70 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

why? big and sparse with only a minority of it having some main plot relevance. Bio made it during their amateur days, and it shows so I don't see why they wanted DA:I to be basically a BG1 remake... 

[Andraste_Reborn]

Ah, but look at it like this: what if DA4 is as big a leap forward from DAI as BG2 was from BG1?

 

I don't think they got the story/exploration balance completely right this time (although I found wandering the wilderness a lot more fun in Inquisition than it was in BG1) but I hope they learned something for next time.

[Draining Dragon]

Because old stuff is not automatically bad?

[Sidney]

Because Skyrim sold a bazillion copies and apparently someone determined, wrongly, that the open world with junk quests and trash respawning trash mobs was part of that success.

[mickey111]

Because old stuff is not automatically bad?

 

you understood nothing I just said. 

[LinksOcarina]

People asked for it...so there you go.

[Draining Dragon]

you understood nothing I just said.

Yes, I did. You're complaining because a new game resembles an old game.

Though it really doesn't resemble it in the slightest, so this whole discussion is moot.

[mickey111]

Yes, I did. You're complaining because a new game resembles an old game.

Though it really doesn't resemble it in the slightest, so this whole discussion is moot.

 

 

BG seemed progressive in terms of emphasis on story and plot at the time because it was one of the few which put any effort at all in it. Then in BGII, they put more of that good stuff in it, and shrunk the world design down also They've been going down that path for over 10 years since then, and now they've had something of a regression with DA:I. Part of me wonders what inquisition might have been, and I suspect thinquisition would be less like skyrim and more like Origins if DAII hadn't stunk to the high heavens. I guess trying to shake off that bad rep was one reason for Bioware going backwards.

[Il Divo]

BG seemed progressive in terms of emphasis on story and plot at the time because it was one of the few which put any effort at all in it. Then in BGII, they put more of that good stuff in it, and shrunk the world design down also They've been going down that path for over 10 years since then, and now they've had something of a regression with DA:I. Part of me wonders what inquisition might have been, and I suspect thinquisition would be less like skyrim and more like Origins if DAII hadn't stunk to the high heavens. I guess trying to shake off that bad rep was one reason for Bioware going backwards.

 

I'd say Mass Effect 1 was a bit of a miss-step in that department too. Really, if you abandon all the Mako Exploration, the length of the main quest + companion interaction would be on par with Inquisition.  

 

I do agree that this was probably the worst aspect of Baldur's Gate, but for myself there were other contributing factors than just open world exploration in terms of why I prefer DA:I. 

[AlanC9]

Well, the ME1 exploration was done on the cheap. That worked out OK for some of us. Understandably, others would prefer no exploration to cheap exploration.

[Il Divo]

Well, the ME1 exploration was done on the cheap. That worked out OK for some of us. Understandably, others would prefer no exploration to cheap exploration.

 

I think what worked in Inquisition's favor vs. ME1 is that, even if a lot of side quests are one dimensional, I never felt like I was putting too much effort into any one quest. There would always be about 5-6 quests in an area as well as herbs to pick, materials to find, caves to explore, etc. 

 

Not to mention, each area does feel genuinely different in terms of environment. ME1 I spent too much time making a direct run to whatever merc base I was supposed to be exploring. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

why? big and sparse with only a minority of it having some main plot relevance. Bio made it during their amateur days, and it shows so I don't see why they wanted DA:I to be basically a BG1 remake...

Because BG was their best game, and they were wrong to move away from that free travel model.

I'm overjoyed they've finally gone back to it.

[Draining Dragon]

Because BG was their best game, and they were wrong to move away from that free travel model.
I'm overjoyed they've finally gone back to it.

Actually, I think BG2 was better. Remember, BG1 didn't have any companion banter, dialogue, or romance.

[wepeel_]

There was nothing wrong with the BG1 world design. The philosophy that every scene needs to have direct bearing on the plot gives poor results in games as well as in movies. It makes a game feel streamlined and may provide a sense of constant urgency, but severely limits player agency and imagination. In BG2, though it brought many improvements to the table and is arguably a better game overall, the world feels smaller and more constricted - almost every location is just a branch off the main hub. In my opinion, a well-crafted critical path storyline combined with large optional areas to explore makes for the best combination.

 

Edit: As for BioWare making BG1 during their "amateur days", what does it tell you that BG1 and BG2 are widely considered their best work? On-rails transportation from plot point to plot point should never be the way of an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually, I think BG2 was better. Remember, BG1 didn't have any companion banter, dialogue, or romance.

I prefer BG because of the free travel (BG2 only let you go somewhere once an NPC told you to), that the dialogue was written to accommodate a companion as party spokesperson (BG2 still allowed this, but the writing didn't make sense then), and because the plot was presented in a far less heavy-handed way.

I rank BG2 as no better than fifth among BioWare's games. BG, DAO, DAI, and NWN all surpass it.

[In Exile]

I prefer BG because of the free travel (BG2 only let you go somewhere once an NPC told you to), that the dialogue was written to accommodate a companion as party spokesperson (BG2 still allowed this, but the writing didn't make sense then), and because the plot was presented in a far less heavy-handed way.

I rank BG2 as no better than fifth among BioWare's games. BG, DAO, DAI, and NWN all surpass it.

I will point out there are parts of BG1 where the writing only makes sense as being said by the PC. At one point the speaker always identifies as CHARNAME. I wish I could remember exactly where that happened.

Still on the broader point I do think Bioware was right to borrow from BG1.

[Il Divo]

Edit: As for BioWare making BG1 during their "amateur days", what does it tell you that BG1 and BG2 are widely considered their best work? On-rails transportation from plot point to plot point should never be the way of an RPG.

 

 

Well, YMMV on that, depending on your community.

 

Bioware since the BG days has heavily pushed their narrative, character writing, and dialogue as being their forte`, all of which are practically non-existent in BG1 by comparison. 

 

It's possible that if Mass Effect's or Dragon Age's sequels had taken BG1's approach to plot/character interaction, they would have been ripped apart for it.  

 

 

[In Exile]

Well, YMMV on that, depending on your community.

Bioware since the BG days has heavily pushed their narrative, character writing, and dialogue as being their forte`, all of which are practically non-existent in BG1 by comparison.

It's possible that if Mass Effect's or Dragon Age's sequels had taken BG1's approach to plot/character interaction, they would have been ripped apart for it.

Mass effect did adopt it with the UWs. And it did get ripped apart for it. It was exactly like BG1: tiny almost identical looking zones with a few points of interest, one quest hub or so and rarely a secret item.

[Majestic Jazz]

Because Skyrim sold a bazillion copies and apparently someone determined, wrongly, that the open world with junk quests and trash respawning trash mobs was part of that success.

Yup. This.

Another reason why I am glad ME4 is going its own way.

[Il Divo]

Mass effect did adopt it with the UWs. And it did get ripped apart for it. It was exactly like BG1: tiny almost identical looking zones with a few points of interest, one quest hub or so and rarely a secret item.

 

I meant more specifically in terms of how the story and companion interactions played out. If ME1 followed the BG lead, instead of having 6 dedicated characters to interact with, we'd have 20 or so characters simply repeating stock phrases like "Go for the eyes, boo!".

[pdusen]

Because some people enjoy it, I expect. That's why game developers do pretty much anything.

 

Slightly-OT: So today is DAI-sucks-because-its-too-much-like-BG day? Can we get a calendar made for these things?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mass effect did adopt it with the UWs. And it did get ripped apart for it. It was exactly like BG1: tiny almost identical looking zones with a few points of interest, one quest hub or so and rarely a secret item.

My favourite part of ME.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I meant more specifically in terms of how the story and companion interactions played out. If ME1 followed the BG lead, instead of having 6 dedicated characters to interact with, we'd have 20 or so characters simply repeating stock phrases like "Go for the eyes, boo!".

I don't think DAI would benefit from having that many companions because the DA ruleset doesn't allow enough different character builds to make that many characters interesting from a gameplay perspective.

[wrdnshprd]

the success of Divinity: Original Sin and the success of the kickstarters for pillars of eternity, wasteland 2, and Torment: Tides of Numenera prove that there is a market for the Baldur's Gate design.. i think its more than just a "minority".. 

 

that being said, i honestly dont have a problem with an RPG having action oriented combat.. i just want the developer to be honest about it and if they do decide to go that route.. go all the way.  dont try and pacify both sides... in the end, i believe you end up disappointing both groups. 

 

the problem with DA:I.. though bioware DID show off combat, they made no real mention of how the combat would REALLY work on PC - i.e. demonstrating the clunky tactical combat (sorry but this is objectively true.. the tactical camera is terrible), mentioning that you have to hold a button down for auto-attack, etc.  if you believe they did, post the livestream showing it.

 

so bioware just needs to be honest with its playerbase.. if they want to make a shooter.. make a shooter... if they want to make a hack and slash.. make a hack and slash.. and if thats the way they want to go, market it that way and do so at 100%. 

 

i believe DA:I is a good game, but the mechanics ended up being a weird mesh of RPG and action mechanics that didnt fit well at all with the series.  if they would have just gone with the DA2 controls or returned to the DAO controlls, the game would be widely regarded as their best... i would have even put it above DA:O.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I will point out there are parts of BG1 where the writing only makes sense as being said by the PC. At one point the speaker always identifies as CHARNAME. I wish I could remember exactly where that happened.

Still on the broader point I do think Bioware was right to borrow from BG1.

I know the NPCs would sometimes address the PC by name, but that doesn't stop someone else from doing the talking. That's basically how parliament works.

But BG2 is written throughout as if the writers didn't know that someone else might be speaking (and David Gaider later confirmed this was the case - he had been unaware of the mechanic while writing the game).