848 réponses à ce sujet

[dlux]

Honestly, this game felt like the most direct descendant of BG in the franchise.

Wat.

 

That is like saying that Call of Duty is the spiritual successor to Unreal Tournament. lol

 

Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Inquisition have nothing in common. Nothing.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Inquisition have nothing in common. Nothing.

 

The exploration in Inquisition is more like the exploration in Baldur's Gate than in any other BioWare game - including Baldur's Gate 2. It's been that long since they made a game with lots of big open areas, some of which have minimal connection to the plot and never actively prompt you to visit.

 

The main difference when it comes to this aspect is that the wilderness in DAI contains a lot more stuff to do than the wilderness in BG1, proportionally speaking.

[XenoAlbedo]

Believe it or not, so far I am enjoying Inquisition more than I did Origins. That's saying something considering how much I loved Origins.

 

 

...Then again, I kind of liked Dragon Age II, so maybe my opinion isn't valid here.

[tmp7704]

Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Inquisition have nothing in common. Nothing.

http://forum.bioware...7#entry18179687

I dunno, this seems to be at least a few things.

[nelly21]

Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Inquisition have nothing in common. Nothing.

 

This is what I meant yesterday. If you actually played BG (and I still do), you can't possibly make this statement.

 

Not going to argue with you. But please, please replay BG I. DA:I is literally BG with updated graphics. Yes a lot of concessions have been made to consoles (which I understand), but the core concepts are all the same. 

[Salaya]

This is what I meant yesterday. If you actually played BG (and I still do), you can't possibly make this statement.

 

Not going to argue with you. But please, please replay BG I. DA:I is literally BG with updated graphics. Yes a lot of concessions have been made to consoles (which I understand), but the core concepts are all the same. 

 

The similarities are there, that's obvious. But those similarities are not between core concepts, but only superficial; for example, the always mentioned lack of direct stat allocation is in fact a difference since the core gameplay concept of Inquisition is, precisely, the flexibility of stat allocation with equipment and crafting. This is completely different from what BG core gameplay concept offered.

 

Also, the open world scenario is similar only in paper since the way those "open hubs" are explored is radically different: Inquisition requires constant reactive controls (mashing autoexplore button, jumping, recovering materials at every step, etc), while BG was direct 2d exploration with almost any reactive interactivity.

[dlux]

This is what I meant yesterday. If you actually played BG (and I still do), you can't possibly make this statement.

 

Not going to argue with you. But please, please replay BG I. DA:I is literally BG with updated graphics. Yes a lot of concessions have been made to consoles (which I understand), but the core concepts are all the same. 

I don't need to replay Baldur's Gate, because I have played it at least 5 times. I seriously think you need to replay Baldur's Gate game because you are making preposterous claims. How you can even think about comparing BG and DA:I is beyond me.

 

Just look at the spell system: Baldur's Gate has 113 damage mitigation/healing/buffing/offensive/tool spells and DA:I has only 17, mostly offensive magic spells. Seventeen. SEVENTEEN! And that is just one example of many.

 

DA:I is an action game with a few RPG elements and Baldur's Gate is an in-depth RPG. Seriously, do not compare Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age: Inquisition, they are completely different games. Any of the Baldur's Gate spirit that existed in DA:O is now completely gone in DA:I.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I don't need to replay Baldur's Gate, because I have played it at least 5 times. I seriously think you need to replay Baldur's Gate game because you are making preposterous claims. How you can even think about comparing BG and DA:I is beyond me.

 

Just look at the spell system: Baldur's Gate has 113 damage mitigation/healing/buffing/offensive/tool spells and DA:I has only 17, mostly offensive magic spells. Seventeen. SEVENTEEN! And that is just one example of many.

 

DA:I is an action game with a few RPG elements and Baldur's Gate is an in-depth RPG. Seriously, do not compare Baldur's Gate to Dragon Age: Inquisition, they are completely different games. Any of the Baldur's Gate spirit that existed in DA:O is now completely gone in DA:I.

 

RealmMasterz has given you a laundry list of similarities.

 

You reply with one gameplay element (number of spells). With ALLCAPS because apparently it makes your argument stronger. That's not exactly convincing. There's far, far more to an RPG than strcitly adhering to an arbitrary number of abilities before it starts being ''deep'' enough.

 

Plus, maybe other people have a different opinion of what the ''Baldur's Gate spirit'' is than yours? Just a thought.

[errantknight]

Ok, I preferred the classic rpg nature of Origins to the action rpg of DA2, or even the hybrid of Inqusition in terms of combat, tactics and gear choices, but remember DA2 and how you felt when you saw how thoroughly what you loved had ben tossed aside? Do you think the DA2 fans deserve to feel like that? Like it or not, those people deserve a place in the franchise now too. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the situation we have. They're clearly trying to please both groups and while they haven't got there entirely yet, give them some credit for owning up to past missteps and making the effort. I think we'll get there, but it's going to be a compromise. That's the only viable alternative for them.

[dlux]

RealmMasterz has given you a laundry list of similarities.
 
You reply with one gameplay element (number of spells). With ALLCAPS because apparently it makes your argument stronger. That's not exactly convincing. There's far, far more to an RPG than strcitly adhering to an arbitrary number of abilities before it starts being ''deep'' enough.
 
Plus, maybe other people have a different opinion of what the ''Baldur's Gate spirit'' is than yours? Just a thought.

113 spells in BG vs. 17 spells in DA:I isn't convincing enough?
 
Realzmaster is also wrong, I doubt he has ever played even Baldur's Gate.
1.) You can manipulate your attributes (and proficiencies or talents) in BG on level up.
2.) High level characters don't just use 7th or 8th level abilites. Magic missle, for example, is a level 1 spell and used until the end of the game.
3.) Mages don't twirl their staffs around and constantly shoot magic bolts from them in BG. xD Magic is tactically limited in BG, if a mage runs out of spells during combat, then they have to use a dagger or a simple missle weapon.
3.) There are numerous different types of healing and damage mitigation potions in BG. In DA:I you can refill them whenever and how often you feel like it, in BG they are limited.
4.) You have to actually control your entire party in Baldur's Gate because it is a tactical combat RPG. In DA:I the AI does everything for you as long as you hold down the right trigger. Babbys first RPG or something. xD
5.) BG is an open world game with numerous maps, very similar to DA:I. Although DA:I is actually only a semi open world game because the content is level gated.
6.) Baldur's Gate would be nearly impossible to play on a console because of its tactical complexity and RTwP system, however DA:I plays best with a controller. xD
 
 
Why don't you just try and convince us that Skyrim is also spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate because it doesn't have any automatic health regeneration and also has a single (!) damage mitigation spell. 
 
Seriously, give up your wishful thinking. Baldur's Gate is an absolute gem and one of the best RPGs ever made, DA:I is just a dumbed down action game full of busywork filler that will never be an RPG.

Spoiler

 and Dragon Age: Inquisition

[UniformGreyColor]

Skyrim has health regeneration...

[dlux]

Skyrim has health regeneration...

Yeah, my bad. Health does regenerate very (very) slowly in Skyrim.

[UniformGreyColor]

And you get healed every time you sleep.

[SofaJockey]

I thought the areas of Baldur's Gate II were too linear.

I'm pleased that DAI has reverted to the more open world dynamic of Baldur's Gate.

 

More of this for DA4 please.

[AlanC9]

And you get healed every time you sleep.

And every character starts with a healing spell. Sure, you can just not use it for RP or some such , but your character does have it.

[UniformGreyColor]

And every character starts with a healing spell. Sure, you can just not use it for RP or some such , but your character does have it.

 

This is true and I use it like mad as well as a plethora of other healing spells as well. Skyrim can be challenging if you have the right mods... But Vanilla Skyrim is like a screwdriver with no vodka; it just does not have the same effect (I do mine half and half).

[Lukas Trevelyan]

I just have a question. Since when did having more action oriented combat discredit the RPG aspect of a game? 

[nelly21]

I just have a question. Since when did having more action oriented combat discredit the RPG aspect of a game?

I've often wondered this myself. Most of the crpg greats were action RPGs. I don't understand the criticism.

[Giantdeathrobot]

113 spells in BG vs. 17 spells in DA:I isn't convincing enough?
 
Realzmaster is also wrong, I doubt he has ever played even Baldur's Gate.
1.) You can manipulate your attributes (and proficiencies or talents) in BG on level up.
2.) High level characters don't just use 7th or 8th level abilites. Magic missle, for example, is a level 1 spell and used until the end of the game.
3.) Mages don't twirl their staffs around and constantly shoot magic bolts from them in BG. xD Magic is tactically limited in BG, if a mage runs out of spells during combat, then they have to use a dagger or a simple missle weapon.
3.) There are numerous different types of healing and damage mitigation potions in BG. In DA:I you can refill them whenever and how often you feel like it, in BG they are limited.
4.) You have to actually control your entire party in Baldur's Gate because it is a tactical combat RPG. In DA:I the AI does everything for you as long as you hold down the right trigger. Babbys first RPG or something. xD
5.) BG is an open world game with numerous maps, very similar to DA:I. Although DA:I is actually only a semi open world game because the content is level gated.
6.) Baldur's Gate would be nearly impossible to play on a console because of its tactical complexity and RTwP system, however DA:I plays best with a controller. xD
 
 
Why don't you just try and convince us that Skyrim is also spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate because it doesn't have any automatic health regeneration and also has a single (!) damage mitigation spell. 
 
Seriously, give up your wishful thinking. Baldur's Gate is an absolute gem and one of the best RPGs ever made, DA:I is just a dumbed down action game full of busywork filler that will never be an RPG.


 

 

I feel like your high horse case is hopeless, but I'll still bite

 

1. So can you in Inquisition. Look at talent description (hey, if rolling the dice on chargen counts as stat manipulation, that surely does too).

2. My level 23 Mage still uses Energy Barrage and Barrier. 

3. And thank god DA:I doesn't do that. Vancian magic is horrible.

4. Disable party AI then? It's what I do. Don't ignore options just because it suits your narrative.

5. And BG isn't? moving north before leveling up means you can easily run into higher level enemies and die, same if you pursue the main quest without doing side-content first. Also nothing but main missions in DA:i is level gated, there's a recommended level but nothing stops you from going to Emprise du Lion at level 8 once you unlock it if you have Power.

6. You can play Baldur's Gate on a friggin iPad. The only thing you need to play that game is literally two buttons. A controller would have buttons to spare and then some. Now you're making stuff up on purpose.

 

Skyrim has health regeneration and several healing spells, it also doesn't have a controllable party, is open world compared to semi-open, no pause, little actual dialog, no tactical camera, no real choices to make, so on and so forth.

 

Ah yes, the ''no true scotsman'' argument. Clearly a height of logic that anyone should bow down to.

[tmp7704]

113 spells in BG vs. 17 spells in DA:I isn't convincing enough?

Being able to show one aspect that ain't alike isn't equal with demonstrating things you're comparing are nothing alike. In fact, if you really wanted to prove the latter you'd need to walk through list of all features for both games.

[In Exile]

The similarities are there, that's obvious. But those similarities are not between core concepts, but only superficial; for example, the always mentioned lack of direct stat allocation is in fact a difference since the core gameplay concept of Inquisition is, precisely, the flexibility of stat allocation with equipment and crafting. This is completely different from what BG core gameplay concept offered.

Also, the open world scenario is similar only in paper since the way those "open hubs" are explored is radically different: Inquisition requires constant reactive controls (mashing autoexplore button, jumping, recovering materials at every step, etc), while BG was direct 2d exploration with almost any reactive interactivity.

You raise two things in your post. The first is related to the ruleset. DAI does not use the D&D ruleset. But that cannot disqualify it. It would be lying saying that DAO is unlike KoTOR because KoTOR used a D&D 3e like ruleset.

As for the exploration, yes, DAI is 3D. But that's not a real criticism. There's no substantive difference.

[Remmirath]

Both BG1 and DAI have semi open worlds.
Both have non-regenerating health

Entirely true. No argument here. These are both good things in Inquisition, to my mind.
 

Both have limited healing in both potions and spells.
Neither allow for manipulation of attributes in game.

Eh, mostly so. BG allows you to stock up on healing potions if you need to, and they can often be replenished from the loot of fallen enemies; on the other hand, they won't be replenished whenever you rest, and rarely is there anything like a convenient supply cache. When you do rest, unless you're resting in an inn, there's a chance that you'll be attacked. Still, similar there, yeah. BG also has a good bit of healing magic (although limited) available, whereas DA:I has none (aside from that one).

Also, importantly, characters actually can be killed in BG, including (albeit rarely) such that they can't be resurrected. There are also cases where you can't drink a healing potion or use a spell, for a variety of reasons (paralysation, holding, stinging swarms, and so forth); I haven't run into that in DA:I yet.

Now, a lot of the difficulties with healing and supply in BG can be mitigated or mostly ignored if you keep running back into town and resting in inns, resupplying, and so forth. I don't choose to play the game like that, and I don't think it's a problem that people can. I consider the fact that either way is viable to be a plus.

It's true that neither allow for the attributes to be changed in the game, but in BG, you can change them at the start of the game during character creation, and the system is built on the assumption that you will have stats within the 3-18 range. Therefore, at the start of the game, you are designing what your character is like in that regard. There's no choice in that in DA:I, while there are still attributes, so if you want (for instance) your warrior to be agile and cunning as well as strong, yet foolish and somewhat frail, there's no way to do represent that.
 

Emphasis is proactive damage mitigation.

There I disagree. I would say that emphasis in BG is on killing the enemy before they can kill you; mitigating the damage certainly can be and is important, but not as important as winning quickly. Winning quickly is, in many cases, simply impossible in DA:I. When a fight drags on too long, and is mostly a case of several very tough people who can't inflict all that much damage wearing each other down, it loses tension and interest fast.
 

8 abilities are about the same that you find in BG1 characters that can only rise to the 7-8th level

For spells, yeah. It's eight more than you'll find in fighters, for example. Now, I realise that's something a lot of people don't like about BG, but to me it's a positive.
 

Baldur's Gate has no camera and therefore only one view.
Select only one character at a time is not a problem for me. The companion AI worked for me. I am able to switch when necessary. This also means keeping an eye on all the characters

To the first, true, but it's a fixed camera that does always work to survey the entire fight. The tactical camera doesn't always work that way, at least for me. The AI does work, unless you're trying for a specific combat formation, or trying to set up an ambush, or anything to that effect.
 

The reason that mages in BG cannot pole dance around their staffs or rogues do backflips was because of the limitations of the hardware.
The D & D ruleset allows for rogues back flipping or cartwheeling out of danger. In fact D & D rules allow for the acrobat. Swashbuckler is defined as part acrobat, part swordsman and part wit all rolled into a single class. That is straight from the BG 2 manual page 90.

True enough. The animations aren't really a problem, for me; yeah, the combat animations are unrealistic, but just about every game's are to some degree or another. I don't mind back flipping or rolling out of danger, that's cool; I do mind essentially teleporting over half the battlefield to stab some guy in the back. Now, I haven't spent any time playing a melee rogue in Inquisition yet, so maybe there isn't anything like that any more. That'd be good.
 

I will say one thing: Vancian magic is a terror and I am very glad it is not part of DA. Mechanically it turns magic into item use.

While I actually like Vancian magic, in general, I do understand this complaint -- one of my large problems with activated abilities and cooldowns is that it makes playing non-casters feel very much the same as playing casters, while I prefer it to feel very distinct.
 

Huh? I was talking about the core exploration gameplay and so forth. And yeah, "general feeling" is pretty important when I'm trying to decide if one game is "like" another game. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an important factor?

"General feeling" I would agree is very important, but it's also highly subjective. What may be important to one person, and give that general feeling, may be wholly unimportant to another and/or not give the same feeling at all.

The exploration and open world is similar between BG and DA:I, I'll grant that. While I do like that aspect of DA:I for the most part, it doesn't feel at all similar to me as it did in BG. I realise they're technically very similarly designed, but the other differences mean that exploring (for example) a large chunk of the map in each feels quite different. Lots of little things, and some major things, make up that feeling for me: the general look of the game (obviously different, although that's a style thing and neither good nor bad inherently), the way one controls the characters, the UI which is present, the combat when it is engaged, the method of interacting with various objects, the way quests are handled, the map, the way dialogue is handled, and so forth. Not all of those are bad differences. Some are simply neutral, but they still contribute to an overall different air to the game.

To me, DA:O gave me more of the same feeling as BG did than DA:I does. In some ways, those two games are more different, but some of the above-mentioned elements (dialogue, UI design, combat, interaction method, quest handling, the map) felt more similar, even though some of them were still fairly dissimilar.
 

The main difference when it comes to this aspect is that the wilderness in DAI contains a lot more stuff to do than the wilderness in BG1, proportionally speaking.

It also feels more natural, at least to me, to explore the entire surrounding area of Baldur's Gate than it does to explore all around in DA:I -- probably because the initial stages of BG's main quest are less obvious than the initial stages of DA:I's main quest. It makes sense to me that my character might wander around a good deal in BG before getting onto the main plot, whereas it's been a little more odd to spend such a long time haring off into the wilderness in DA:I.

I just have a question. Since when did having more action oriented combat discredit the RPG aspect of a game?

It doesn't, so long as they're still room for building the character and having at least some character-focused aspect to combat.

[dlux]

Being able to show one aspect that ain't alike isn't equal with demonstrating things you're comparing are nothing alike. In fact, if you really wanted to prove the latter you'd need to walk through list of all features for both games.

 

 
 

 

• BG is a tactical combat RPG, DA:I doesn't have any tactical combat because it's a hack & slash action game.
• in BG you have to control your entire party, in DA:I you control a single character (usually by holding right trigger) and let the AI control the rest of you party.
• Baldur's Gate has 113 damage mitigation/healing/buffing/offensive/tool spells and DA:I has 16 offensive magic spells (a buff spell is in there too I think) and single damage mitgation spell.
• The itemization in BG and DA:I are completely different.
• Loot in BG is systemic and hand placed, in DA:I loot is randomized and scaled (other than the unique items)
• Gold is very valuable in BG, in DA:I it is practically useless.
• BG doesn't have any busywork filler content like picking flowers and mining ore.
• BG doesn't have any filler content like collecting bottles for a trivial reward.
• BG doesn't have any respawns, DA:I has respawns that fall from the sky.
• BG has a lot of dungeon crawling, DA:I is a hiking simulator.
• BG has very interesting, fulfilling and rewarding sidequests, DA:I is full of fetch quests (= filler content) with trivial rewards.
• The maps in BG are much smaller.
• In BG you could find very interesting items and sidequests by exploring, in DA:I you find one banality after the next.
• BG has numerous buff spells, DA:I has none (maybe one or two, I can't remember).
• BG has numerous damage mitigation spells, DA:I has one.
• BG has numerous tool spells, DA:I has none.
• BG has numerous healing spells, DA:I has none.
• BG has a weapon proficiency system, DA:I does not.
• BG has an alignment system, DA:I does not.
• BG has a reputation system, DA:I does not.
• BG has dual resp. multi classing, DA:I does not.
• BG has about 10 classes, DA:I has 3.
• BG has about 30 class kits, DA:I has 9.
• BG has thiefing skills, DA:I doesn't.

 
That is off the top of my head. Seriously, drop your wishful thinking and stop comparing this action game to an RPG like Baldur's Gate. They have nothing, absolutely nothing in common.

 

I feel like your high horse case is hopeless, but I'll still bite

That is how I feel about your case which is why I won't respond anymore. DA:I is clearly a dumbed down action game that has absolutely nothing in common with Baldur's Gate. Accept it.

[tmp7704]

• BG is a tactical combat RPG, DA:I doesn't have any tactical combat because it's a hack & slash action game.
• in BG you have to control your entire party, in DA:I you control a single character (usually by holding right trigger) and let the AI control the rest of you party.

Well, I had to stop here. Given I've spent close to 200 hours by now controlling all characters in my party without any hack and slash action in a game named "Dragon Age Inquisition", I must conclude either I was misled and what I got to play wasn't in fact DAI, or you were.

[AlanC9]

That is off the top of my head. Seriously, drop your wishful thinking and stop comparing this action game to an RPG like Baldur's Gate. They have nothing, absolutely nothing in common.

Again, your argument doesn't work to prove your point. If you want to prove that two games have nothing in common, listing lots things that they don't have in common gets you nowhere -- even if your list made sense, and you've got a couple of whoppers in there (as tmp7704 notes). You have to actually take on the things that the games supposedly do have in common, and show that they either don't exist, are common to all games, or are trivial.

Maybe you could make that case. I don't know, because you've never tried.