Choices are made more subjective then object and were now make choices  based on what we think is right for us and the situation not what is objectively right that give us real moral conflict.

[Rawgrim]

Everything you stated you can easily avoided with 0 consequence. The issue is not if you can do a violent thing or a non violent action to get to a goal. It's about the personal and internal conflict you would have when make the choice base of the results vs pros and cons. Choose to kill or not kill main drow guy does not bring any conflict of choice because one choice has no con. All the choices in the quest have choices with no cons. They all have choices were one choice has all pro's. I never sat and wonders what could go wrong if I did the more benevolent choice. Heck, I never even got to a point where I ask if it was tactically better to do the malevolent choices untill the last quest of the game.

And the brain quest was never about morality, their is nothing to make you not want to do it.

The issue is that I have not personal conflict in picking a choice. Their was nothing  that made me want to pick a malevolent choice on a moral ground. No choice like letting someone die to complete a mission, letting the council die because it's better to save more people, letting a corrupt leader in power to help uprise the low class, choices about safety vs free will. All I had were choice with a malevolent choice with little pro's and some con's and benevolent choices with nothing but con's. Even if the malevolent choice had pro's it was so short termed it made no impact to the plot.

 

 

On the dreams that was Irenicus, if it was not then I would have nothing to do with the game story being that the dreams we about godhood vs mortality. We never even had that concept effect the overall plot until thrown of Bhaal. The issue those dream a dressed were not even address in the story of bg2 but in an expiation. The only think they have connection to in the story is Irenicus' obsession with god hood. That was him in the mc dreams. That was Irenicus' goal, why would it not be him in the dream?

 

And you don't get my point about the villains I said their motivation were not about gaining power for power sake unlike Irenicus.

The issue here that a villian that want power for power sake as little to no depth. Their no different then Cobra commander. Heck, they allowed Sarevok  to come back just so they can add more depth to his character. Irenicus on the surface had a show of a great villian but take the dramatics and flare away and you just go some whinny guy going on about why he was punish for doing wrong and why he was not a god.  It was like seeing the man behind the curtain in the wizard of Oz.

 

Over time in the future game villian are given more depth, motivation and complexity. Choices are made more subjective then object and were now make choices  based on what we think is right for us and the situation not what is objectively right that give us real moral conflict.

 

 

1. the choices is about sticking to your aligment and your character's beliefs. So personal consequence is a factor since the aligment can change. That has a severe effect on rangers, druids and paladins, for example. Since your god stops granting you spells and abilities if your aligment changes. You can add this to the tactical bit you adress too. Since you might be playing the remainder of the game with your character being all out of spells.

 

2. Cutting someone's brain out might not have been something you didn't shy away from. Certainly. But my paladin certainly had issues with that act. Its cold blooded murder and mutilation, caused by blackmail.

 

3. You can hand Valygar over to the authorities for money, or rather that corrupt wizard fellow. That leaves him in a position of power, you give him even more power too. Due to the planar sphere. You can also convince Anomen not to take revenge on a corrupt noble, for "probably" having killed his sister. And you can avoid helping Nalia, and leave her to her fate when she gets imprisined. That will give the Roenal family her lands and they will rule her lands (very poorly). Is this what you feel the game lacked?

 

4. The dreams were explained in the game. You get hints at first, then the game tells it to you flat out. You were comunicating with the essence of Bhaal inside you. More or less. Very very much tied to the entire core of the story.

 

5. Irenicus isn`t about power for the sake of power. He lost his "immortallity" due to something he did. and he wants it back + revenge. Have a look at his journal and things like that, and you will see that the story is actually a bitter-sweet one. I agree with you on Sarevok. Cardboard black-armoured badguy.

 

6. Yes. Games have given villains more depth over the years. And choices are more deep too. I just don`t agree with you that the BG games didn`t have them. Bg2 anyway. I don`t think BG1 had too much of that.

[Rawgrim]

What's the difference? Seriously. DAI will have better combat animations and you can put the camera at a different angle, but other than that?

 

BG has around 350 spells, for instance. DA has around 30? Your companions can actually die in BG. Only spellcasters can do magic in BG. Loads really. + DA:I is being marketed as an action rpg, and that implies a leaning towards hack and slash.