RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 Last »

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   Dragon Age: Origins (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47)
-   -   Dragon Age as a Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11757)

Thaurin November 3rd, 2010 22:49

Dragon Age as a Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate
 
The subject suggests a long essay, and perhaps it warrants this, but I'm taking time that I was using to play Dragon Ago to write this. :) Maybe some other time.

I remembered that there were people that were angry about the whole "Dragon Age being a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" claim. I've been playing it for about 30 hours now, I guess, with three different characters. I don't understand the anger. I think Dragon Age is probably better than Baldur's Gate! You don't have world freedom, but there is plenty to discover, decisions to make, intricate inter-party relationships, tons of items, a good story and real role-playing opportunities! So what's the problem? Tactical gameplay? I think there's enough in Dragon Age, and maybe too much in Baldur's Gate. In any case, I think Dragon Age is a pretty damn good spiritual successor.

And I'm playing this on Xbox 360, even.

txa1265 November 4th, 2010 02:40

I think the general consensus was that while Dragon Age was a good game, aside from graphics and other tech-centric stuff … everything Dragon Age does, Baldur's Gate 1&2 did better. Particularly all of the RPG mechanics.

DA is still head and shoulders better than almost any other RPG released in recent years, IMO.

JemyM November 4th, 2010 07:21

If BG and DA should be compared I would go light on comparing the character system because a such comparison suggests that if a CRPG do not license an expensive pnp system they can't compete.

Beyond games that uses a licensed pnp system I do not think there are any cRPG's that manages to get near the pnp classics, and BG and NWN are the only titles that tried to implement the entire system. NWN is pushed as not only a game, but a computer roleplaying system and as a such it's probably the most advanced CRPG out there. KOTOR naturally had a very strong system but that was made out of the Star Wars d20 system. At that point they already had the core d20 thanks to NWN. Perhaps Fallout can be mentioned but it's only inspired by GURPS. Vampire: Bloodlines do not really use the WoD system as far as I concern.

Dragon Age is one of the heaviest systems I have seen when it comes to a CRPG exclusive.

JDR13 November 4th, 2010 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 1061032513)
while Dragon Age was a good game, aside from graphics and other tech-centric stuff … everything Dragon Age does, Baldur's Gate 1&2 did better.


This :)

….

skavenhorde November 4th, 2010 10:08

Even the acting? Come on, you have to give credit where credit is due. The voice acting was topnotch.

Agreed with everything else except for the acting and of course the cut-scenes.

JDR13 November 4th, 2010 11:27

Well it's hard to compare things that didn't really exist in games back then, or were limited due to technology. Of course most things related to presentation, ie voice acting and cutscenes, are going to be better in a game from 2009, vs 1998-2001.

The one thing I'll give DA credit for is party interaction, it was definitely superior in that aspect.

Maylander November 4th, 2010 11:38

DA is, without a doubt, one of the best RPGs I've played in recent years. BG2, however, is my all time favorite.

skavenhorde November 4th, 2010 11:44

True and the parts that we're voiced were pretty good. Loved David Warner as Jon Irenicus, Quayle and of course Minsc. Minsc is always controversial, but I loved that character. Maybe had something to do with his obsession with rodents ;)

Although Edwin, Dynaheir and even Imoen were annoying. Though I wasn't annoyed as most people with Imoen. Don't know whether it was the voice actor or the lines, but they we're definitely on my least favorite list. I cringed every time they had something to say :)

Alrik Fassbauer November 4th, 2010 12:07

I must say … I found no resemblence to Baldur's Gate at all. Everything in DA ist so much … different.

The only "succession" I see is the rules system. Which looks to me like a direct rip-off of (A)D&D.

To me, both are very different game - with only the mechanics being similar (to me, as someone who clearly isn't an insider to (A)D&D ).

Hence, I just don't see this claim fitting.

Thaurin November 4th, 2010 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDR13 (Post 1061032567)
The one thing I'll give DA credit for is party interaction, it was definitely superior in that aspect.

Yes, this. I was searching for a non-presentation thing that DA:O does better. The banter between party members is really well-done. The dog (that I lovingly named Barf) is awesome, too.

Anyway, I find myself wandering around, exploring, and running into cool stuff and enjoying every minute of it, just like Baldur's Gate. You constantly run into fun stuff, like the mad apostate in the Bracillian forest. The actual time spent with combat is very small compared to the overall playtime. And the choices you make in dialogue actually do mean something. It's like a puzzle you can solve every time.

That's better than in Baldur's Gate, too.

Alrik Fassbauer November 4th, 2010 12:24

Yes, okay, the "exploration factor" is there, too.
But that's imho no thing special to Baldur's Gate.

I named the dog "Huond", by the way. ;)

JDR13 November 4th, 2010 12:29

I didn't think exploration was a strong point in DA. I found most of the maps to be quite limited, and linear compared to BG.

Sadly, that's how all of Bioware's games have been since KotOR, imo.

Thaurin November 4th, 2010 13:22

In my opinion, non-linear does not necessarily equal exploration. You don't need a sandbox to explore. :) Of course, DA:O is mostly hubs you travel through with a few zones, but those do give me the feeling of wonder you get when running into something unexpected such as in BG.

Oh well, I guess I just have to gush about how much fun I'm having. ;) I lose attention quickly, so I need all the motivation I can to keep playing.

BillSeurer November 4th, 2010 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer (Post 1061032575)
The only "succession" I see is the rules system. Which looks to me like a direct rip-off of (A)D&D.

On the contrary. Being different from AD&D is one of DA's strong point. BG2, and to a lesser extent BG, had good stories and great characters. The game system wasn't so good.

And that's from someone who has been playing D&D since 1976.

Dwagginz November 4th, 2010 13:58

DA:O was "superior" in that the ruleset wasn't overly complex and it wasn't bogged down by 3.5/4e D&D. The lack of existing ruleset was also pretty useful in that it meant they had complete freedom in what they did, they weren't pandering to WotC's demands over how the series should be handled.

I'd easily take DA:O over BG but that's because I seriously struggle with the Infinity Engine games.

Alrik Fassbauer November 4th, 2010 15:37

Interesting. My limited knowledge of (A)D&D showed me that the systems were very similar.

Anyway, I think I remember Bioware bringing out a pen & paper rule-book, too ?

JemyM November 4th, 2010 15:49

I say the bioware "hub" model was established as early as BG2. BG1 was the only free roaming one.

Dwagginz November 4th, 2010 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer (Post 1061032617)
Anyway, I think I remember Bioware bringing out a pen & paper rule-book, too ?

Yes and no. They licensed the ruleset (or a version thereof) to, I think, a company called Green Ronin (Could have got the name wrong) and they produce the base game and its expansions.

There've not been many releases, but it does exist and it is out as we speak. I held it in my hands a few months back :)

blatantninja November 4th, 2010 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by skavenhorde (Post 1061032570)
True and the parts that we're voiced were pretty good. Loved David Warner as Jon Irenicus, Quayle and of course Minsc. Minsc is always controversial, but I loved that character. Maybe had something to do with his obsession with rodents ;)

Although Edwin, Dynaheir and even Imoen were annoying. Though I wasn't annoyed as most people with Imoen. Don't know whether it was the voice actor or the lines, but they we're definitely on my least favorite list. I cringed every time they had something to say :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer (Post 1061032582)
Yes, okay, the "exploration factor" is there, too.
But that's imho no thing special to Baldur's Gate.

I seem to be one of the few people that absolutely loved the exploration in BG. I know they got panned for the open world in some reviews, but I loved that I could just go pretty much anywhere from the beginning. Reminded me of the old Ultimas. That's probably the only thing I didn't like about BG2 is that they switched to that system where areas only open up after certain things occur.


I'll admit it, I had a crush on Imoen. Hell, I replaced her BG2 portrait with the BG1 portrait because I prefered the cute excited Imoen over the dark one! I was mildly disturbed though to find out she was my character's half-sister. Of course, if it didn't bother Luke Skywalker, why should it bother me?

:greengrin:

Thaurin November 4th, 2010 19:06

I'm with the BG1 and open world approach guys. Running around in the wilderness in BG1 was awesome and the stuff and quests you'd run into kept me going for many hours at a time. BG2 was slightly disappointing in that regard (and the starting dungeon was pretty boring and restrictive!).


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:59.
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 Last »

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch