108 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

They will have to improve writing if they ever want to reach Baldur's Gate quality.

Tactical combat and open world are not the only reasons why Baldur's Gate is that damn good.

The Baldur's Gate saga had good writing? We must've played different games. It had a few highlights, but in general it was outclassed by Fallout 1/2, Arcanum and Planescape: Torment. Definitely not a highlight of writing in CRPGs.

 

I think the move to a screenwriter's approach that came with full VA, the resulting focus on character drama at the expense of almost everything else and the resulting (usually much too low) word budgets have damaged the quality of the overall writing (maybe temporary, maybe not, we'll see), but face it: BIoware was never at the forefront in this area.

[leaguer of one]

Because that is usually the sign of character skill with player tactics, vs player reactions and player tactics.

Not really. Character skill vs stats is based on what the player controls in the game over what is controlled  via stats. That determines what type of rpg it is.Turn base just  allows the player more time to plan and that it

[Rawgrim]

1. Again , not getting it. Having a choice to stay to your alignment or not is pointless if their is no motivation to change your Alignment. If you have a choice to stay on your alignment with nothing but pros and a choice to change you alignment with pro's and con's then why would  you do the choice that would change your Alignment?  Let's say in place of the deep gnome choice in bg2 their was instead a choice where you had to pick saving a small group of people who are leaders and letting more die or letting more die to save a small group of people. In that choice you have to deal with the pro's and con's on the issue. It more then just a choice based on alignment but with many more issue. None of the choices in BG1 or 2 has any of that.

 

2.A paladin would have issues killing off an evil creature? Added you do have ways around being forced to do it.

 

3.And none of that have conflict of morality in them. It an issue were the game just tempt you to do a immoral choice with no push to get the play to make that choice out side player greed. It not about what choice you can pick it about why you picked that choice. 

 

4.The being pretending to be your sister in the dreams was the essence of Bhaal not Irenicus.

 

5.Yes he is doing it for power sake. He lost is immortality because of his bid for power. Even before the story of BG2 he tried to become a god and got punished for it. Revenge ties to it because he was upset with the degree of the punishment. It was still an issue over power regardless.

 

6.Bg1 and 2 never really put the issue of the player morality to the test. All they did was tempt the play to change their morality, it never put the play in a positions that they may have to do something morally conflicting to do something based on their morality.

 

1. You get plenty of motivations to change your Aligment during the Tears of Bhaal sequence.

 

2. Yes he would. A paladin is also Lawful. Sticks to the laws of the lands, and all that. A paladin would never kill a helpless creature, just because its evil, for example.

 

3. I`d say its subjective, really. You might not see the morality issue in it, others may. More of a playstyle issue, I guess. Doesn`t invalidate either option though.

 

4. I know. I said that.

 

5. A thirst for power at first, yes. But during BG2 his main goal is to regain his immortality etc. He is dying, and he is going mad from it. More a case of self-preservation, really. + revenge.

 

6. The slaver quests ties into morality abit. Even the choices. The Valygar quest deffinatly does this. The first time you encounter Viconia. Do you leave an evil priestess to burn, or do you save her? Tears of Bhall sequence, of course. Lots there. In BG1 you have a few choices tied to some encounters\quests involving nymps. Those have abit of a moral choice too. My point is this: Both games have them. Simple as that.

[Rawgrim]

The Baldur's Gate saga had good writing? We must've played different games. It had a few highlights, but in general it was outclassed by Fallout 1/2, Arcanum and Planescape: Torment. Definitely not a highlight of writing in CRPGs.

 

I think the move to a screenwriter's approach that came with full VA, the resulting focus on character drama at the expense of almost everything else and the resulting (usually much too low) word budgets have damaged the quality of the overall writing (maybe temporary, maybe not, we'll see), but face it: BIoware was never at the forefront in this area.

 

 

However much I loved the BG games, I have to agree with this. The story wasn`t superb. It was very very good, and the followers really added to the whole package, but I have seen quite a few better stories in games.

 

I thought Kotor1 and Dragon Age: Origins were at least as good, storywise, as BG2. I need to actually finish Planescape to actually be able to comment on it justly. Gotten far into it twice, but computer crashes has messed things up for me. From what I saw in the game, though, it was pretty brilliant.

[leaguer of one]

1. You get plenty of motivations to change your Aligment during the Tears of Bhaal sequence.

 

2. Yes he would. A paladin is also Lawful. Sticks to the laws of the lands, and all that. A paladin would never kill a helpless creature, just because its evil, for example.

 

3. I`d say its subjective, really. You might not see the morality issue in it, others may. More of a playstyle issue, I guess. Doesn`t invalidate either option though.

 

4. I know. I said that.

 

5. A thirst for power at first, yes. But during BG2 his main goal is to regain his immortality etc. He is dying, and he is going mad from it. More a case of self-preservation, really. + revenge.

 

6. The slaver quests ties into morality abit. Even the choices. The Valygar quest deffinatly does this. The first time you encounter Viconia. Do you leave an evil priestess to burn, or do you save her? Tears of Bhall sequence, of course. Lots there. In BG1 you have a few choices tied to some encounters\quests involving nymps. Those have abit of a moral choice too. My point is this: Both games have them. Simple as that.

1. Not at all. That sequence choice is based on player greed vs mortality. The does not work with questioning morality or bring morality into conflict. Reason being that the benefit are too short term and their no consequence for not submitting to your greed. At that point you can already take on any issues your going to face with the abilities you already have with no issues with out the items they offer.

 

2.A paladin do not summit to laws of evil beings, added their ways around the killing. Added the person you are sent to kill is not helpless. We even have a palidin as a companion that would attack trying to kill Viconia just for being and she is just evil in name only.

 

3.How can it be a moral issue if it just player greed vs morality? It would be an moral issue if questions you which is the most moral. Being able to choose does not make it a choice that conflict with morality.

5. Revenge is just a plus. Regardless of it being about power at first it still end with just him wanting get power. Revenge was just a fuel, nothing more. Their were other ways for him to take his revenge without trying to become a god.

 

6.No they don't.  A test of morally is something like the last choice in ME1 or the dwarven king quest in da1. It covers issue of how to do something moral and why then which one of the choices is the most moral. In the slaver quest I never asked my self if it were more moral to keep them as slave. With VIconia I never ask ed if it was more moral to let her burn. None of the choices in bg1 or 2 got me to thing that it may be more moral to do the malevolent choice over a benevolent one. Later bw game got  me to let people die and place a tyrant in power on moral grounds. BG1 and 2 does not have that. Not even the Tears of Bhall sequence which is just player greed vs morality. Their is nothing morally benefiting about taking the power in that sequence mostly because you already have the power to take down the villain and powerful enemies.

[Cornughon]

However much I loved the BG games, I have to agree with this. The story wasn`t superb. It was very very good, and the followers really added to the whole package, but I have seen quite a few better stories in games.
 
I thought Kotor1 and Dragon Age: Origins were at least as good, storywise, as BG2. I need to actually finish Planescape to actually be able to comment on it justly. Gotten far into it twice, but computer crashes has messed things up for me. From what I saw in the game, though, it was pretty brilliant.

Planescape is pretty brilliant indeed. I played Baldur's Gate 1 AFTER I played Planescape: Torment back in the day, and wasn't that much impressed by BG. It had it's good things, but I found it pretty shallow (compared to PS:T). BG2 seemed like an improvement over BG1, but for some reason I never managed to finish that game.

[Rawgrim]

Planescape is pretty brilliant indeed. I played Baldur's Gate 1 AFTER I played Planescape: Torment back in the day, and wasn't that much impressed by BG. It had it's good things, but I found it pretty shallow (compared to PS:T). BG2 seemed like an improvement over BG1, but for some reason I never managed to finish that game.

 

Planescape is definatly better than BG 1 in most cases. I did enjoy BG1 up until I reached the city itself. Things felt abit rushed after that. The exploration in BG1 was really great, though. Probably the games strong point.

 

Bg2 is more or less a mix between BG1 and Planescape, I`d say. A very very good mix, though.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I've never understood the reverence for the story of Baldur's Gate. You basically went around killing card-carrying villain because they were evil. What few grey areas existed were almost only in your party, and the only ''moral choices'' you ever had were ''do you take power/are greedy (and thus are evil), or do you refuse power/remain chaste (and thus are good)?''. And that's when the evil actions weren't just massacring people for the sheer lulz of it or making armor out of human skins because why not. Don't get me wrong, the series had numerous quality, but it's story didn't stand out to me.

 

Planescape is a much better story standard The roleplaying in that game is unmatched, and rates above anything Bioware has ever done. But then Black Isle/Obsidian are usually better than Bio in that department; The Fallouts were also very good, including New Vegas. Baldur's gate is definitely not a story reference, and I believe DA:O had better writing, as well as some parts of the Mass Effect series.

[Rawgrim]

I've never understood the reverence for the story of Baldur's Gate. You basically went around killing card-carrying villain because they were evil. What few grey areas existed were almost only in your party, and the only ''moral choices'' you ever had were ''do you take power/are greedy (and thus are evil), or do you refuse power/remain chaste (and thus are good)?''. And that's when the evil actions weren't just massacring people for the sheer lulz of it or making armor out of human skins because why not. Don't get me wrong, the series had numerous quality, but it's story didn't stand out to me.

 

Planescape is a much better story standard The roleplaying in that game is unmatched, and rates above anything Bioware has ever done. But then Black Isle/Obsidian are usually better than Bio in that department; The Fallouts were also very good, including New Vegas. Baldur's gate is definitely not a story reference, and I believe DA:O had better writing, as well as some parts of the Mass Effect series.

 

It has abit to do with the fact that The Forgotten Realms is a very black and white setting, when it comes to good and evil. There are gray stuff in the game of course. But Bioware did stick well to the source material when making the game. Excelently so, I might add. They made the Realms come alive like no other game.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It has abit to do with the fact that The Forgotten Realms is a very black and white setting, when it comes to good and evil. There are gray stuff in the game of course. But Bioware did stick well to the source material when making the game. Excelently so, I might add. They made the Realms come alive like no other game.

 

I guess, but that still makes it a largely black and white game, and not near as interesting as the conflicts in recent Bioware titles where they were free to shape their own setting and throw in stuff that's deeper than ''I'm an evil warrior/mage/priestress that wants to be a god, mwahahahaha!''.

[Das Tentakel]

I guess, but that still makes it a largely black and white game, and not near as interesting as the conflicts in recent Bioware titles where they were free to shape their own setting and throw in stuff that's deeper than ''I'm an evil warrior/mage/priestress that wants to be a god, mwahahahaha!''.

 

Yup. Instead we got a leading Templar going berzerk because of 'red lyrium syndrome'. Ditto other characters.

The advantage of black-and-white settings is that is relatively easy to set up conflicts. Go a more believable, realistic route, and the demand for quality writing - and being able to implement that quality writing somehow in the setting, characters and dialog - goes up.

Immersion, believability, suspension of disbelief, bla bla bla. They suddenly become a thing when setting and characters try to make it look as if they are 'real' and 'complex'.

 

 

 

As for the OP, DA:I is the great-great-great-great-great grandson of Baldur's Gate, but evolved / hybridised into something related but clearly different. Pillars of Eternity and the new Torment game are genetically and phenotypically probably far more similar to BG than DA:I, and the same applies to a cousin like Divinity: Original Sin.

[leaguer of one]

Yup. Instead we got a leading Templar going berzerk because of 'red lyrium syndrome'. Ditto other characters.

 

 

 

 

It's more then just that. Templar's were always close to crossing the line. Red lyrium was just the last straw.  Paranoia is what brought the templars to take red lyrium. It's more of a drug then mind control.

[AlanC9]

The Baldur's Gate saga had good writing? We must've played different games. It had a few highlights, but in general it was outclassed by Fallout 1/2, Arcanum and Planescape: Torment. Definitely not a highlight of writing in CRPGs.
 
I think the move to a screenwriter's approach that came with full VA, the resulting focus on character drama at the expense of almost everything else and the resulting (usually much too low) word budgets have damaged the quality of the overall writing (maybe temporary, maybe not, we'll see), but face it: BIoware was never at the forefront in this area.

So BG wasn't all that good but DA and ME were worse?

[Giantdeathrobot]

Yup. Instead we got a leading Templar going berzerk because of 'red lyrium syndrome'. Ditto other characters.

The advantage of black-and-white settings is that is relatively easy to set up conflicts. Go a more believable, realistic route, and the demand for quality writing - and being able to implement that quality writing somehow in the setting, characters and dialog - goes up.

Immersion, believability, suspension of disbelief, bla bla bla. They suddenly become a thing when setting and characters try to make it look as if they are 'real' and 'complex'.

 

You do notice I'm only making references to Origins here. DAII is not a standard either. And the situation was more complicated than that either way and you know it.

 

In Origins, the Darkspawn and the people of Haven were card-carrying villains. Maybe some demons too, but that's harder to be 100% clear on. Apart from that, it was often grey. Bhelen/Harrowmont, Loghain, Zathrian, Cullen, Flemeth, all these people could oppose you or do terrible things for understandable reasons. You could easily add the Architect too. In Baldur's Gate, the only villain that's anywhere near as grey that I remember is Balthazar in Throne of Bhaal. All the others just want to kill people so that they can ascend to godhood, or are just evil by default like the Drow, Dopplegangers or Illithids. That's pretty samey and boring if you ask me.

 

Hell, even DAII had the Arishok, a very well written villain that wasn't doing anything for the evulz of it.

 

And what's your point, anyway? That black and white settings are better because they're easier to make and swallow? That's a pretty lazy excuse. Even in the Forgotten Realms setting, you have have very well-written stories that aren't black and white; the Mask of the Betrayer expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2 is a prime example of this.

[leaguer of one]

So BG wasn't all that good but DA and ME were worse?

If you're looking at it with BG fanboy glasses.

[leaguer of one]

You do notice I'm only making references to Origins here. DAII is not a standard either. And the situation was more complicated than that either way and you know it.

 

In Origins, the Darkspawn and the people of Haven were card-carrying villains. Maybe some demons too, but that's harder to be 100% clear on. Apart from that, it was often grey. Bhelen/Harrowmont, Loghain, Zathrian, Cullen, Flemeth, all these people could oppose you or do terrible things for understandable reasons. You could easily add the Architect too. In Baldur's Gate, the only villain that's anywhere near as grey that I remember is Balthazar in Throne of Bhaal. All the others just want to kill people so that they can ascend to godhood, or are just evil by default like the Drow, Dopplegangers or Illithids. That's pretty samey and boring if you ask me.

 

Hell, even DAII had the Arishok, a very well written villain that wasn't doing anything for the evulz of it.

 

And what's your point, anyway? That black and white settings are better because they're easier to make and swallow? That's a pretty lazy excuse. Even in the Forgotten Realms setting, you have have very well-written stories that aren't black and white; the Mask of the Betrayer expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2 is a prime example of this.

I would not say the darkspawn were card carrying villains, especially after awakening. They are more a storm then anything. Saying they are the villains entitles them with awareness they don't have. They have no will in what they do they are mindless. They are just a hazard. But the rest of your point I agree.

[AlanC9]

Wrong. Action rpg are when the player has the majority of control pc action in combat and gameplay were traditionally that is controlled by stats.
 
If ME was an traditional rpg, aiming would be controlled by stats, the shot hitting would be controlled by stats, avoiding shot's would be controlled by stats. Stats in an action rpg support and buff the pc actions. It increases attack power, allows the player to move the character faster,hits are endured more, and you get more power to do attacks. Turn base has nothing to do with it being an action rpg or not.

By this definition would ME1 be a traditional RPG? Accuracy was largely controlled by stats, although the player still had to put the reticle on the target to have any chance of hitting.

Also, by this definition all the DA games are traditional RPGs, aren't they? Even if you don't auto-attack in DA2 the clicking is just busywork for the player, IIRC.

[leaguer of one]

By this definition would ME1 be a traditional RPG? Accuracy was largely controlled by stats, although the player still had to put the reticle on the target to have any chance of hitting.

Also, by this definition all the DA games are traditional RPGs, aren't they? Even if you don't auto-attack in DA2 the clicking is just busywork for the player, IIRC.

Nope. Stat affected the fire spread of guns, not Accuracy. You never shot anything in a near perfect aim and missed due to a dice roll. 

[AlanC9]

As for the OP, DA:I is the great-great-great-great-great grandson of Baldur's Gate, but evolved / hybridised into something related but clearly different. Pillars of Eternity and the new Torment game are genetically and phenotypically probably far more similar to BG than DA:I, and the same applies to a cousin like Divinity: Original Sin.

This depends on your RPG taxonomy. This thread's going in circles because we don't have an operational definition of RPG phenotypes, although I'll accept leaguer of one's action-RPG definition.

[AlanC9]

Nope. Stat affected the fire spread of guns, not Accuracy. You never shot anything in a near perfect aim and missed due to a dice roll.

Unless the fire spread is wider than the target, of course.

[leaguer of one]

Unless the fire spread is wider than the target, of course.

Bingo. If the fire spread in narrower then the target you also don't miss.

[Rawgrim]

If you're looking at it with BG fanboy glasses.

 

A story is only as good as the sum of its acts. ME ended in a travesty.

[leaguer of one]

A story is only as good as the sum of its acts. ME ended in a travesty.

And BG ended with a half done expansion that was too short. Added I never said ME was bw greatest story. I know it has flaws.

[Rawgrim]

And BG ended with a half done expansion that was too short. Added I never said ME was bw greatest story. I know it has flaws.

 

Too short is subjective. I thought it was ok. the story got concluded in a satisfactory manner, with a good epilogue.

[AlanC9]

A story is only as good as the sum of its acts. ME ended in a travesty.

Can we limit ME ending butthurt to the ME boards, please?