848 réponses à ce sujet

[dlux]

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.

You can add something to the discussion if you like. That would be better than just pointing fingers.

[AlanC9]

The argument's already been made upthread so I didn't see any need to repost it. I still don't. I mean... you are actually reading posts, right? tmp7704 already reposted the list once in a reply to you.

[Reymoose]

Comparing games that are now decades and god knows how many generations of hardware apart is ridiculous. 

 

You can compare the plot, character development, the general writing, but to compare one that is a basis for many modern RPG's to one that was just released and by the standards of of D&D and BG 1 would not qualify as an RPG is not a valid comparison.

 

BG 1 (and to a smaller lesser extent BG 2) existed in a relative vacuum, and with the lack of game design history at that time were absolute masterpieces.

 

If you have to compare, take into account the experience and the market the developers of both games had while working on their respective game.

[In Exile]

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.

I recently tried DAI on a controller. I find it even *harder* to play in real time. It's even more like BG1.

In fact with a controller this straight up BG1 for consoles.

[In Exile]

Comparing games that are now decades and god knows how many generations of hardware apart is ridiculous.

You can compare the plot, character development, the general writing, but to compare one that is a basis for many modern RPG's to one that was just released and by the standards of of D&D and BG 1 would not qualify as an RPG is not a valid comparison.

BG 1 (and to a smaller lesser extent BG 2) existed in a relative vacuum, and with the lack of game design history at that time were absolute masterpieces.

If you have to compare, take into account the experience and the market the developers of both games had while working on their respective game.

BG1 was celebrated as a game with a mediocre to OK story that was an amazing D&D combat simulator. It was far closer to IWD than any Bioware game ever.

[archav3n]

Bioware will never make another Origins. DA2 & DAI are facts that their fandom for action is immense. This is of course my opinion but 2 games that have similar actioney combat if that does not tells you anything

[AlanC9]

Comparing games that are now decades and god knows how many generations of hardware apart is ridiculous. 
 
You can compare the plot, character development, the general writing, but to compare one that is a basis for many modern RPG's to one that was just released and by the standards of of D&D and BG 1 would not qualify as an RPG is not a valid comparison.

I'm usually sympathetic to this sort of proposition; "RPG" sometimes strikes me as being completely content-free except to the extent that it's a bandbox drawn around a bunch of products that were important to a particular cohort. But I don't see why comparing individual works can't be done even if our taxonomy of games is crap.

[Joe-Poe]

And I just don't understand why. You look at a game like Origins that went tripple platinum. Why would you change something that sold so well? I honestly want to know who, what or why came up with DA2 and actually thought it was a good idea. I mean, with inquisition, I can see where they were going. Skyrim was a huge success, that's where the audience was. But Bioware didn't make Skyrim... if they had, fine. But it's some sort of mix between their mmo and dragon age 2.

 

Again, why change what isn't broken? When something sells so well it makes no sense to me.

The simple answer is that the devs that made DAO are not the same ones who made DA2 and DAI...The ones who made DA2 and DAI are the ones who only ported DAO to consoles...

[Realmzmaster]

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

 

I assure you I have played crpgs for more than 35 years and as I stated BG1 has never left my hard drive. I am replaying it now along with DAI. You are wrong you cannot change the attributes passed character generation without using a wish or ioun stone. Since BG1 and BG2 are based on the D & D 2.0 rules which does not allow the change. The fact that you have 113 spells is inconsequential since the wizard does not have access to all of them because that number is shared with the cleric type. Also the total number of spells that the mage can use in BG1 is 58 (half of those were rarely used by any gamer) and can only reach the 4th spell level. Out of those 56 the mage can memorize only 10 by level 7 per page 140 of BG1 manual.

 

That is 4 1 st level spells, 3 second level spells, 2 third level spells and 1 fourth level spell.

 

The information about leveling up is on page 26 and character generation is on pages 8- 11of BG1 manual. The thief gets to assign skill points to thieving abilities (30 at the first level and 20 thereafter)  and all classes get to select weapon proficiencies. No class can change attributes after character creation.

[Uccio]

I assure you I have played crpgs for more than 35 years and as I stated BG1 has never left my hard drive. I am replaying it now along with DAI. You are wrong you cannot change the attributes passed character generation without using a wish or ioun stone. Since BG1 and BG2 are based on the D & D 2.0 rules which does not allow the change. The fact that you have 113 spells is inconsequential since the wizard does not have access to all of them because that number is shared with the cleric type. Also the total number of spells that the mage can use in BG1 is 58 (half of those were rarely used by any gamer) and can only reach the 4th spell level. Out of those 56 the mage can memorize only 10 by level 7 per page 140 of BG1 manual.

 

That is 4 1 st level spells, 3 second level spells, 2 third level spells and 1 fourth level spell.

 

The information about leveling up is on page 26 and character generation is on pages 8- 11of BG1 manual. The thief gets to assign skill points to thieving abilities (30 at the first level and 20 thereafter)  and all classes get to select weapon proficiencies. No class can change attributes after character creation.

 

Still DAI is light years away from BG when it comes to the number of spells (or usage and effect). I´ve played these games too for decades and I would never argue that DAI somehow could be considered equal with BG games when it comes to spells at hand. Sure you don´t have access to all of the spells in BG even in optimal character build but you sure do have access to much more spells that you have in DAI. 

[Zanallen]

Still DAI is light years away from BG when it comes to the number of spells (or usage and effect). I´ve played these games too for decades and I would never argue that DAI somehow could be considered equal with BG games when it comes to spells at hand. Sure you don´t have access to all of the spells in BG even in optimal character build but you sure do have access to much more spells that you have in DAI. 

 

No one was arguing that DAI had anywhere close to the amount of spells as BG. They were being compared in terms of the limitations placed on the player. A mage in DA:I has, at max, eight spells that he can use at any given time and must switch out abilities if he wants different ones. In BG, a max level (Lvl 7 in the base game) wizard can have around ten spells divided among different levels that he can memorize each day. As you can see, BG has more in common with DA:I in terms of spell limitations than it does with DA:O or DAII where you can cast any spell you happen to learn.

[Akka le Vil]

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?

 

You probably need to re-read what you answered to, as it seems what you comment on is the opposite of what was written.

[In Exile]

Still DAI is light years away from BG when it comes to the number of spells (or usage and effect). I´ve played these games too for decades and I would never argue that DAI somehow could be considered equal with BG games when it comes to spells at hand. Sure you don´t have access to all of the spells in BG even in optimal character build but you sure do have access to much more spells that you have in DAI.

BG1 and BG2 had over a hundred useless trash spells that taunted you into taking them in your spell book so you could die painfully in an encounter. While I agree that it had lots of options, most were crap.

That said, the good spells had more CC and buff variability but less interesting direct damage qualities. In DAI it's the other way around. Not sure I can say which is better though I prefer damage builds.

[Akka le Vil]

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

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

 

Sorry, this list is garbage.

It's making stretched parallels that require a high level of abstraction to see them as being alike, mixed with plenty of pointless minute details that are either incidental or about as informative as saying "they are both video game, so they are totally the same !", and sprinkling it all with some comparisons that are just nonsensical.

 

Not the best argument to be made...

 

Also, the argument (not made by you, but I add it here 'cause it's thematically related) that a massively action-oriented game with a gameplay reminiscent of MMO with a tacked-on gimmick tac that is near-unusuable, is "the exact same game with just updated graphics" that a 100 % purely and exclusively tactical game, is not just garbage, but downright retarded.

 

Shouting "sky is green" and making a list of the wavelength the green colour and blue colour have in common doesn't make the sky any less blue.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Still DAI is light years away from BG when it comes to the number of spells (or usage and effect). I´ve played these games too for decades and I would never argue that DAI somehow could be considered equal with BG games when it comes to spells at hand. Sure you don´t have access to all of the spells in BG even in optimal character build but you sure do have access to much more spells that you have in DAI. 

 

Keep in mind any non-mage class in BG can pretty much only auto-attack, while warriors and rogues in Dragon Age have a full set of abilities (thank god, because playing a non-mage in Baldur's Gate is incredibly boring). If you made a tally of all the spells/talents in DA:I, I'm pretty sure the number would be relatively high, not to mention all the passives which Baldur's Gate doesn't have.

 

So in my books, just going ''X game has less mage spells than Y, OMG dumbed down crap!'' is just a misleading argument that serves a narrative. Inquisition is overall less complex than Baldur's Gate, but 1) it doesn't have a 20 years old tabletop ruleset under its belt, 2) many of those spells actually weren't used anyway, and 3) as someone else said, even at max level you had, what, 10 spells available? And you can't chain cast them because Vancian magic is crap.

[Akka le Vil]

The simple answer is that the devs that made DAO are not the same ones who made DA2 and DAI...The ones who made DA2 and DAI are the ones who only ported DAO to consoles...

 

That seems to be the only sensible answer and explanation.

[Emu8207]

I would love Origins style combat with a silent protagonist but it's not going to happen which is unfortunate.

[ORTesc]

I would love Origins style combat with a silent protagonist but it's not going to happen which is unfortunate.

 

It could happen.

[Uccio]

Keep in mind any non-mage class in BG can pretty much only auto-attack, while warriors and rogues in Dragon Age have a full set of abilities (thank god, because playing a non-mage in Baldur's Gate is incredibly boring). If you made a tally of all the spells/talents in DA:I, I'm pretty sure the number would be relatively high, not to mention all the passives which Baldur's Gate doesn't have.

 

So in my books, just going ''X game has less mage spells than Y, OMG dumbed down crap!'' is just a misleading argument that serves a narrative. Inquisition is overall less complex than Baldur's Gate, but 1) it doesn't have a 20 years old tabletop ruleset under its belt, 2) many of those spells actually weren't used anyway, and 3) as someone else said, even at max level you had, what, 10 spells available? And you can't chain cast them because Vancian magic is crap.

 

It is true, with the warriors and rogues, I give you that much. I´ve always played with a mage so I can´t comment much about the other specs. However I don´t see how making warriors and rogues semi-mages with their ridiculous talens improves the gameplay (IMO). I had no problem having my support team whacking away "only" with weapons (thought most of them were magical). Warriors and rogues are "just" human/race. They only function through the skills grinded through basic weapon training, not by a magical talent.

For me the warrior/2hwarrior/rogue/mage basic party turns into mage/mage/mage/mage party because of the ridiculous talents and skills DAI has.

 

BG1 had a large variety of spells and spell slots at your disposal and BG2 had even more so the 10 limit (which I am not still sure about it, have to check) applies only to BG1. As for the vancian casting, maybe, though at the time I had no problem with it. Now, I don´t now, depends on the game. 

[FNX Finest]

It is true, with the warriors and rogues, I give you that much. I´ve always played with a mage so I can´t comment much about the other specs. However I don´t see how making warriors and rogues semi-mages with their ridiculous talens improves the gameplay (IMO). I had no problem having my support team whacking away "only" with weapons (thought most of them were magical). Warriors and rogues are "just" human/race. They only function through the skills grinded through basic weapon training, not by a magical talent.

For me the warrior/2hwarrior/rogue/mage basic party turns into mage/mage/mage/mage party because of the ridiculous talents and skills DAI has.

 

BG1 had a large variety of spells and spell slots at your disposal and BG2 had even more so the 10 limit (which I am not still sure about it, have to check) applies only to BG1. As for the vancian casting, maybe, though at the time I had no problem with it. Now, I don´t now, depends on the game. 

 

Would you say the Reaver class is magical....or just a human who drank dragons blood?

[Uccio]

I would call it magical, but that is because of the dragon blood. The same way templars are "magical" too since they use lyrium to activate their skills. Before that both of these are just human.

[GRscorpion]

I doubt Origins 2.0 will ever happen.

 

Especially if Inquisition sells well, which current information suggests that it is.

well DAI inquisition will sell good , if it does  , because of the marketing , Dragon age origins sold well because of the game .... this is something developers and publishers need to realise, they cant just butcher a franchise because they see money on it ... in the long run it can be their downfall ..

[In Exile]

well DAI inquisition will sell good , if it does , because of the marketing , Dragon age origins sold well because of the game .... this is something developers and publishers need to realise, they cant just butcher a franchise because they see money on it ... in the long run it can be their downfall ..

DAO has a crazy marketing scheme. It clearly had good word of mouth because it had a tail but there was more marketing for it IMO than DAI. And literally crazier marketing too.

[Sidney]

Bioware will never make another Origins. DA2 & DAI are facts that their fandom for action is immense. This is of course my opinion but 2 games that have similar actioney combat if that does not tells you anything

Tell me, for the love of God, how DAI is "actiony". Seriously what about it is action? Is the part where I select a power all about action? The part where I click on my enemy is that the white hot action we all crave? Let me check and see how that is different than what I did in DAO where I selected a power and clicked on an enemy...oh wait. Let me see how is that different than BG where I selected a power ( actually rarely there) and clicked on a foe. I'm sure you will now share a host of tiny differences while missing the big picture of how BG, BG2, NWN, KOTOR, DAO, DA2, DAI are all fundamentally the same combat style and none of them can be described as action combat. Some mechanics are different across all those games, and KOTOR was the best of the bunch BTW, but the basic style has not changed in more than a decade.

[AlanC9]

It is true, with the warriors and rogues, I give you that much. I´ve always played with a mage so I can´t comment much about the other specs. However I don´t see how making warriors and rogues semi-mages with their ridiculous talens improves the gameplay (IMO). I had no problem having my support team whacking away "only" with weapons.

I'm not quite sure why your opinions on rogue and warrior gameplay deserve to be taken seriously, since you never play them and don't seem to be particularly interested in what they do.