206 réponses à ce sujet

[attackfighter]

I started another thread here about some of the major problems I had with Dragon Age: Origins. Despite clarifications that I wasn't simply "whining that DA:O isn't as good as Baldurs Gate" the thread still turned into a fight between the two series. Due to the popularity of the subject and the numerous points presented, I think that this "fight" warrants it's own thread.

I'll start by making a quick comparison between what I think are the biggest differences.

Round One: MAPS!

Baldurs Gate 2 Maps:



Baldurs Gate Map:


DA:O Map:


As you can see, Baldurs Gate 2 has very beautifully made, hand-drawn maps. There are plenty of them and they are all filled with adventure!

Baldurs Gate goes for quanity over quality, and while there are tons of places they aren't as detailed or aesthetically pleasing as BG2's maps. They are still superb though:O

Dragon Age has less maps, and most of them are comparatively small. They aren't hand-drawn and they look like they're made with a level editor (due to all the repetative "doodads" like wagons). In Denerim, the capital, there's a distinct lack of quests and buildings, as I'd say nearly half of the locations are for shops.

Round 2: CHARACTERS!

Who can forget Jon Irenicus? Or Minc, Jan Jansen and Tiax? Baldurs Gate characters have wonderful and memorable personalities. They're quirky, funny, cruel or just plain awesome! They also have nicely written dialogue: it's theatric, too the point and read by (what I can only assume are) enthusiastic voice actors.

Dragon Age on the other hand, doesn't have any memorable characters.  Yeah sure, they have personalities and decent voice acting, but there's nothing to seperate them from other cliche fantasy characters. They're also way to concerned with their "unique" moral compasses ( for example, Morrigan doesn't seem like a sociopath, so I don't see any reason for her to not feel any empathy at all), it's just clich, uninspired writing to have the characters act in such linear, predictable fashions. A third complaint is that it's too dialogue heavy; being wordy is fine in some occasions, but when the whole game is like that it really strikes me as being poorly written (clearly the writers were too caught up in making an "EPIC STORY" to consider the phrase "brevity... is wit").

Round 3: GAMEPLAY!

Okay, here is where DA:O comes close to matching BG. The gameplay is pretty solid overall, it just has a few small, but glaring flaws as well as a lack of content. I really don't feel like re-iterating my views on the gameplay mechanics (as that was done by myself and others in my first thread), but I will say that I really dislike the focus on spammable abilities.

The amount of content, on the otherhand, is something that myself and others have not touched enough. In Baldurs Gate there are tons and tons of enemies, items and quests. For enemies you have umberhulks, gnolls, wyverns and other nonstandard creatures in addition to the generic ones such as dragons. There are also many types of weapons, such as spears, slings and the various unique items like Boots of Haste, Equalizer, etc.. There is also a very, very high abundances of quests, both big and small; many of the sidequests seem as big (or even bigger) then the mainquests in DA:O), but that's not all, even the smaller quests like putting that boys ghost to rest are intresting and fun to do (I will also mention that there are no lame fetch quests in BG2).

In DA:O there aren't many types of enemies, and many of them are merely reskins of themselves (eg: devouring skeletons, consuming skeletons, etc.). There's also a crippling lack of items, for example I think there are only two different graphics skins for staves - also, for the most part the items become available based on your level, which is something I personally find very lame (it's almost as bad as level scaling imo). The quests are the biggest flaw in regards to DA:O's content, as the sidequests are almost nothing more then fed-ex deliveries or quick "kill these 5 generic bandits" types of things - even the main quests in DA:O are quite disspointing, as they're mostly just huge empty dungeons with random encounters (if you'll take a look at the maps I posted earlier, look at how full BG2's dungoen is, and then think back to the huge empty deep roads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll admit, this post seems overly harsh on DA:O, however it is my sweet and well deserved retribution against the fanboy zelots who couldn't resist derailing my other thread with this very topic.

But anyways, taking my above points into account I have to declare Baldurs Gate the clear winner in this pissing match. Go ahead and voice your own opinions on the matter though<_<.

[Viglin]

Im worried that this is "Round 1"



And yah, another BG vs DAo thread.

[Shayaryn]

I think part of the reason Baldur's Gate characters were so memorable is because of when the game came out. If Dragon Age had been released in 1998, with the characters and voice acting you hear now, the characters would seem more, well, special, I guess.



Dragon Age's maps are like the maps from Neverwinter Nights. The BG maps were prettier, but the fog of war drove me crazy.



I have to say, the Final Battle in Denerim reminded me of defending, what was it, Sullen'desillar? The elven city in BGII.



Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age both have great companions, though I would prefer, in DA, to have more than four in the party at a time. I like how, in DA, when you dump a party member for a new one, you can always pick up the new one later, and they won't stay where you leave them. I felt terrible dumping Garrick in the Nashkel Mines for Xan. And Xan wasn't even in BGII!



I started up Baldur's Gate again recently, and constantly respawning hordes of Kobold Commandos made me quit for a few weeks.



There's plenty more I could say on the subject, but they're both good games, and one came out 11 years after the other. And I really don't miss constantly respawning kobolds in DA. At all.

[CybAnt1]

*Sigh*. On the whole maps things.



Isometric 2(.5)D is so 1990s. We're doing full 3D gaming now with a moveable camera, or haven't your heard.



Personally, I think many of the areas in DA:O are breathtaking, and the maps themselves I view as just abstractions. Who cares what the maps per se look like? They just show me where to go. Watching the areas themselves in 3D as I move through them is far more interesting than the rather limited scenery - and crappy pathfinding BTW - of my characters moving through the faux space of isometric angular "top down" of BG2.



It did have more kinds of items with more item properties/abilities that were better detailed & explained. I'll give you that. And yes, I do find the enemy variety a little bit stale, too, but it looks like that's improving in Awakenings. And frankly, I'm still waiting for the 3D single player RPG that gives me a team of six, like BG2 did, rather than three or four. With six, I could afford to have one sit back and do nothing but support & healing. It's a harder choice with only four.



But come on, for all the "it will never be surpassed" accolades around BG2 (and don't get me wrong, I loved it myself for its time), some of the characters were cliche too and so was some of the writing... K?

[Atcherseid]

Baldur's Gate had hamsters.



Case closed.

[Stippling]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm just not sure what you hope to accomplish by doing this. Is your goal to improve Dragon Age? Or just to show which is superior? If it's the latter, I don't really care and you're definitely wasting your time. If it's the former, carry on but be a little more objective. Don't just pick categories you can slant to BG. You have to do Graphics, voice overs, Origins and other details, etc.

Modifié par Stippling, 16 février 2010 - 10:50 .

[attackfighter]

Stippling wrote...

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm just not sure what you hope to accomplish by doing this. Is your goal to improve Dragon Age? Or just to show which is superior? If it's the latter, I don't really care and you're definitely wasting your time. If it's the former, carry on but be a little more objective. Don't just pick categories you can slant to BG. You have to do Graphics, voice overs, Origins and other details, etc.

You don't seem to understand the point of a forum. This isn't here so we can pitch ideas to Bioware (no company randomly implements things suggested by its fans), this forum is here so we can discuss stuff. If you're here for the sole purpose of improving Dragon Age: Origins then you're doing it wrong.

Ugh, I feel like I'm a preschool teacher when I have to explain this stuff haha.

[Macadami]

I've made a few threads like this myself comparing different games besides just BG2(although it is the best). Why do we do this? Because we're sad that 11 years later we're given a game not as good(in our opinions) as a game that was developed on pentium 2's with 512mb's of ram.



We are comparing a 2d game, where you had 1 top down view, limited graphical effects, limited cutscene cgi, and an antiquated ruleset to a 3d, multi million dollar budget game made and designed for present technology and the 11 year old one wins...



Are there improvements in DA:O over BG2? Sure. The tactics are great, easier to use than BG2 and they actually work. The 3D view is obviously very much an improvement, except there's only a handful of enemies and peasant skins, spell effects are kinda bland, and weapon and armor skins are very dull. The move from memorization to mana, in my opinion could've been very good, except they made everything very spammable. Cooldowns could've easily balanced it all out and kept the 'powerful' feel of magic, instead you can just chain freeze everything you see. Where are the melee combos and specials? Even Age of Conan had melee combos....



Eh I could continue, but in summary this engine has so much potential they just didn't bother with using. So many things learned 11 years ago were put to the side for easy casual gamers and to milk their followers with DLC.

[Destrier77]

Minc, so memorable. Who was minc??



I Loved baldurs gate for its time, but this spanks it into the ground for characters. Sorry to say, every single character has more depth individually than all of the baldurs gates ones together.



I actually care about the characters in DA.



This reminds me of the people who want fallout back in isometric...

[BanditGR]

Your comparison serves very little point I'm afraid. Most people nowadays are probably...too young to realize that Baldur's Gate was released under a different gaming philosophy, favoring content and an amazing storyline over stunning graphics and Hollywood actor voice overs. By focusing on a rather limited amount of characters, spanning over 1-2 games (and expansions) allowed players to form bonds with the characters, understand their personalities and ultimately appreciate them more for what they were. You are correct that most featured RPG characters nowadays are largely forgettable, with a few exceptions that simply verify the rule.



The truth of the matter is, Baldur's Gate took no real risks, as a CRPG, considering that it "borrowed" the Forgotten Realms world and the AD&D ruleset. Dragon Age is Bioware's own little experiment, a slightly different universe, which is imho still very young to be judged in a harsh manner. It does have its flaws and little cliches but then again what doesn't ? It most certainly has potential and steps are taken in the right direction. Personally, I'm trying to stay positive and optimistic.

[maxernst]

Minsc was the mindless barbarian with the hamster. A completely 1-dimensional character. I don't have any recollection of Jan Janen (was he the bard?) or Tlax. I don't think any of the characters in BG had as much depth as the romanceable companions in DA:O. I'm not sure even the ones in Planescape: Torment did, though that would be a closer contest. Looking at your comments, I can only assume you never really delved very far into your companions' backgrounds. There's a reason why people feel so passionately about the characters in DA:O--they're all much more complicated than they first appear, Morrigan, Leliana, Alistair, and Zevran are viewed very, very differently by different people on this forum. For example, many would strongly disagree with the statement that "Morrigan feels no empathy at all", and would say that's more of a pose than a reality. But even if it's true, you do realize she was raised in almost complete isolation from any society?



I will grant you that BG2 had more content and a greater variety of enemies than DA:O (or any other RPG that I can think of), but characterizations are not close. In so far as I remember them at all, I remember them constantly saying the same things like "How are we helping the unfortunate trudging around in here?" ad nauseum.

[Stippling]

attackfighter wrote...

Stippling wrote...

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm just not sure what you hope to accomplish by doing this. Is your goal to improve Dragon Age? Or just to show which is superior? If it's the latter, I don't really care and you're definitely wasting your time. If it's the former, carry on but be a little more objective. Don't just pick categories you can slant to BG. You have to do Graphics, voice overs, Origins and other details, etc.

You don't seem to understand the point of a forum. This isn't here so we can pitch ideas to Bioware (no company randomly implements things suggested by its fans), this forum is here so we can discuss stuff. If you're here for the sole purpose of improving Dragon Age: Origins then you're doing it wrong.

Ugh, I feel like I'm a preschool teacher when I have to explain this stuff haha.

My argument isn't that a forum is a medium to improve games, my argument is I don't see your end game in all of this. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a reason behind your antics or if you're throwing out comparisons just for casual conversation. But I suppose my curiousity is irrelevant, and you'll continue to post on a forum of a game that is inferior in your eyes and subpar, yet you can't stop talking about it.

So I will feed this fire and continue the debate:

Round Four: Graphics

Baldur's Gate:



Dragon Age:


Ahmawgawed, graphix r 4 newb gamerz. Not really. Graphics are an
important element in a games story telling. It is a game after all, not
a Goosebumps "Choose Your Own Ending" book. The crafting of an
interesting and appealing graphics engine takes a vast amount of a
developers resources and time.

The time and care taken to craft the artistic and stylistic world of Dragon Age is at a modern an up-to-date level that aids in the delivery of a cinematic experience. Comparing Baldur's Gate to other games of the time period (a time period which began the immergence of 3d gaming), Baldur's gate cut a lot of corners to deliver a drawn out story without presenting it in a visually appealing form for the era.

Modifié par Stippling, 17 février 2010 - 02:36 .

[Bibdy]

You don't need to point at BG2 and relate the differences to DA:O in order to be critical of DA:O. Its asinine at best.



If you have problems with DA:O, state them, and maybe they'll get around to implement it in the sequel.

[CybAnt1]

The tactics are great, easier to use than BG2 and they actually work.

Yeah, I would describe the AI progression as follows.

The BG2 AI of 11 years ago was pathetically unusable and had to be turned off without a mod. 

I would say DA:O's AI is at least usable and seems to function well for a warrior. Although I still don't see either the "defensive" or "aggressive" settings working properly. A "defensive" tank should fight back against anybody who melee hits him, the PC, or an ally close by. Should be taunting, threatening, and doing whatever to draw aggro off the PC or allies, particularly archers & mages. But some of my chars set on "defensive" seem to just sit there and scratch their nuts, even stop attacking back against somebody attacking them. I don't get it. And while an "aggressive" scrapper should go chasing after all hostiles in range, not with complete idiocy ... he should hesitate if somebody else yells "trap right ahead" or if the enemy he's charging is surrounded by 8 allies. I mean, where's the common sense setting? 

I still was most tempted to micromanage for my mages or rogues, although Zev and Leilana seemed OK as long as I left him set to "scrapper-aggressive" and her to "ranged-archer", still I sure wish the AI would, all on its ownsome, get Zev to do what I want him to, which is to stealth, sneak up, & backstab the elites/bosses on the field with a nice poisoned dagger. Plus get them, all on its own, to disarm the traps they're yelling about, without me having to tell them to do it. As far as mage AI, well, I found it worked as long as I kept Morrigan focused on her Entropy spells and set her to "Controller" or "Debilitator" ... or focused on Primal spells and set her to "Damager" ... but obviously found nothing that would work well to get her to use a decent mixture of control, debilitation, and damage; plus her default script is telling her to invoke Blood Magic without first activating it... bah. As for Wynne, her "Healer" setting should be usable but still seems to work very bizarrely. You can't script her to revive dead companions, and she seems to fire off her spells at weird times, mostly when combat is over, which constantly infuriates me. I saw what her script said she should be doing, which is healing people when their health was falling below 50%, and yet ... she wasn't. I never got it. 

Plus, don't get me going on Shale's AI. You can never set him/her to use more than one type of ability at a time (i.e. the defensive/ranged/melee/support line), because lacking skills (such as combat tactic), s/he never gets more than 5 tactics slots. I usually left the pulverize line most active, but I sure wish s/he would switch occasionally to ranged, defense-tanking, or support without my intervention. 

I think the only one whose AI works really well is Dog's. He never gets a lot of tactic slots, just like Shale, but since he only has about 4 activated abilities (out of 8 total), it's easy to cycle through all of them. 

BTW, the other thing that ticks me off at DA:O's AI is it's supposed to be over-ridden when you "grab" your characters and order them to do something. Well, the spammable potion issue aside, it frequently seems to "ignore" you when you do that, most particularly, when I order them to drink a health poultice, I can't tell you how many characters I watched die because I told them to drink one, they ignored my command, kept doing what they were doing before, and died. 

I would also add the pathfinding is much improved, I can't tell you how tired I was of hearing the message "you must gather your party before venturing forth" in BG2, all because they took a walking route to some place I told them to go on the screen that reminded me of "Family Circus" in terms of its circuitousness. 

The AI for these games is getting better; but oh boy is there still so much room for improvement. 

[CybAnt1]

Oh and please don't tell me the items *looked* better in BG2. That's just fracking ridiculous.



You couldn't even SEE what the armor looked like on your character, because it was too tiny on the screen and you couldn't even zoom in the camera to get a closer look.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, we really needed another attackfighter thread.



The map comparison is just dumb. One series uses scaled-down versions of the area graphics for the map, the other actually has a map. I'm sure DA could have just rendered the areas at small scale if anyone had thought that was worth doing.



Characters is pure subjective evaluation. I don't see any particular superiority for BG2, myself.



So what we've got is that there are more types of creatures in BG than there are in DA:O. This is true. How much that matters is up to the player.

[SuperMedbh]

I rather like Peggle, myself.

[attackfighter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, we really needed another attackfighter thread.

The map comparison is just dumb. One series uses scaled-down versions of the area graphics for the map, the other actually has a map. I'm sure DA could have just rendered the areas at small scale if anyone had thought that was worth doing.

Characters is pure subjective evaluation. I don't see any particular superiority for BG2, myself.

So what we've got is that there are more types of creatures in BG than there are in DA:O. This is true. How much that matters is up to the player.

Actually my point was that Baldurs Gate maps had way more stuff on them and were more numerous. DA:O maps are more 'sprawled out', but only have a few locations (most of which are shops). My comment about DA:O's locations not being "hand-drawn" was in reference to their use of 'stock buildings' and whatnot (Baldurs Gate's buildings were all unique as far as I know/can tell) - I wasn't commenting on the minimaps themselves.

[Rictras Shard]

The DA maps are actually maps. The BG maps aren't. They're paintings.



Which is more realistic for your character to be carrying?

[RangerSG]

I'd say the OP has one valid point: the maps. But that said, the 'new' maps are part of what you have to accept to have 3d vs 2d gaming. And no one is going to accept that a 2d isometric game is going to sell mass-market today. That's just a point of fact. No publisher, no marketing department, anywhere, is going to accept that. Maybe an indie developer could take that risk...if they self-publish. But then you'll never see the game anyway, in all likelihood.



BG characters better? Umm...no. That's nostalgia talking. Sure, I still have a soft spot in my heart for those characters. But they were not better. They rarely talked about what happened in the world around them. There was one--and only one--fully developed character in BG2. That was Jaheira...who then failed to develop at all in TOB. And then, her romance was bugged several times over too in SOA. Tiax memorable? Sure, in an annoying sort of way. Effective as a long-term character? No. He was a gimmick.



Characters in DA are memorable to most people. If they weren't, you wouldn't have the Awakenings forum lit up like a Christmas tree over what the status of their "relationships" are in DA:A. And every character (save one and the Dog, I'd say) has believable character progression and interacts with others and comments on what is going on in the world around them. They are reactive and interactive in a way BG's characters rarely were.



Flat out, DA's characters are much better written, much more developed, and closer to having "human" motivations and goals.



As far as gameplay goes. I'd say that BG2 was more refined, yes. But then, BG2 was the 3rd or fourth product in the Infinity Engine. So it *ought* to have been more refined. If we're comparing DA to the original BG, then I think we end up at "it's a wash." Now, will future iterations of Dragon Age clean up the areas that need to be sorted out? "We'll see." I have faith in Bioware...but I am leery of the meddling of EA.

[Haexpane]

Shayaryn wrote...

I think part of the reason Baldur's Gate characters were so memorable is because of when the game came out. If Dragon Age had been released in 1998, with the characters and voice acting you hear now, the characters would seem more, well, special, I guess.

Dragon Age's maps are like the maps from Neverwinter Nights. The BG maps were prettier, but the fog of war drove me crazy.
 

The first time I played BG2 was in 2009, seriously (i bought the compilation pack) and I still prefer it vastly to DAO (Which is very good too but no BG2)

Fog of war is also a fantastic gameplay trope that helps suspend disbelief and make it more D&Dish IMO.

While Claudia Black is amazing, there is no comparison of characters, the DAO characters are way more bland and tropey, despite having better voice acting.

So maps, no contest - BG2 has far better maps

Gameplay, no contest - BG2 has more party members at once, more summons, more familiars, more abilites, D&D rules, better use of traps, poison, the list goes on and on.

Characters and story?  No contest, the BG2 setting/story and characters are some of the best of all time.

DAO has very good gameplay, very good story and very good characters.  That's the problem.  We are comparing a very good game DAO against one of the finest games EVER MADE in BG2

[Haexpane]

Rictras Shard wrote...

The DA maps are actually maps. The BG maps aren't. They're paintings.

Which is more realistic for your character to be carrying?

This isn't a "which is the more realistic dragon slaying game" it's simply "which was better"

The BG2 maps were better, rationalizations won't change that.  The DAO maps are almost worthless and ugly.

If you want realism, you can play Gran Turismo .  Dragon Slaying not = realism

[Haexpane]

Stippling wrote...

attackfighter wrote...

Stippling wrote...

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm just not sure what you hope to accomplish by doing this. Is your goal to improve Dragon Age? Or just to show which is superior? If it's the latter, I don't really care and you're definitely wasting your time. If it's the former, carry on but be a little more objective. Don't just pick categories you can slant to BG. You have to do Graphics, voice overs, Origins and other details, etc.

You don't seem to understand the point of a forum. This isn't here so we can pitch ideas to Bioware (no company randomly implements things suggested by its fans), this forum is here so we can discuss stuff. If you're here for the sole purpose of improving Dragon Age: Origins then you're doing it wrong.

Ugh, I feel like I'm a preschool teacher when I have to explain this stuff haha.

My argument isn't that a forum is a medium to improve games, my argument is I don't see your end game in all of this. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a reason behind your antics or if you're throwing out comparisons just for casual conversation. But I suppose my curiousity is irrelevant, and you'll continue to post on a forum of a game that is inferior in your eyes and subpar, yet you can't stop talking about it.

So I will feed this fire and continue the debate:

Round Four: Graphics

Baldur's Gate:



Dragon Age:


Ahmawgawed, graphix r 4 newb gamerz. Not really. Graphics are an
important element in a games story telling. It is a game after all, not
a Goosebumps "Choose Your Own Ending" book. The crafting of an
interesting and appealing graphics engine takes a vast amount of a
developers resources and time.

The time and care taken to craft the artistic and stylistic world of Dragon Age is at a modern an up-to-date level that aids in the delivery of a cinematic experience. Comparing Baldur's Gate to other games of the time period (a time period which began the immergence of 3d gaming), Baldur's gate cut a lot of corners to deliver a drawn out story without presenting it in a visually appealing form for the era.

I like the BG2 environmental designs and art direction much better.  DAO has better character models and special effects.  BG2 has way more characters on screen.  DAO underground levels have horrible bland textures etc...  That screenshot of DAO is a great example.  Flashy, pre rendered canned animation during the game which you have NO CONTROL OVER YOUR CHARACTER.  It's MGs4 style sit back and watch.  It also points out how bland the underground/cave designs are.

I'd say it's a tie, even tho overall I favor BG2.

Next comparison?  

[Haexpane]

BanditGR wrote...

Your comparison serves very little point I'm afraid. Most people nowadays are probably...too young to realize that Baldur's Gate was released under a different gaming philosophy, favoring content and an amazing storyline over stunning graphics and Hollywood actor voice overs. By focusing on a rather limited amount of characters, spanning over 1-2 games (and expansions) allowed players to form bonds with the characters, understand their personalities and ultimately appreciate them more for what they were. You are correct that most featured RPG characters nowadays are largely forgettable, with a few exceptions that simply verify the rule.

The truth of the matter is, Baldur's Gate took no real risks, as a CRPG, considering that it "borrowed" the Forgotten Realms world and the AD&D ruleset.  al and steps are taken in the right direction. Personally, I'm trying to stay positive and optimistic.

Well you make a great case for why BG2 was a better game (which is unarguable, BG2 is considered one of the best games of all time, probably the best party based RPG)

But BG2 didnt borrow AD&D it licensed it.    

[Haexpane]

Macadami wrote...

 

We are comparing a 2d game, where you had 1 top down view, limited graphical effects, limited cutscene cgi, and an antiquated ruleset to a 3d, multi million dollar budget game made and designed for present technology and the 11 year old one wins...

Are there improvements in DA:O over BG2? Sure. The tactics are great, easier to use than BG2 and they actually work. The 3D view is obviously very much an improvement, except there's only a handful of enemies and peasant skins, spell effects are kinda bland, and weapon and armor skins are very dull. The move from memorization to mana, in my opinion could've been very good, except they made everything very spammable. Cooldowns could've easily balanced it all out and kept the 'powerful' feel of magic, instead you can just chain freeze everything you see. Where are the melee combos and specials? Even Age of Conan had melee combos....

Eh I could continue, but in summary this engine has so much potential they just didn't bother with using. So many things learned 11 years ago were put to the side for easy casual gamers and to milk their followers with DLC.

I hate reading this type of thing because I agree so strongly and other people simply ignore it and call you a "BG2 whiner".   Why is recognzing the fact that BG2 was AWESOME  and DAO is not quite as awesome such a bad thing to do?

I find it healthy.  BG2 was 2.5 d and now we have a 3D  AD&D style RPG only with less gameplay, less features, less skins, less variety , less of everything.  It's still good.  but why are we considerd sinners for comparing the past w/ the present?