58 réponses à ce sujet

[MelodicCure]

AlanC9 wrote...

How is BG2 different from DA:O in linearity? The only difference I can see is that you're free to skip some major quests altogether in BG2 but not in DA:O

The first BG game was far better in being open.  As you can travel around the map however you pleased.  Run into enemies you aren't supposed too.  They attempt this in DA:O by giving you 3 place to choose from but it doesn really compare as it is only 3 and are main quests.  BG2 wasn't as open but it was still less linear than dragon age.  BG1 was better than BG2 in my opinion.

[AlanC9]

Yep, BG1 was more open. That's why I specifically said BG2.



The OP and others have complained that Bio's gone downhill sine BG2. You can like BG2 better than DA:O for other reasons, but you can't like it better for being an open game because it just isn't. And yes, Valmy made this point before me in the thread.



Personally, I thought Bio went in the right direction with BG2, and I've never wanted BG1 back.

[AlanC9]

I thought this was interesting..

Korva wrote...
Finally, I felt let down by the party members. The influence system is a ridiculous, easily broken mess. Dog is far from the full-fledged party member they said he would be. And of all the companions, only Wynne (whom I adore) actually seems to care for the Warden, for what she thinks and feels. Everyone else is just me-me-me almost all the time. That is especially jarring if you're supposed to "romance" someone who never shows any real interest in your character.

The thing about influence is that it gets more broken the more experience of the game you have, since you know how to deploy the gifts optimally. My first playthrough there wasn't enough stuff left in the game to restore Alistair's opinion of my Warden after I made a "wrong" choice. That wouldn't happen now.

As for companions not being interested in the PC, I think Bio was trying to avoid having them grill the player; Wynne's an exception because that's more or less her role.Remember that you could have the PC repeating herself a lot if different companions want to talk about the same thing. I don't offhand know how I'd do this better, but I do understand where Korva's coming from here.

[0mar]

I prefer tight, controlled stories, but the way Bioware did Dragon Age was extremely old-school. Something like The Witcher is preferable, IMO.



Dragon Age puts the entire game in your face and basically says "This is the entire game. Have fun." You know exactly when and where the game will end, even though you don't know the details. The Witcher was much more open-ended despite being much more linear. It's paradoxical, but it also makes sense. Secondly, decisions had consequences in The Witcher, while in Dragon Age, most decisions were simply a couple of lines from a character or companion. Nothing you did truly had an impact on the story nor on how it unfolds. The best you get is a little different text-blurb at the end of the game.

[Jonnybear84]

To be perfectly honest as I was reading the Op's original post through the part where he was going on about BG 1+2 and I was sort of nodding my head in agreement with what he was saying, then he reached the part about fallout and oblivion and that's where I stopped agreeing...two games I really never connected with, they just didn't do anything for me.

The thing is I don't know what it is about the BG games, they aren't linear like DA:O is and yet they aren't open ended either like FO3 and Oblivion. The original BG games managed to get it just right, the parts that needed to be open ended in order to create the illusion of freedom were just so and the parts that had to be linear to drive it forward were expertly added into the mix, I don't quite know how exactly they were able to do that with the BG games but it continues to irritate the hell out of me how they just can't seem to replicate it in a modern RPG with all the modern bells and whistles on it, as good as DA:O is (certainly the best modern RPG to come out within the past 10 years or so....in my opinion) BG1+2 still reign supreme for me....keep trying bioware you will get there eventually.

Modifié par Jonnybear84, 12 mars 2010 - 12:05 .

[AlanC9]

Again, how is BG2 more open than DA:O?

[Moogliepie]

I feel the exact opposite. I paid good money for Oblivion and Fallout 3, and got bored with them rather quickly. I really enjoyed the open-ended style of the original turn-based Fallouts, but the Oblivion FPS style just didn't do it for me. Most of the time I felt like like I was just wandering aimlessly, and even though there is a huge area to explore, it was boring and tedious, and I didn't have a compelling reason to do anything. They were trying to be MMOs, in a single player experience. You're right that Bioware's games are more like a book, but one that offers new insight each time you reread it. They load their games with so much depth and lore, and DAO is probably the richest in terms of Lore. As far as replays, just like a re-reading a book, a don't go back and reread right away, I usually come back for a 2nd replay after several months, and it feels new again.

[Moogliepie]

MelodicCure wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

How is BG2 different from DA:O in linearity? The only difference I can see is that you're free to skip some major quests altogether in BG2 but not in DA:O

The first BG game was far better in being open.  As you can travel around the map however you pleased.  Run into enemies you aren't supposed too.  They attempt this in DA:O by giving you 3 place to choose from but it doesn really compare as it is only 3 and are main quests.  BG2 wasn't as open but it was still less linear than dragon age.  BG1 was better than BG2 in my opinion.

Well, I sort of agree, but think of the cost and effort involved in making levels in modern games, versus old games. Every bit of dialog in DAO is voice acted, whereas in BG it was all text, except the party member banter and some cut scenes. The downside to improved graphics and storage capacity is that it takes more people and more money to take full advantage of that, which is why modern RPGs tend to be shorter. The old Wizardry games took MONTHS to complete, but it only took a handful of people to actually design and program the game. Heck, I think some of the biggest games back when I was a kid where made entirely by one person. You just can't pull that off these days and make a marketable game.