New BGII?

Artem1620 · Post by **Artem1620** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:10 pm

Is this game pretty much the new Baldur's Gate II? or is it completely different? I do hope it is though....... If not then what is/will be? And do not say Neverwinter Nights is, coz it will never be compared to a game way out of its league. (NWN < BG2).

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:07 pm

DA:O is a good game, in fact I think it is one of the better rpgs that I've played in recent years. Whether or not it is the new BG2, I'm not sure. They are different games set in different worlds with different sets of rules, spells, abilities etc. The companions are interesting, with banter between them, but their quests are not quite as interesting or well thought out as those in BG2. As for the storyline, I quite like it and would say it holds my attention as easily as BG2. Lastly, the gameplay is fun ... the quests are interesting in general and the combat can be challenging at times unless you go for a powerplay build or play style. It certainly seems to have a lot more options for roleplaying a character than recent rpgs.

holeraw · Post by **holeraw** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

I 'd say that was a (pretty gutsy) marketing trick that worked because Dragon Age is a good game and because there are more similarities between them than differences.

Technically though I think that DA is as much of a spiritual successor to BG2 as NWN, regardless of quality, if only for the setting and rule set. (Maybe NWN2 comes closer, since it also allowed control of a party)

Solusek · Post by **Solusek** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:46 pm

In my opinion it's a very good start at the very least. Let's see what the sequels will bring.

mewp · Post by **mewp** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:55 pm

I hope they are soon. My computer is too new for some of the old games and I am running out of rpgs.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:55 am

I can only agree with mr_sir.
DA:O is a great game on its own - I wouldn't classify it as BG(2) because it doesn't have the same depth in my opinion - but it is easily the best cRPG I've played in many many years.
In fact, I think it is properly one of the best under the Baldur's Gate/Fallout 1+2 bar for me personally.

The NPC companions are well fleshed out unlike so many others who've tried it, and it is always fun to see what they start talking about next.
The game difficulty combat wise is refreshingly difficult without just being frustrating and the tactics system is a good system. I just wish I had an action queue so I could queue 2 or 3 actions.
The actual game difficulty outside combat is a little disappointing with mostly easy puzzles/quests. Only once have I been a little stomped on how to move forward but I just kept killing things so eventually I moved on.
The game areas are mostly well designed, and some of the dungeons really promote the dungeon crawl feeling. Some areas are disappointing small - others are impressive large.
But there are many pros and some cons.

I can only recommend DA:O if into cRPGs.

EvilEdwin · Post by **EvilEdwin** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:27 pm

I think DA:O is technically one of Bioware's best rpg's. Its story isn't quite as good as BG's or KotOR, but it's engaging and makes you feel involved. The NPC's seem more "real" than in previous RPG's though.

I say it's technically one of the best because it's easy to see the lessons that Bioware have learnt from a decade of making RPG's. They've taken all of the best things from previous RPG's and poured it into DA:O.

It's also (I think) their first RPG to use their own game system. The others have been based on one edition or another of Dungeons and Dragons. And it works really well. Extremely well in fact.

Oh, Mass Effect used their own game system, but it really isn't all that compared with DA:O's.

I think it's a little unfair to have it compared with BG (1 and 2). It stands on its own merits and is a joy to play. It's not BG, it's DA. Similar but different as well.

It's like asking for a duck for Christmas and getting a goose. They're different, but still go quack!*

(*Okay Geese go honk but let's pretend they quack for the metaphor!!)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:48 pm

I think it's a little unfair to have it compared with BG (1 and 2).

Why? Same gaming genre. I'm just curious what you find unfair about what seems like a natural comparison.

EvilEdwin · Post by **EvilEdwin** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:37 pm

fable wrote:Why? Same gaming genre. I'm just curious what you find unfair about what seems like a natural comparison.

I didn't word that as well as I intended to.

When Bioware referred to DA as the spiritual successor to BG I think it created all sorts of expectations that it would more of the same or hopefully better. It's similar, but also very different. It should stand on its own merits. Reading comments on various forum some people expected it to be just like BG and were disappointed when it wasn't BG.

I think when you set something up like that, or put it on a pedestal, it naturally leads to disappointments. Take Bioware's mmo The Old Republic. Of course it will be compared with Star Wars Galaxies and some people will slate it because it's not SWG, rather than take it as a new game with all the merits and flaws it brings.

I'm not sure this is making all that much sense. But what I think I'm getting at is that it's unfair to compare two games when one is already in the shadow of an, arguably, greater game. I didn't mean it was unfair to compare within a genre, that would be silly

Does that make sense? There's a point in there somewhere. If not I'll try to clarify myself further.

EvilEdwin · Post by **EvilEdwin** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:43 pm

fable wrote:Why? Same gaming genre. I'm just curious what you find unfair about what seems like a natural comparison.

Having put a pizza in the oven I've realised what I meant. Whoever said fish was brain food!

Rather than say it's unfair to compare it with BG, I think a better choice of words would be to say it's unfair to associate it with BG. For the reasons I mentioned above.

Does that make more sense?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:35 pm

I'm afraid I still don't understand what's bad about creating comparisons (or even associations) between games that lie within the same genre. True, it may lead to disappointments--or to praise; but what's wrong with that? Unless you're suggesting that one can develop unnaturally high or low expectations based on pre-associations; and the remedy for that lies, not in an avoidance of comparisons, but a proper atmosphere of complete skepticism to the game industry's PR.

Sir Redweed · Post by **Sir Redweed** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:05 pm

D&D format

I've always enjoyed playing any RPG that stayed along the D&D format. The BG series was great. Is DA origins similar to the turn based format in battle that I would expect from BG?

Its been quite a while since I've visited. Fable good to see you are still around.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:09 pm

Sir Redweed wrote:I've always enjoyed playing any RPG that stayed along the D&D format. The BG series was great. Is DA origins similar to the turn based format in battle that I would expect from BG?

Its been quite a while since I've visited. Fable good to see you are still around.

The combat isn't as turn based similar as D&D although it is clear that a turn based engine is underneath. You can pause the game and provide commands but the game is build heavily upon "tactics" which are a sequence of commands you can predefine for the characters to carry out so they can handle themselves much more then the BG ones.

If you like cRPGs - DA:O is definitely worth the money in my book - regardless of how one felt for Baldur's Gate series.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:47 pm

I generally play the game in a similar fashion as I did BG. The scripts are available, but I never use them. I'm constantly pausing combat and micromanaging every party member in basically the same way I did with SoA. This may be easier to do with the PC version since I don;t think the other versions have a top down view. Honestly, with a top down combat view and the way I work combat, there is a lot of similarity between the two games on that front.

Additional thoughts:

Party system is nicely implemented. I really like most of the characters and the exchanges between characters while you travel and so on is very well done. Everything is voiced, and the voice acting for the most part has been extremely well done. There are individual personalities that make the characters banters not seem generic in the comments they make. Also, several exchanges build upon one another. For example, two party members may have several exhanges that all form a logical flow from one original exchange. The result is a party dynamic that seems to build over time in some ways rather than just a series of unconnetcted banters. Also, party approval is implemented nicely in a lot of ways, although the gift giving side of things can be abused. As party members gain approval, they develop some nice little boosts that reflect their confidence in your leadership. Also, there are certain points where members may leave you under certain conditions.

The main plot is fairly linear, but then again so was BG. Like the BG series, you have a certain number of things and areas you will have to get past in order to progress through the main plot, but you can chose the order that you do those in.

I would say there is more of a grit factor to DA than there was in BG. I'm not saying the world is more dynamic or engaging, but it is a bit darker I suppose you could say. The world is well built, and I like the way they have implemented the original ruleset and all that.

About the only thing I can say is that this is the first game that really grabbed me by the collar and held on to me since the BG series. It's definately not MW or Oblivion, which I am happy about. It does feel like a definate decision was made to go bad and make a deep, traditional RPG and in that regard I think the game is a great success.

As has been said, the puzzle side of things is a little light on the difficulty for the most part, but I've never been a huge fan of puzzles anyway so it's no real issue for me. Some of the side quests are a little on the basic side as well. Combat is fairly difficult, especially at first when you are still working out the mechanics. The manual really isn't much help at all, and I wound up making choices during creation that probably put me in a bad starting position with my first character.

I definately say it's an outstanding game. In my opinion it's better than anything I've played in the past several years.

EvilEdwin · Post by **EvilEdwin** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:58 pm

Nicely summed up Bloodstalker.

I think maybe Bioware see DA:O as the way the would have made BG if they'd have been able to draw upon the vast experience of making RPG's they've had since.

As a side point, there is a team of people who are remaking the first BG using the NWN2 engine. However they're doing it as a persistent world, rather than as a straight remake.

ushsta · Post by **ushsta** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:45 am

I detested dragon age.

Having just finished it I realized how similar it was to another one of Bioware's games I couldn't stand -- nwn 1. Boring, derivative story. 0 association between myself and my character, or the npcs. Gameplay inferior to any of it's predecessors. The game borrows ideas from bg2, nwn series (a lot of story and control ideas from nwn2 but can't match that game in either of those areas), mmorpg-like skill system with some small ideas seemingly lifted straight out of warhammer online (now under Bioware's control), namely the codex as well as daoc (the dragons behave superficially similar to the ones in that game). I wouldn't say it is in any way a spiritual successor to bg2, it's a game inferior in every possible way, in my opinion. If you did not enjoy nwn 1, you will hate this game.

Considering how overwhelmingly positive the user reviews have been I thought the game was a sure bet for me. It boggles the mind just how far out of alignment my opinion is with the apparent majority of players.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:11 am

ushsta wrote:<snip>
If you did not enjoy nwn 1, you will hate this game.
<snip>

Well not really - there's very little connection between the two.
NwN1 was really basic, it was a huge dissapointment to many of us who followed the development phase and saw it hyped up but not delivered.
I didn't care much for NwN 1 after it was released, although I played it a few times - it became better with the expansion packs, but to be frank - NwN1 does not hold any candle to DA:O in any area except multiplayer possibility.

If somebody disliked NwN1 - but like cRPGs - I'd in fact wager most of those would enjoy and like DA:O.

holeraw · Post by **holeraw** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:57 am

Xandax wrote:Well not really - there's very little connection NwN1 does not hold any candle to DA:O in any area except multiplayer possibility.

I found that NWN had better feedback in battles. I don't like that they removed that message window they used. It's hard to keep track on what's going on in the game's battles without it: how often do my characters hit, which spell works best under a specific situation, etc. For all I know I might be going through entire fights with Alistair not doing any damage for example.
(... well unless such a feature exists and I haven't noticed

)

Anyway, As a BG fan I try ignore the whole 'spiritual successor' hype while playing. It's not that it's unfair for the game as much as it can potentially 'hurt' my enjoyment: it would cause me to look for things that BG did differently - and since in time a fan learns to love even the faults of his favorite game - I would end up being annoyed by things that otherwise I would simply ignore.

Of course taste is involved, but still one might like something bad or despise something good... an 'experienced' player should be able to understand when that happens though. For example I liked NWN1... a lot! yet I do understand all the negative criticism.

Ultimately I think that DA is a game solid enough that it's main 'fault' is that it was made by Bioware - if it was the first game of an unknown Polish studio or something, I'm sure it would be a lot easier for people to view any minor annoyances as what they are: minor annoyances. As it is they are amplified as
minor_annoyance * (expectations_from_Bioware + BG2_successor_hype) = mortal_sin

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:58 am

Xandax wrote:If somebody disliked NwN1 - but like cRPGs - I'd in fact wager most of those would enjoy and like DA:O.

Complete agreement. I really couldn't stand NWN1. It felt more like an outline to a game, a demonstration of its capabilities. DA:O is very different in most respects, well designed, and cleverly implemented.

EvilEdwin · Post by **EvilEdwin** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:02 am

fable wrote:Complete agreement. I really couldn't stand NWN1. It felt more like an outline to a game, a demonstration of its capabilities. DA:O is very different in most respects, well designed, and cleverly implemented.

I enjoyed the story in NWN but, as you say, the game system was lacking. That was fixed, for me, in NWN2 but I really had to force myself to complete it. The story really didn't grab me at all.

Loving DA:O though. Hopefully when they do a sequel they'll do it in-house rather they give it to Obsidian. Both NWN2 and KotOR2 weren't very good in my opinion.