206 réponses à ce sujet

[Haexpane]

CybAnt1 wrote...
 

Fine. I understand your point. There aren't five temples to visit in Denerim, because unlike D & D FR, humans aren't polytheistic. There's no independent thieves' guild because anybody with jobs for you seems to want to meet in taverns. There are no sewers to explore (complete with strange cults to bump into down in those sewers.) Etc. Etc. BG2 had superiority of places to visit and explore, and things to do/see in them. 

However, I'm not sure of your exact point, because I see no intrinsic reason why someday there might not be a game in the Dragon Age milieux of its depth. Origins wasn't that game. 

I like your optimism.  Some day maybe after all the DAO expansions and sequels, maybe there will be "as much to do" as there was in BG2 and it's expansions.

That's sort of the whole jist of this, there hasn't been a game like BG2 since BG2 and "spiritual successor" or not, DAO is very very different.

[Haexpane]

booke63 wrote...

 

As to gameplay--the fighting part of gameplay anyway--my primary point of comparison is: in BG you have to manage your resources within a fight AND outside of fights. In DAO you manage your resources within the fight almost exclusively. In BG, after a fight, you spend quite a bit time collecting and recharging resources: healing, sleeping, buying and selling even.

In DAO you are more often immediately ready to go and can go go go. One other difference is I feel more confident in fights in DAO. In BG it just seemed that you could more often get wiped out. Whether I really did get wiped out more often once I got BG down, I don't know, but like with the NPCs in DAO, I usually feel more comfortable entering a fight in DAO compared to BG.

 

Thanks

Excellent point, and hits the mark.  DAO is "safer" and "easier" so that is indeed a personal pref.  I vastly prefered BG2 style of, oh snap I "rested" in a bad spot and got rushed, but survived barely even tho I had no spells no summons and half my party died.

In DAO when my party died fighting a dragon my thought was "good, now I can just solo this thing and be done with it"

[Vicious]

It's apples and oranges really. It's best to compare DAO to BG1 instead of BG2, as they are both origin stories, albeit fairly different types.



For instance, I'll compare protagonists.



BG1 centered around a single protagonist who was obviously special and different. He/She had crazy ambiguous dreams so you basically had no clue of what was going on. These dreams seemed to have zero to do with the missions of the game,[which was about solving some kind of plot to economically starve the region, of all things.] and kept you in the dark all the way up to the grand finale, and the revelation of your character's nature was shown, and then BAM, the game ended.



DAO's protagonist, on the other hand, is not the 'chosen one.' They are, more than anything, someone who was in the right place at the right time. If Alistair was on his own, I fully believe that, despite how ineffectual he is, he would have risen to the challenge since there was, literally, no other choice [and probably would have hardened instantly as a result]



While the DAO PC is thrust into the role of kingmaker and army gatherer, he is not 'special' in any sense except that he manages to accomplish all his objectives with meager resources. If he kills the Archdemon he dies just like anyone else would, and indeed, the game could end with his death.





So right there is a huge disconnect. The Bhaalspawn is trilogy material, since his fundamental nature is that he cannot die, since the story would immediately end, like Mass Effect. Death, and an ending to the story, is simply NOT an option.



The Warden, not so much. He is perfectly killable and the story is perfectly endable. He is, after all, not some godspawn/amazing hero because of it. There is not much to build off of when the character is an amorphous blob who could be anyone or anything, as long as they are skilled and determined.





Basically, I'm saying the Bhaalspawn was a LOT more compelling than The Warden. For that matter, so is Commander Shepard.

[CybAnt1]

The people playing the game and looking at them care.  Just a shot in the dark?

I understand, H., but here's my question that I keep asking.

What do you think is really more important looks better: the actual areas you are visiting, which is on the screen most of the time, or the minimap, which you are occasionally looking at only to make sure you're headed to the right place on the area screen? I'm only using the minimap to make sure I'm heading toward the Gnawed Noble Tavern and not Wonders of Thedas and to find where in the city was that damn questgiver I was looking for. Most of the time, though, I'm looking at the actual area screen itself. 

As was stated earlier, the BG2 minimaps look good for one awfully simple reason, it was a design decision to simply make them isometric miniatures of the actual isometric areas themselves. I don't disagree they look good. But when you have to represent a 3D area with a 2D map as we do in DA:O, the result is a simplified abstraction, exactly what I'd expect to see. 

So once again one more time to my question:

1) do you think the ACTUAL AREAS in DA:O look better than the ACTUAL AREAS in BG2? I do. Something about not having ceilings or walls and everything being slanted floor breaks immersion for me, as does the faux effort to put in verticality. Just saying. 
and then my followup is
2) can you not agree with me it might be more important, in terms of game enjoyment, to have better looking ACTUAL AREAS (which you're looking at most of the time) than better looking MAPS (which you're only peeking at occasionally)? 

[CybAnt1]

That's sort of the whole jist of this, there hasn't been a game like BG2 since BG2 and "spiritual successor" or not, DAO is very very different.

But here's the point. As far as it being a smaller gameworld - well, OK, yes, we agree: there's fewer spells, fewer classes (hell, I'm arguing with people right now over whether to even add a fourth class and many seem to feel the answer is no), fewer monsters/enemies, fewer items, yes a smaller party (4 instead of 6), and fewer places to visit (which is actually what seems to have been attackfighter's real, main point, NOT the visual quality of the minimaps themselves) and quests to do.

But it's a new setting. #1, BG2 could borrow all the intellectual property of the Forgotten Realms because it was licensed within that setting. That meant doing everything (they could, anyway) that was already out there in every page of the Monster Manual, DM Guide, etc. This is a new gameworld which means they have more freedom, but now have to make everything from scratch! As I see it this is an advantage. #2, it was the sequel to BG1, and remember DA:O is simply the first game. Do we know how many expansions and sequels are to come? We don't, but heck, the 1st expansion is already out the door 5 months after the original game! (Some are complaining that means it was rushed, but I digress.) The point being: each expansion and sequel will continue to add more content. More spells are coming. More monsters are coming. Maybe even I'll get my wish and eventually another class is coming. Who knows?

Better yet, one other critical thing, Bioware gave the community the TOOLSET so that making mods for DA is soooo much easier than doing it for BG2. That means over time the COMMUNITY is going to make more monsters, more items, more spells, maybe more classes & specializations, maybe even more community-made expansions or parallel campaigns ala NWN2 .... the gameworld's going to grow and what's even more amazing is the devs. have given the community the power to expand it themselves! I think this is a critical difference too. 

My final point is, just like it sounds like, "Origins" is to introduce you to the setting. It's just a taste. Just as BG2 built on BG1 .... remember how little of Thedas we've actually seen, Ferelden is only one part! We're going to see Amaranthine next in Awakenings. Personally, I'm hungering to see Antiva, Orlais, and whatever other lands they can think of. 

The great advantage of a world NOT based on licensing existing IP (whether WotC's or others) is you're much more free to expand ... I can see this gameworld is going to grow. And I'm looking forward to it, esp. given that WE are going to help in the process through the Toolset. 

[Nogaurd]

GeorgeZip wrote...

While this game is awesome and imrproves the gameplay by leaps and bounds from BG, with a few exceptions it is missing some of the flavor. The npc approval system works well, better than the alignments, but it would be nice if they initiated more conversations with you. Lots of little short talks versus long player initiated interrogations.

BG2 was better with all the unexpected stuff that happens. Like:
- walking into a tavern, opening a secret door and facing a demi-lich.
- walking past a door in the docks and being transported into the Twisted Rune.
- being captured by fish people from your ship just when you think you've escaped a prison
- a spaceship that crash landed in the slums
- entering a fireplace portal and going to a planer prison

Alot of that wouldn't fit this game, but there's not too much that makes you go wow, didn't expect that. The ice cathedral was about the only thing that seemed an amazing unexpected setting.

Or my favorite. Doing the Mage questline and finding Solomic Knights from the world of Krynn! Was it the mage quest? I can not remember. But I loved that bit. Especially since I am a fan of Dragonlance.

[Haexpane]

CybAnt1 wrote...

The people playing the game and looking at them care.  Just a shot in the dark?

 

1) do you think the ACTUAL AREAS in DA:O look better than the ACTUAL AREAS in BG2? I do. Something about not having ceilings or walls and everything being slanted floor breaks immersion for me, as does the faux effort to put in verticality. Just saying. 
and then my followup is

2) can you not agree with me it might be more important, in terms of game enjoyment, to have better looking ACTUAL AREAS (which you're looking at most of the time) than better looking MAPS (which you're only peeking at occasionally)? 

I will answer with my opinion in reverse.

yes, the area you are playing the toons is, it is most important that area looks good.

No, I do not agree that DAO areas look better than BG2.  Some do, some dont.  I find every Dorf area in DAO to be ugly, and I also find the level layout and pathing to be highly annoying in Dorf town and the underground.  I know I am not alone on hating that zone.

So we agree BG2 maps are better,  but I also disagree about not really looking at the maps much.  I was constantly checking the maps in DAO, especially the dorf town and underground.

So with that said, my opinion is really the same.  The BG2 maps are better, the DAO graphics for the zones are SOMetimes better, sometimes not.  And I dont mean technical specs, I mean how it looks, art design, and all

Drow town in BG2 IMO was just a great looking zone.  Dorf town, DAO I could not wait for it to end.

[Haexpane]

CybAnt1 wrote...
 

Better yet, one other critical thing, Bioware gave the community the TOOLSET so that making mods for DA is soooo much easier than doing it for BG2. That means over time the COMMUNITY is going to make more monsters, more items, more spells, maybe more classes & specializations, maybe even more community-made expansions or parallel campaigns ala NWN2 ...

Unfortunately I own the Ps3 version so no mods for me.  I own a PC and 360 too I just prefer to game on my PS3..

But yes I agree, DAO is the *start* and part of what I "hope to accomplish" as many users put it (not you) is that BW will hear and understand that BG2 fans are not some nerdy dust gathering corpses.  Some are people like me, my first BW game was KOTOR.   I didnt play BG2 til 2009, and *still* it dropped my jaw.

I spent a while finding the BG2 widescreen monitor patch, so I am indeed a *graphics ***** to some extent (more of a widescreen ****). I don't pirate, I bought BG2 NEW in the compilation off amazon.

I bought KOTOR new, Jade Empire new, ME1 new, ME2 new... I am a gamer who buys games, spends money, and enjoys RPGs is all.  I have a girlfriend, a job, I dont tabletop game, I am not a hardcore AD&D guy, I don't cosplay, I don't think Bioware "robbed" anyone or "cheated" anyone.  I LOVE DAO.

I just love BG2 a lot more and think it's a better game top to bottom and *hope* that what is promised will come to pass. That DAO will only get bigger and better

I'm the crazy kind of person who would pay $20 for a PSN version of BG2 tonight if it went up there.

I'd pay for PSN KOTOR and Jade Empire even tho I already own the XBOx versions...

How many times do you  read someone posting about their 2nd playthrough of DAO and already spent?  People have played BG2 10+ times and still find new things etc..

Anyway, as a pessimist, I HOPE to be wrong, I LIKE being wrong because it means that if I am wrong about DAO< it will indeed someday reach BG2 levels of ubertasticness

[attackfighter]

Haexpane wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

The people playing the game and looking at them care.  Just a shot in the dark?

 

1) do you think the ACTUAL AREAS in DA:O look better than the ACTUAL AREAS in BG2? I do. Something about not having ceilings or walls and everything being slanted floor breaks immersion for me, as does the faux effort to put in verticality. Just saying. 
and then my followup is

2) can you not agree with me it might be more important, in terms of game enjoyment, to have better looking ACTUAL AREAS (which you're looking at most of the time) than better looking MAPS (which you're only peeking at occasionally)? 

I will answer with my opinion in reverse.

yes, the area you are playing the toons is, it is most important that area looks good.

No, I do not agree that DAO areas look better than BG2.  Some do, some dont.  I find every Dorf area in DAO to be ugly, and I also find the level layout and pathing to be highly annoying in Dorf town and the underground.  I know I am not alone on hating that zone.

So we agree BG2 maps are better,  but I also disagree about not really looking at the maps much.  I was constantly checking the maps in DAO, especially the dorf town and underground.

So with that said, my opinion is really the same.  The BG2 maps are better, the DAO graphics for the zones are SOMetimes better, sometimes not.  And I dont mean technical specs, I mean how it looks, art design, and all

Drow town in BG2 IMO was just a great looking zone.  Dorf town, DAO I could not wait for it to end.

IMO the insides of fancy taverns, castles and the Circle Tower looked really good, with the piles of books, suits of armour and general tone making them enjoyable. What was not good were the outside environments with the thousands of identical wagons, dull landscapes and genericness. What was even worse were the dungeons... endless corridors of dirst and stone...

BG 1/2 both had colourful landscapes, with interesting architecture in the cities and awesome little features like fountains scattered everywhere. It's far superior to DA:O on every level except a technical one... and even then, if it's resolution were higher it'd win there too.

[Malu Cap]

I think this all boils down to a matter of preference, preference being a very subjective matter. Thus it is very difficult to convince those who are opposed to one's preference to see their point of view. No matter how many detailed point by point arguments one makes, it all boils down to what one person likes. Some people might like more detailed side quests, some people might like a more massive world to explore, others may like impressive graphics. Me personally, I've played BG, NWN & DAO and among the three my favorite is DAO. I have no specific are arguments about design, gameplay or whatnot. I just like it over the other two.



My two cents

[Derengard]

There's also this thing that in BG2 everything felt more original. Like someone pointed out, coming behind an age old secret involving a demi-lich. In Dragon Age, when you meet a Revenant it's like "Oh hello, how have you been doing? Remember you from BG2! Nice outfit! Witchking? Coool..." and so on, you know.

Modifié par Derengard, 19 février 2010 - 01:49 .

[booke63]

Haexpane wrote...

booke63 wrote...

 

As to gameplay--the fighting part of gameplay anyway--my primary point of comparison is: in BG you have to manage your resources within a fight AND outside of fights. In DAO you manage your resources within the fight almost exclusively. In BG, after a fight, you spend quite a bit time collecting and recharging resources: healing, sleeping, buying and selling even.

In DAO you are more often immediately ready to go and can go go go. One other difference is I feel more confident in fights in DAO. In BG it just seemed that you could more often get wiped out. Whether I really did get wiped out more often once I got BG down, I don't know, but like with the NPCs in DAO, I usually feel more comfortable entering a fight in DAO compared to BG.

 

Thanks

Excellent point, and hits the mark.  DAO is "safer" and "easier" so that is indeed a personal pref.  I vastly prefered BG2 style of, oh snap I "rested" in a bad spot and got rushed, but survived barely even tho I had no spells no summons and half my party died.

In DAO when my party died fighting a dragon my thought was "good, now I can just solo this thing and be done with it"

I guess for me the primary point of comparison in the 2 games is that the stakes seemed higher in BG compared to DAO.  You could say it's like walking a balance beam 6 inches of the ground verses the same balance beam 100 feet off the ground.  Relationships seemed trickier, battles seemed to have a finer line between win and lose, and the fate of your character seemed more consequential.  This made BG gameplay kind of jagged like a cerrated knife.  DAO by contrast has a smooth edge, a liquid flow which I quite like.   There is less tedium in DAO.  Every game has that, but DAO has smoothed over some of that which bodes well for multiple plays.

But my jury is still out on that.  Tedium and repetition are obviously closely related, and my play time in DAO hasn't come close to BG.  Also I keep in mind that DAO is not yet finished, and there is plenty of groundwork in place in Origins from which the bar could be raised and hopefully raised some more.  Maybe if Bioware can raise the stakes with further content and if that smooth feel really does limit some of the inevitable tedium of video gameplay, why, we'll really have something--at least for me.

I have high hopes for the Architect

[Rictras Shard]

Haexpane wrote...
The VAST MAJORITY of the gaming critics and public place BG2 as one of the best RPGs of all time, that *is* unarguable.

If you want it to be unarguable, you might want to post links to some of the critics remarking it is one of the best. I have several dozen gaming magazines from over the years on my shelf. The only mention I see of BG2 is in some of the articles about Dragon Age, and in none of those is it described as the end-all be-all. It is usually only mentioned in passing as the writer heaps praise upon DA.

Haexpane wrote...

Again I REALLY REALLY like DAO.  I own it, I played it, I beat it.  But BG2 is better, whether I play it today or 5 years ago wont change the game.

To you it is better. To others, such as myself, DA is superior.

[mrbarnard]

Rictras Shard wrote...
 
If you want it to be unarguable, you might want to post links to some of the critics remarking it is one of the best. I have several dozen gaming magazines from over the years on my shelf. **snip**

From reading the Wikipedia article:

Baldur's Gate II was inducted into Gamespot's "Greatest Games of All Time" list,  and it also won their Readers' Choice Game of the Year award for 2000.[21]

IGN also placed it at #25 on their 2005 "Top 100 Games of All Time" list.[25]

In 2009, Game Informer put Baldur's Gate II in 88th place on their list of "The Top 200 Games of All Time", calling it "The Best Dungeons & Dragons game ever made".[26]

You can check it for sources.

I really, really like DA:O. But I doubt it will make any "greatest games of all time" lists 10 years from now.

[maxernst]

@Vicious



See, this is where it comes down to personal preference. Personally, I prefer the fact that the PC in DA:O is an ordinary person, rather than one that is innately special. It's much easier to identify with the character and you have a genuine choice of character, with different origin paths. The PC in DA:O is special to me because he's my avatar, whereas the BG PC being special is a plot device that has nothing to do with me. And as voyages of self-discovery go, I found Planescape: Torment much more compelling than the BG cycle.



I'm not sure I would say that DA:O is better than BG2 overall, but I prefer its story and especially its characters. I also prefer the setting, which is much more convincing than the Forgotten Realms which is too drenched in the D&D alignment system. Where BG2 (not so much BG1) is much better is in the variety of quests and opponents...it's also much larger. On the other

[CybAnt1]

I think threads like this are interesting, because I don't mind discussion of the objective differences between the games. It's something worth talking about.



That said, I agree, you can not affect someone's subjective perceptions of what those objective differences are, or force them to think that what you think matters more, matters more.



Lurking behind some of these threads, I think, is a nostalgia for isometric. Hand made doodads without a toolset. Gives things a sense of "craft". And I understand. But 3D is the way we have to move forward.



And while Toolset usage to make games like these makes objects look generic and repetitive, it also opens things up more for players to make stuff.



There's always tradeoffs.

[Shadowwot]

In my humble and always right opinion DAO was the better game. I could list alot of reasons, but one of the most unfullfilling aspect of BG2 (and many established worlds) to me was wondering "Why is my character the one who is trying to save the world?". It has always seemed odd to me that Elminster would stop by to see how my character was doing - he could have stopped Sarevok or Jon Irenicus in the time it took him to hang out and have a chat with my character.



In DAO I never had to wonder about why my character was on their path - there are no all powerful Mages or Invinvible Warrior's around to save the world instead.



This sort of storytelling has bugged me for a long time - I remember reading "Rise of a Demon King" by Raymond E. Feist - where this giant Demon fights with Thomas the "Invincible Warrior" character. Thomas kills the Demon in like 5 seconds - yet the book focused on all of these other characters who ultimately didn't do anything.



If you are going to have "all powerful" established characters in a game setting and a story line with world changing consequences - you need to use these characters as story elements, not cameo's or pretend they don't exist because they would be involved in saving the world not just popping in to say "Hello".



The game "Pools of Darkness" I thought handled this well. You were constantly meeting up with Elminster and he played a large role in the storyline and outcome of the game.

[MingWolf]

I could list alot of reasons, but one of the most unfullfilling aspect of BG2 (and many established worlds) to me was wondering "Why is my character the one who is trying to save the world?"

Normally, I would be not too impressed by a story driven by a single all-powerful protagonist who saves the world by his or herself, but in BG, personally I think it was handled quite well. Keeping in mind that your character was kind of pitched into it from the beginning to the end, because of a divine heritage, if I was Elminster, I'm not sure I would dabble in the PC's affairs either.

[RangerSG]

Rictras Shard wrote...

Haexpane wrote...
The VAST MAJORITY of the gaming critics and public place BG2 as one of the best RPGs of all time, that *is* unarguable.

If you want it to be unarguable, you might want to post links to some of the critics remarking it is one of the best. I have several dozen gaming magazines from over the years on my shelf. The only mention I see of BG2 is in some of the articles about Dragon Age, and in none of those is it described as the end-all be-all. It is usually only mentioned in passing as the writer heaps praise upon DA.

Haexpane wrote...

Again I REALLY REALLY like DAO.  I own it, I played it, I beat it.  But BG2 is better, whether I play it today or 5 years ago wont change the game.

To you it is better. To others, such as myself, DA is superior.

While I agree BG2 belongs in the pantheon of all-time great games, I will add at this point that PC Gamer gave the game a very lack-luster review at the time. And as far as I have seen, they have never put it in their lists of "must have" games. CGW did give it a stirling review, and typically has included it in those lists since. But it's hardly a "universal" thing when the largest read gaming publication of the day didn't give it an editor's choice. They were even worse on the original BG, btw.

So again, this is game-fan nostalgia talking. The fact is the game, while extremely popular, was not regarded as the end-all, be-all at the time. It wasn't for years that people figured out it was really the last game of its kind.

[maxernst]

[quote]RangerSG wrote...

[quote]Haexpane wrote...
The VAST MAJORITY of the gaming critics and public place BG2 as one of the best RPGs of all time, that *is* unarguable.[/quote]

If you want it to be unarguable, you might want to post links to some of the critics remarking it is one of the best. I have several dozen gaming magazines from over the years on my shelf. The only mention I see of BG2 is in some of the articles about Dragon Age, and in none of those is it described as the end-all be-all. It is usually only mentioned in passing as the writer heaps praise upon DA.

[quote]Haexpane wrote...

Again I REALLY REALLY like DAO.  I own it, I played it, I beat it.  But BG2 is better, whether I play it today or 5 years ago wont change the game.
[/quote]

To you it is better. To others, such as myself, DA is superior.
[/quote]

While I agree BG2 belongs in the pantheon of all-time great games, I will add at this point that PC Gamer gave the game a very lack-luster review at the time. And as far as I have seen, they have never put it in their lists of "must have" games. CGW did give it a stirling review, and typically has included it in those lists since. But it's hardly a "universal" thing when the largest read gaming publication of the day didn't give it an editor's choice. They were even worse on the original BG, btw.

So again, this is game-fan nostalgia talking. The fact is the game, while extremely popular, was not regarded as the end-all, be-all at the time. It wasn't for years that people figured out it was really the last game of its kind.
[/quote]

Well...it was very very well received at the time.  The first game was hugely popular and the second was much better in pretty much all areas in my opinion.  www.gamerankings.com gives its average rating by the major sites as 94.03%, which is among the highest of any PC game ever.  Dragon Age: Origins is at 90.49%, which is still excellent, but in best of the year territory, not best ever.  Oddly eneough, Mass Effect 2 has a higher rating than either, #8 among all PC games in history at this point...not many reviews yet, though.

It's questionable whether it was the last game of its kind--it depends how narrowly you define the game type.  Arcanum was later.  That's not to say that I totally disagree with you.  Nostalgia is certainly a factor, as well as novelty.  I think BG2 was the first game in which you could romance your companions, so people recall those romances as being more impressive than they actually were, just as they recall the rather thin characters in BG1 as being better than they were, because the style of party creation was original at the time.

Modifié par maxernst, 19 février 2010 - 08:49 .

[plastic golem]

Whether a game is good or not is really a matter of personal preference. Baldur's Gate. The game looks better (it *should* look better at more than four times the resolution that BG could manage). 3D engines open up a lot of possibilities. An individual 2D artist-rendered scene will beat a 3D computer-generated one any day, but 3D gives developers the resources to create views and effects that are impractical otherwise. Some of the DA:O vistas are quite breathtaking, IMHO. (The bridge at Ostagar overlooking the wilds, for example.) The voice acting in both games was very good, but DA:O is fully voiced, and this is the first fully-voiced game I've seen that I think was done well.

Comparing sound and graphics of games separated by ten years is pointless, though one can critique the artistic sensibilities. (I, for one, hate the whole dungeon punk theme, with ridiculously oversized weapons and armour, but that is just an opinion.) Picking nits like the way maps look is silly; neither game is about the maps. I will say that DA:O could have tried to do away with the maps and tried to do something innovative in having fewer locations representing small areas of a larger place, each of which had to be navigated without the aid of an overhead view, and in the process giving the illusion of a larger, more crowded world. Instead, it just re-hashed Athkatla or Baldur's Gate's technique. That technique was good, but maybe there was a missed opportunity to innovate.

That last observation pretty much sums up my idea of DA:O: it is a very safe game. It doesn't really try anything daring and new. I don't see very many real innovations over BG, while at the same time, I see much of the complexity and challenge of BG dumbed down. For example, most of the puzzles in DA:O are really just simple recipes that involve reading the appropriate codex entry and locating the appropriate "quest item here!" symbols on the mini-map. This is a step back from BG2 and a far cry from Ultima V, where you had to actually reason out where to search or what keyword to mention in conversation based upon partial and ambiguous clues. Likewise, level scaling generally means that few places are off limits to even a starting character: there is little sense that you have to avoid a certain palce or enemy until you are stronger, unless you want to challenge your skill.

If DA:O isn't a CRPG, but rather an RTS like StarCraft, but with a more fleshed out story, then maybe it's a very good game (though I think that StarCraft's combats were more varied and required mastry of a greater variety of tactics). If it's a CRPG, then it's perfectly fair to compare it to BG and, since it's coming 10 years after BG by the same people who made BG but with a presumably much bigger budget and vastly better technology, we should expect that, at minimum, the game to be head and shoulders above BG. The fact that a lot of people think that BG is, even today, still a superior (or even only slightly inferior) game seems pretty telling to me.

Personally, I think the beginning of DA:O (up to the end of Ostagar) is, in spite of several weaknesses, a really great game. After that, I think it falls pretty flat, both as an RTS and especially as a CRPG. Parts of it are still a lot of fun, but there seems to be a fair bit of monotony and grinding in between the fun bits.

[Sidney]

BG2 was a great game for the time. I still prefer the PoV it offers I think the pre-Spellhold part of the game is fantastic. I appreciated the voiced NPC's.



On the downside:

The NPC's, well the good ones, made me want to kill them. Aerie and Anomen are awfully annoying.

BG2's inventory system was a tragedy.

The AD&D ruleset still stinks

The game after spellhold felt like one long dungeon on rails and highlighted the weakest part of the game (combat) over the story telling and interesting quests in the first half of the game.

The world of Baldur's Gate doesn't feel real, never has. It feels like some cobbled together fake world. There's no real sense of a social structure, no sense of politics no real religions (they name gods and they are good, bad or evil but nothing else) and all the little races exist in some Roddenberry-esque utopia of harmony.



DAO fixes most of the BG2 problems.

I didn't hate any of the NPC's, even the annoying Allistair was interesting.

Inventory is still a problem but they cleaned it up and elimination of normal missiles goes is a step in the right direction.

The new ruleset is a much better version than the AD&D rules.

The end game is a lot like the Spellhold and beyond game but it is compressed so more of the game is open and even after you start the "final mission" you don't get 100% locked in.

The world is light years richer and more real. I understand a lot more about Ferelden and it makes a lot more sense than anything about Amn ever did.

[Haexpane]

mrbarnard wrote...

Rictras Shard wrote...
 
If you want it to be unarguable, you might want to post links to some of the critics remarking it is one of the best. I have several dozen gaming magazines from over the years on my shelf. **snip**

From reading the Wikipedia article:

Baldur's Gate II was inducted into Gamespot's "Greatest Games of All Time" list,  and it also won their Readers' Choice Game of the Year award for 2000.[21]

IGN also placed it at #25 on their 2005 "Top 100 Games of All Time" list.[25]

In 2009, Game Informer put Baldur's Gate II in 88th place on their list of "The Top 200 Games of All Time", calling it "The Best Dungeons & Dragons game ever made".[26]

You can check it for sources.

I really, really like DA:O. But I doubt it will make any "greatest games of all time" lists 10 years from now.

Exact-A-mundo. I stand by my "unarguable" statement.   As much of a Celtics fan as I am, I would not argue that the 2008 Celtics were better than the Bird/Mchale/Chief 80s champ teams.  It's simply unarguable.

[Haexpane]

CybAnt1 wrote...

 

Lurking behind some of these threads, I think, is a nostalgia for isometric. Hand made doodads without a toolset. Gives things a sense of "craft".  

But 3D is the way we have to move forward.

 

There's always tradeoffs.

This is where I disagree.   I first played BG2 in 2009, nostalgia has no impact there for me.  

I also disagree that 3D is the way forward.  There have been some recent 2D 2.5d type games that were stellar.  I still enjoy Blood Omen Legacy of Kain in 2D more than any Vampire 3D game since.  I still enjoy castlevania SOTN more than any 3D action game like God of War.

Again not nostalgia, 2007 was the first time I played SOTN... I'm comparing it up against recent games

I *do* agree that there are of course always trade offs.

I wonder how many people would be open to a HD widescreen 2D new BG game?  I'd buy it tomorrow

[Haexpane]

RangerSG wrote...

 
So again, this is game-fan nostalgia talking. 

Nope, IGN only put it on the HOF recently, and I only played it in 2009, nostalgia is a non issue

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
 


95



9.3

User Score:



Universal acclaim

Based on 30 critic reviews

How did we calculate this?

Based on 157 votes

Read user comments

Rate this game >

Obviously metacritic doesn't "prove" a game is better than another, but it does prove that it is universally accepted as better.

DAO again, great score on metacritic, but curious disparity between critic reviews and user reviews.
BG2 critic/user reviews are closer..

Modifié par Haexpane, 20 février 2010 - 12:26 .