I vote yes. Have followed the game closely and I certainly get a BG feel from the videos,ect.

Hmm, w/o actually playing the game I am not sure if we can fairly say much about DA. Its advertisements were definitely not made to attract the RPG Watch crowd.

But I will vote YES, because I tend to prefer to give devs a chance until proven otherwise.

I think it won't be a BG-Successor. Unfortunately for todays market BG is far too uncool and not accessible enough. Yet DA might still be a decent Game - and even that would be enough for me to buy it. I will wait and see. Also once again Costum Content might save it.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
No, EA will make it too mainstream… that's what I think

My feeling tells me the same…

But in fact Baldur's Gate *was* mainstream in its days.



Anyway, i don't vote now, because I don't believe that guessing helps.
We will only know the correct answer after some of us played the game…

Despite of EA's disgusting marketing and trailers, I still have hope for DA. My only worries are about game's difficulty and level scaling issue. I hope DA is connected to BG roots about that aspects.

I tend to agree with both PJ and to a large extent with Mo. However, I had to 'sock it' to EA!!

Clearly we don't know - and in fact, the idea is hard to define. Polls are just a bit of fun.

For me, I think "yes" and agree with Mo in many ways, despite always enjoying the Infinity Engine games while he never did.

It won't have the scope or size of BG2 and the new ruleset won't offer the same range of choices. But hopefully it was designed to suit a computer game and the combat videos look evocative of the Infinity Engine. They've also talked about choices and different paths, which wasn't really something BG/2 offered in any great depth. I was also never inspired by the story - it was OK, but not great for me.

So, I think it will be somewhat streamlined and smaller in scope but might offer more actual roleplaying opportunities and, hopefully, a better story.

I have fairly modest expectations … I've hated the marketing, making me think I'm, getting yet another console action-RPG like Last Remnant or Rise of the Argonauts … and have constantly needed Dhruin to remind me that folks I respect have been saying really cool things about it after playing..

My vote goes to:

No, BioWare doesn't make them like that any more

In the first place BioWare can't make Baldur's Gate feeling just because it's not Baldur's Gate. It's like the feeling of Fallout in Fallout 3 - there is none.
No beautifully crafted 2D environment which was one of the best aspects of Baldur's Gate series. Sure, 3D graphic can be good but it definitely won't have BG feeling.
As for the other things… Baldur's Gate wasn't MATURE, DARK & GRITTY and didn't have that much SEX & BLOOD.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Clearly we don't know - and in fact, the idea is hard to define. Polls are just a bit of fun.

When I said that I don't vote, I didn't mean to question the legitimacy of the poll.

It is clearly valuable to learn about the expectations of the RPGWatch crowd.

But I would still like an option around the line of "I expect that every outcome is possible.", because that *is* exactly my expectation right now.

I think no, for a few simple reasons.

- The gameplay mechanics look decent, but I doubt they will match the complexity and breadth of DnD. It's a hard thing to match, DnD has a huge legacy behind it. The new ruleset may, however, be more intuitive and accessible.

-A lot of the VO I've seen is pretty awkward, which surprises me in a Bioware title. The text in BG2 was better than poorly done VO because you imagine the accents, they don't jarr.

- I don't think they will match the scope of BG2. Unfortunately, the cost of making game assets has gone up, so game scope keeps suffering. It appears to be a trend.


That being said, I have hope that this will actually be a good game. And I like the origins trailers. I don't think it will really match up to BG2, but I hope that it will make a worthy stab at it.

I thought we were comparing DA to BG, not BG2. TBH, BG was a lot less fun than BG2. And I don't think the D&D system can make combat in a game very interesting. Though I heard that 4th edition changed a lot…

Anyway, back to DA, we really haven't seen that many game play videos of the game to make a fair judgment, most of the videos were all advertising fluff materials, where dialogs were cut into bits and pieces, which doesn't give us a good sense of the flow of the dialog, or VO performance.

These new gameplay (dialog heavy) videos should do a much better job at showing the promise that DA held:

From VE3D, dialog, choices and party reactions

Edit: it may be just be, but the overhead view scenes in the harbor city (and the brief combat) of the 2nd trailer, has pretty strong BG vibe to them.

Also, I like the clear, icon and text based, display of each character's current action in a battle. It makes it much easier to track what everyone's doing, w/o resorting to reading the combat logs.

The PC of the videos seem to be a warrior, and from the description of the "Shield Bash" skill, it seems that the warrior type of DA functions similarly to that of WoW. Though I am not sure how the "rage" (for a lack of better word to describe it) of the warrior actually increases. It doesn't look like it is based on how much dmg you take. Since the PC didn't regen any "rage"(despite taking damage) during the brief fighting scene, but the party member right below him (also look like a warrior) clearly regen'ed "rage."

I bought D&D 4th ed, and I hate it. It's basically a pen-and-paper version of a MMORPG. Character development is way more restricting, there's much less scope for house rules and "rolling your own," and everybody's über-powerful from level 1 — with high-level stuff being positively ridiculous. What's more, it requires figurines and a grid to play, because many of the powers make no sense without them. The skill system has been totally dumbed down, and it's even more purely combat-focused than previous editions.

IOW, it's only good for high-pyrotechnics hack-slash-and-fireball style action gaming; trying to run a more role-playing oriented campaign with those rules would be a waste of time.

(I'm just starting a new campaign tomorrow, and it's with D&D 3.0 rules.)

That is sad to hear, D&D system should stay true to its original form. We definitely do need another MMO-inspired-combat-focused RPG system.

Exactly. It seems to me that WotC is courting kids who grew up on WoW, trying to get them to do tabletop gaming. That leaves old-school role-players out in the cold.

IMO there's a clear problem there — many 3.0 and 3.5 source materials sell for more on the used market than they did new. I just bought Oriental Adventures (still awaiting delivery, though), and a decent-condition copy was over twenty bucks on the Amazon market — a bookshop-new copy would've been about $75. Ridiculous!

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Character development is way more restricting, there's much less scope for house rules and "rolling your own," and everybody's über-powerful from level 1

Ouch that's awful. House rules are critical to a good campaign. Every DM with which I've played has used lots of customized rules and when I've DMed I went even farther astray (for example, I wrote an XP system where you are primarily rewarded for role playing well - combat XP is, at most, 1/3 of your XP gains). Character development and flexibility is core to me. And the struggles of low levels in D&D leads to a lot of advantages. Being weak means you have to be careful, innovative, and impress your DM with great ideas so he decides not to smite you. And going up a level is, in a word, awesome. I actually think the early-game progression of 1st edition had that element just right, although I don't meet many others that feel the same.

At least we have our old source books!

… you just need to structure your encounters to make them sweat!

Originally Posted by bkrueger
But in fact Baldur's Gate *was* mainstream in its days.

I guess that depends on what you consider mainstream. Are you referring to crpg fans, or gamers in general?

Originally Posted by leth
I thought we were comparing DA to BG, not BG2. TBH, BG was a lot less fun than BG2. And I don't think the D&D system can make combat in a game very interesting. Though I heard that 4th edition changed a lot…

I don't think BG was a lot less fun than BG2, in fact, many people even preferred the first game. As far interesting combat is concerned, BG, IWD, and TOEE all had very good combat imo.

Horrible marketing have pretty much ruined my hope for this game, but the real killer is in my view the lack of a coop-multiplayer option.

I don't know what you guys are smoking, but comparing NWN to BG is an insult to BG. (edit: I mean, BG as a series)
But well, the OC of NWN and NWN 2 is just too bad and I don't bother to get the X packs, may be I missed something.

BG, based on AD&D, has
- Complex (if not TOO complex for kids nowadays) combat experience. I still remember all the spell counters.
- Hard combat that involves using your ability (a.k.a. your brain) instead of grinding exp.
- Character advancement that isn't just looting "shinnies". Epic levels that's really EPIC

NWN? I steamrolled it with a barbarian and never looked back, it is easy, simple, it can be translated to a hack n' slash game easily.
NWN2? I *think* I played it with my friend. But sadly I can't even remember if I finished it. You can tell how *good* a game it is, I think.
edit: Oh and not to mention, the loading times.

Ok back to DA.
No multiplayer? How could it be BG if it doesn't have multiplayer?
End of discussion.