125 réponses à ce sujet

[Deflagratio]

 

 

I don't mind. Dragon Age is it's own thing, a modern day RPG with its own unique take on the genre. There will always be companies like Obsidian and inXile which craft more traditional adventures (top down, isometric, D&D based).

 

Kickstarter doesn't hurt, unless you count removing financial accountability as hurting. That's not necessarily a condemnation as it strengthens the legitimacy of the art being less tied to the industry, but it is a very real risk.

 

 

As for Dragon Age: Inquisition, I'd say it's probably the closest example of a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate as we can get. It's more than just story, characters and banter, the entire design philosophy of the game is oriented to the D&D Campaign built of modules, or as Dragon Age: Inquisition calls them "Ten Large Open-world areas."

[Cornughon]

I think the first Baldur's Gate is a bit overrated (I think they improved pretty much on anything in BG2). Yes it's one of the titles which succeeded in giving a revival of the western RPG's, but compared to it's sequal and to games of the same time period in the same genre (to which I DON'T consider Diablo to be part of) it's a bit shallow, and includes a lot of aimless wandering and not always interesting side quests. It has a few memorable characters, but also a lot who aren't.

Personally I'd recommend Planescape: Torment over the first Baldur's Gate, since it's so much deeper and more interesting. It's also a lot less heavy on the D&D mechanics.
One of the things which put off a lot of players is the walls of text that game brings. And that you should actually read them! You can skip through them but then you don't know what the hell is going on, unlike BG1 where you can easilly ignore most of them.
And it's so NOT Dragon Age 2's spiritual predecessor (even though I like DA2)...

[Enigmatick]

Seeing as it's a really old game but is also often praised by fans of it, I have to ask... As someone who has never played BG, is it worth getting the enhanced edition of it? I mean is it still a good game, or is it a badly aged archaic game that was very significant for the genre but isn't actually worth playing if you have no nostalgia for it?

The enhanced editions are rip offs for the price that they are compared with the content they added.

[Morroian]

I don't think it was just marketing when DA:O first came out. That game was genuinely old school, very much in the vein of Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate, 

 

IMHO it really wasn't, it reminded me of kotor with more streamlined mechanics than the infinity engine games.

[Paul E Dangerously]

In a purely mechanical sense, it's more akin to WoW than it is Baldur's Gate. Or even NWN.

 

Just look at super restrictive class system, among other things, and it's only gotten worse since DAO.

[SirPetrakus]

I remember way back when DA:O was being marketed as a throwback to the old IE games, like Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment and Icewind Dale, to name a few and touted as the spiritual successor to DA:O. I also remember when the first talks about a more action oriented DA2 started and how the community back then demanded answers as to what was going on with the legacy of that spiritual successor. Most of the people that craved something like that have, admittedly, walked away from DA and Bioware in general, to some extent, since then. Apparently, EA and Bioware does not seem to regard us, my demographic, people that have been playing cRPGs for, perhaps, well over 20 years, as important.
 
So a line was drawn to draw in the crowd that is more attuned to the instant gratification of the more action oriented combat scheme. That is to say that I do not consider action/arcade style games a bad thing. I am an avid fan of the Devil May Cry franchise as well as games like Dynasty Warriors, but I do feel that Dragon Age traded some of its identity to become something that it inherently wasn't and, to a degree, imho, didn't need to be.
 
There's also the approach of more adult themes, like gore and sex, that weren't touched to such an extent in Baldur's Gate. While Baldur's gate did, indeed, have romances, the stances of the characters towards them weren't as provocative as they are in the DA games and were, again, imho, more tactful and much more sentimental, not so necessarily "in your face". I mostly dislike about them the fact that you can't actually be a friend to a potentially romanceable character, but are automatically locked into a romance with them, if you are nice to them. And if you want to get to know them better, you have to romance them.

 

There does, however, seem to be a comeback of the old IE games with titles such as Blackguards, Divinity: Original Sin, Torment: Tides of Numenera, Wasteland 2, Expeditions: Conquistador, Pillars of Eternity and a few more that I am sure I am forgetting. It wouldn't be bad if Bioware could tap into the potential of those demographics a little more, would it?

[AlanC9]

IMHO it really wasn't, it reminded me of kotor with more streamlined mechanics than the infinity engine games.

 

What's the difference, except that KotOR had an over-the-shoulder camera?

[In Exile]

What's the difference, except that KotOR had an over-the-shoulder camera?

DA:O had a more numerous talents (KoTOR had a weird not quite D&D ruleset) and better full party control, at least on PC. 

[In Exile]

I remember way back when DA:O was being marketed as a throwback to the old IE games, like Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment and Icewind Dale, to name a few and touted as the spiritual successor to DA:O. I also remember when the first talks about a more action oriented DA2 started and how the community back then demanded answers as to what was going on with the legacy of that spiritual successor. Most of the people that craved something like that have, admittedly, walked away from DA and Bioware in general, to some extent, since then. Apparently, EA and Bioware does not seem to regard us, my demographic, people that have been playing cRPGs for, perhaps, well over 20 years, as important.

 

The reception to DA:O was mixed at best. There were lots of people on the old, old Bioware boards who were livid about many of the DA:O design choices and declared it an insult that it even compared itself with the (untouchable) BG2. Things like:

 

- Origins. They are terrible, they destroy our ability to RP by giving us set backgrounds. One poster said she wanted a human ranger who lived in the wilderness all her life; that was impossible because the only human rogue possible grew up with a loving family. 

- Mana. Clearly copied and pasted MMO combat without Vancian magic; can't hold a candle to BG2. 

- No permadeath. Complete absence of difficulty and no consequences for combat. 

- Can't kill NPCs anywhere. "Story" is an unacceptable defence. Bioware should just bring back Biff the Understudy and deal with it, players sometimes want to massacre a whole town or a plot central NPC for the evil lulz. 

 

Then we had more radical things like: 

 

- 2D graphics are superior to 3D graphics and much cheaper, Bioware is wasting resources. 

- Voiced NPCs are a waste of time, they should just voice the first line and let us imagine tone. 

 

And so on. The only reason DA:O is hailed as a successor to BG2 at all on this forum is that the groups who actually hardcore obsessed over BG2 left over time. 

[andy6915]

And so on. The only reason DA:O is hailed as a successor to BG2 at all on this forum is that the groups who actually hardcore obsessed over BG2 left over time. 

Based on the complaints you mentioned they had... Good riddance.

[AlanC9]

- Origins. They are terrible, they destroy our ability to RP by giving us set backgrounds. One poster said she wanted a human ranger who lived in the wilderness all her life; that was impossible because the only human rogue possible grew up with a loving family.

Hilarious when coming from a BG fan, since that series has a single set background. My favorite was the guy who thought he had played a drow Bhaalspawn who had grown up in a drow city before being kidnapped by Gorion as a teenager. Headcanon's OK, but I draw the line at stuff that's flatly contradicted by the game.

[Orian Tabris]

Honestly, I would say that Origins is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2, but Dragon Age 2 is not part of that successor-ship. Dragon Age 2 is definitely the sequel to Dragon Age Origins, but it feels so far removed from Baldur's Gate and Torment that the DA franchise cannot be considered wholly the successor to the Baldur's Gate franchise.

 

Origins, itself, is very different from the D&D roots of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

 

The reasons why Origins is the spiritual successor - I think - is because it retains the classic RPG feel that BG and P:T have, and it still feels like it's a game based on what Gary Gygax is so famous for.

 

I reckon it's the same as for Fallout being the spiritual successor to Wasteland, and the transition made between Origins and DA2, and Fallout 2/Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout 3. Bethesda partially spoiled the Fallout series by making it non-turn-based, minus the targeting system (VATS), and BioWare made DA2 more... modern(?) in it's graphics, and the very different dialogue composition.

 

I actually haven't played Wasteland, but Fallout is apparently heavily inspired by it, with random encounters and the post-apocalyptic setting that it had.

[dlux]

I'm a huge fan of the Baldur's Gate series and think that Baldur's Gate 2 is the best game ever made.
 

Is Dragon Age (the brand) still considered a spiritual successor to Balder's Gate?

It used to be. DA:O was a pretty damn good spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. 
 
DA:I doesn't seem to have much in common with those games anymore, other than maybe the writing. That is a shame, seeing that everyone has been asking for more DA:O.
 

Was DAO's sales that bad so they changed next game so drastically?

DA:O is still Bioware's best selling game to date. I guess that is why Bioware seems to have substantially changed what made DA:O great for the successors.

 

Yesiree, that makes sense. It sure does. 

 

No. Pillars of Eternity is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, not Dragon Age.

Pillars of Eternity is more a "Josh Sawyer's dream RPG" than a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. True story.

[K3m0sabe]

Dragon Age the series was never the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate even origins had nothing in common with the BG series, not the setting, not the combat rules and skills, not the graphics, not the character development.

 

If i would have to point out an rpg that closely resembled BG it would probably be Pillars of Eternity, the isometric 2D look fits perfectly within the aesthetic, the number of party members, the D&D inspired classes, abilities, equipment and monsters.

 

Dragon Age is more the spiritual successor to neverwinter nights than anything else. 

[Andraste_Reborn]

Dragon Age is more the spiritual successor to neverwinter nights than anything else. 

 

Other than the fantasy setting, I can't think of a BioWare game that the DA series resembles less.

[Wulfram]

DA:O was BG (Full party control real time CRPG) + KotOR (Cinematic presentation) + MMOs (Mechanics like Threat and Cooldowns)

DA2 was DA:O + Mass Effect (Voiced protagonist)

DA:I seems like DA2 + Open World.  The impression I get is less Skyrim and more Saints Row with it's take over the map gameplay.

[KaiserShep]

The reception to DA:O was mixed at best. There were lots of people on the old, old Bioware boards who were livid about many of the DA:O design choices and declared it an insult that it even compared itself with the (untouchable) BG2. Things like:

- Origins. They are terrible, they destroy our ability to RP by giving us set backgrounds. One poster said she wanted a human ranger who lived in the wilderness all her life; that was impossible because the only human rogue possible grew up with a loving family.
- Mana. Clearly copied and pasted MMO combat without Vancian magic; can't hold a candle to BG2.
- No permadeath. Complete absence of difficulty and no consequences for combat.
- Can't kill NPCs anywhere. "Story" is an unacceptable defence. Bioware should just bring back Biff the Understudy and deal with it, players sometimes want to massacre a whole town or a plot central NPC for the evil lulz.

Then we had more radical things like:

- 2D graphics are superior to 3D graphics and much cheaper, Bioware is wasting resources.
- Voiced NPCs are a waste of time, they should just voice the first line and let us imagine tone.

And so on. The only reason DA:O is hailed as a successor to BG2 at all on this forum is that the groups who actually hardcore obsessed over BG2 left over time.

Goodness. Kinda glad no one listened to those clowns.

[K3m0sabe]

Other than the fantasy setting, I can't think of a BioWare game that the DA series resembles less.

 

Small number of companions in party, small amount of dialogue and less C&C choices when compared to BG2, 3D and not isometric 2D, faster paced combat. More in common between DA and NWN than between DA and BG.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Small number of companions in party, small amount of dialogue and less C&C choices when compared to BG2, 3D and not isometric 2D, faster paced combat. More in common between DA and NWN than between DA and BG.

 

For me, the massive difference is that you have full control over your companions. What drove me nuts about NWN - even in the expansion, which had a much better story than the original campaign - was that you only had 'henchmen' not a real party that you control and level up just like the character you created. That makes the game feel very different, in my opinion. And I know there are more words in BG2 than in either Dragon Age game, but it still felt like a lot more than in NWN.

 

If you said 'Dragon Age is more like KOTOR than Baldur's Gate' I would see your point although I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

DA:O - it feels like a classic RPG but is more constrained and/or made easier for the player (from inability to kill NPCs, lack of permadeath to absence of cursed items and giant exclamation marks over people's heads - i'd bury alive the person who invented those); mechanics is simplified - so is character development. the term "spiritual successor" still fits, i guess. good thing setting is finally more interesting than overused FR tho

 

DA2 - nope. it's ME - fast paced, action based, with 2-3 side quests (i'm not counting give some random person trash you've found on your way-type of "quests")... well - shooter basically with really good story and few RPG elements. i did enjoyed the plot, but the rest of the game is just... painful and sad

 

DA:I - no idea, i hope they did something closer to DA:O than DA2. they had the time to play with it (engine/mechanics/gameplay in general), i really hope they used it properly... another ME/TES clone with breathtaking graphics and amazing story makes me want to grow up and stop playing games altogether.

 

is the franchise a spiritual successor to BG? nope. it seemed that way at first but... nope.

[AlanC9]

Goodness. Kinda glad no one listened to those clowns.

Me too. But that's the thing about this thread. What BG means to its fans is quite variable. Calling the DA series a spiritual successor to BG works for me, because it has what I liked about the series and drops stuff I either didn't care about or positively disliked.* But if someone likes BG for different reasons than I liked it, it's only natural to have a different perspective.

*Note that to some extent this is me disliking the whole CRPG tradition, which IMHO has historically played up the worst aspects of PnP RPGs, rather than the best aspects.

[Mornmagor]

Goodness. Kinda glad no one listened to those clowns.

 

They are clowns for having different views than you?

 

I'm not sure that i agree with their critcism, but i wouldn't call them clowns for that. They like what they like.

[In Exile]

Hilarious when coming from a BG fan, since that series has a single set background. My favorite was the guy who thought he had played a drow Bhaalspawn who had grown up in a drow city before being kidnapped by Gorion as a teenager. Headcanon's OK, but I draw the line at stuff that's flatly contradicted by the game.

I'm surprised you don't remember that post about the social reclusive human rogue and how it broke IP that the poster couldn't headcannon away based on what Bioware said. 

 

But yeah, people have this incredible ability to ignore that BG1 had as much of a set background as JE. 

[In Exile]

Goodness. Kinda glad no one listened to those clowns.

 

Technically Bioware sort of did... they brought back 2D portraits, after all.

They also copied and pasted part of BG2 as the Act I to DA2, but they forgot that while people worship BG2, their hypocrisy prevents them from admitting the parts of the game that aren't that good. 

[Beerfish]

They are clowns for having different views than you?

 

I'm not sure that i agree with their critcism, but i wouldn't call them clowns for that. They like what they like.

It's all in how you communicate the message though.  People talk in absolutes far too often (myself included) in regards to issues that are opinions or preferences.