View Single Post

Default 

November 29th, 2011, 00:09
Originally Posted by Nerevarine View Post
However, a lot of people never fairly consider that a newer game might be better in some aspects than the classics that inspired it. I don't like using the "nostalgia" argument very often, because that's been used as an unfair defense of games like DA2, but I think BG fans are a bit nitpicky when judging DA:O. Perhaps some people just don't want a new game to be better than an old favorite, so they overly criticize a newer game to justify to themselves why the favorite is "objectively better." I imagine the same thing will happen with Skyrim; Morrowind fans will come up with all sorts of wild arguments to justify Morrowind's status as the "best Elder Scrolls game" while completely ignoring its flaws and unfairly magnifying any faults of Skyrim.
I seriously doubt there's very many people that don't want newer games to be as good, or better, than older ones. That's quite a rationalization if I've seen one.

Also, no one said anything about one game being "objectively better" than the other. In fact, you're the only person in this thread who has used that term.



Originally Posted by Nerevarine View Post
BG may have had more enemy types that the player could encounter, but many of them could be defeated using the same strategies. So I guess your point is more from an immersion/atmosphere standpoint? Again, I completely agree that BG was better in this area, with several unique enemy types that required new tactics (my first encounters while still early on in the game with invisible enemies, trolls, and a few others come to mind as very basic examples of encounters that required new tactics), but there were still a lot of encounters that didn't force you to abandon the tried and true methods of your basic party strategy and felt like "filler combat."

Combine that with the dungeons that are oftentimes a major headache to maneuver through - I can't for the life of me understand how the narrow passageways that a full party can barely fit through (don't even try using formations) weren't fixed - along with a magic system that requires constant micromanagement, and you get a lot of repetitive gameplay in BG too. Then again, I think both games have flaws that the other didn't have, and that's why I have a hard time deciding which is better. They are both great experiences imo, and I could go either way depending on which one I'm playing at the moment, with maybe a slight edge to DA:O.
So you're saying that most of the enemies in DA couldn't be defeated by using the same strategies? I find it odd that you would point out something that also applies just as much, if not more, to DA.

The micromanagement that you're complaining about is what many of us liked about the BG games. I'd rather have that than the streamlined simplicity of DA. - i.e. smaller party, fewer classes, no encumbrance, shared inventory, auto healing, etc, etc.

Not saying you're wrong for liking those things. I understand it's subjective. If you prefer simplicity, then more power to you. I'm not saying DA is a simplistic game compared to most modern RPGs, but it was definitely streamlined compared to a lot of older titles.

I don't quite understand some of your other complaints though. Would you really expect a party to be in formation in a narrow passage?

Anyways, the general opinions of both series' speak for themselves. I'd say the main difference is that DA:O was a great game, while Baldur's Gate was a great series. It's a shame because Bioware had an opportunity to have another great series, but they completely ruined it with DA2.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#22

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,897