|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » Polls & Comments » Is Dragon Age really a BG successor?

Poll: Is Dragon Age a genuine successor to BG?

Poll Options
Is Dragon Age a genuine successor to BG?

Default Is Dragon Age really a BG successor?

September 23rd, 2009, 03:24
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
I always considered the trap implementation in BG2 so badly unbalanced that it was tantamount to a cheat, and therefore I stopped using it. But to each their own, of course.
NO in contrast I think traps in BG is EXACTLY how it should be.
IMO this is the role model of how developer should put traps into their game.
BG trap is useful, it actually do something that draws you to bother to lay it and make mobs to spring it.

If you play NWN and BG you can totally feel it. NWN trap is…crap, it deals no more damage than a warrior swinging couple of times, without all the logistic requirement/setup gibberish. In short, there's no point to lay a trap in NWN except.
TheNevers is offline

TheNevers

Traveler

#61

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6

Default 

September 23rd, 2009, 07:54
I'm glad they aren't doing multiplayer. Making a game like DA multiplayer would be a pretty major task. What some of you need to realise is that development resources are not infinite. This is a game that has already been in development for over 5 years, so to suggest that they are being lazy is just silly. They've built the engine and the gameworld from the ground up. That is already a massive undertaking.

NWN took a long time to make as well, and it was designed for multiplayer. Look at how the OC turned out. I don't want another game like that. If they invested the requisite development resources into implementing a multiplayer mode that worked, and worked well, then there are less resources to put into other areas of the game.

To suggest or imply that they are being lazy is, quite frankly, asinine. They've created what appears to be a rich and interesting gameworld, a new engine, multiple begginings as well as multiple endings… this is a huge game. I'm not quite sure how multiplayer would even work with the titular origins.

Maybe this game isn't for you, maybe Bioware have focused on things other than the things you're primarily interested in - fair enough. Don' buy it then. They could have easily made another game like JE or KotOR designed for XBOX - it would have taken less time and money to make, and probably been more profitable. Instead, they spend 5+ years desiging a massive PC-focused RPG in a whole new setting, and with a new engine. That isn't lazy. Accusing Bioware of laziness just comes off as whiny, petty, and entitled.
Badesumofu is offline

Badesumofu

Badesumofu's Avatar
SasqWatch

#62

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 447

Default 

September 23rd, 2009, 10:16
I love story-driven SP games (the Gothics are among my all time favourites) and look forward to Dragon Age very much. I would have loved it to have MP but never expected it to, so the absence doesnt affect my purchasing decision.

EDIT: Since my limited technical vocabulary makes it hard for me to put my point across very clearly I'll make this my last post on missing MP in Dragon Age.

My thought isnt that devs necessarily are lazy for not adding MP to a game, but that having a solid story-driven SP RPG doesnt have to be incompatible with multiplayer. Provided you have an engine that can handle communication with remote players, and a game that is balanced to have a party rather than a single protagonist (so that there is someone for every human player to control) "all" you have to do is to hand over control over the sidekicks from the AI to other players. NWN and Baldurs Gate both did this successfully IMHO. The mentioned ARPGs are built around MP engines and ignore storyline so they work well too.

The issues really boil down to: Can the engine handle network play, and can we add characters for other players to control?

Originally Posted by skavenhorde View Post
I didn't mean the lag prevented her from catching up. I meant the game itself leaned heavily towards a single person progressing through the game.
Well there I dont see any difference between BG and the NWN campaigns I've played. It is still only one protagonist doing all the talking and non-combat interaction with the world. The known workarounds (MMO style quests that can be repeated) are incompatible with any kind of coherent storyline.

I liked NWN a lot more because it was basically designed for MP play. If you start the game from the beginning then there is no lopsidedness Plus, everything ran as smooth as silk and the adventures were great together.
Then I misunderstood you, with both players in from the beginning then we are back to both players having to invest a lot of time into the game.

Was your point that the interface and control meant that NWN had a less steep learning curve? In that case I see your point even if we didnt have such problems. NWN was after all built on a few more years of knowledge of interfaces and usability

Btw, SoU and HotU will crash in MP at the end of chapter cutscenes. That is pure laziness on the parts of the devs as similar situations work perfectly well in the OC and any claim of "focusing on SP" is in this case pure bull, the bug is simple sloppiness and should even be possible to mod away.

… Although there have been quite a few games that have tried to do too much and ended up being horrible. Dungeon Lords comes to mind. Who knows what that game could have been if they decided to put their resources to just the SP experience or reverse that and they put their resources to making a great MP experience.
Dungeon Lords problems dont come from trying too hard to implement multiplayer but from general incompetence and dishonesty on DW Bradleys part
Last edited by Zaleukos; September 23rd, 2009 at 10:53.
Zaleukos is offline

Zaleukos

Zaleukos's Avatar
Bum

#63

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,864

Default 

September 23rd, 2009, 13:47
Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
I'm glad they aren't doing multiplayer. Making a game like DA multiplayer would be a pretty major task. What some of you need to realise is that development resources are not infinite. This is a game that has already been in development for over 5 years, so to suggest that they are being lazy is just silly. They've built the engine and the gameworld from the ground up. That is already a massive undertaking.
So because they already took 5 years no MP is not a problem. With same logic if they've put 10 years of development time you can overlook combat system? or if they've put 15 you can over look plot too?
5 or 10 or 15 no one gives a damn. Hey may be they could just throw Duke Nukem out in any sorry state because since they've put so many years brewing it, customer should just buy whatever they put out.
It's THEIR problem, not mine, my concern is get the best out of my money.

Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
NWN took a long time to make as well, and it was designed for multiplayer. Look at how the OC turned out. I don't want another game like that. If they invested the requisite development resources into implementing a multiplayer mode that worked, and worked well, then there are less resources to put into other areas of the game.
NWN in no way is about multiplayer, it's about the toolset that let you create custom adventure. OC is crap, and OC multiplayer experience is even WORSE.
Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
To suggest or imply that they are being lazy is, quite frankly, asinine. They've created what appears to be a rich and interesting gameworld, a new engine, multiple begginings as well as multiple endings… this is a huge game. I'm not quite sure how multiplayer would even work with the titular origins.

Maybe this game isn't for you, maybe Bioware have focused on things other than the things you're primarily interested in - fair enough. Don' buy it then. They could have easily made another game like JE or KotOR designed for XBOX - it would have taken less time and money to make, and probably been more profitable. Instead, they spend 5+ years desiging a massive PC-focused RPG in a whole new setting, and with a new engine. That isn't lazy. Accusing Bioware of laziness just comes off as whiny, petty, and entitled.
OK I admit they're not lazy, they're just getting worse at making games then.
Did you tried to answer my question?
If they can make BG MP more than a decades ago, why not NOW?
There is NO excuse. Development cost is not players concern. it's their PMs.
Players like you are encouraging developer to be lazy, because you're just so damn forgiving.
TheNevers is offline

TheNevers

Traveler

#64

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6

Default 

September 24th, 2009, 14:04
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
You're joking, right? Complex combat? Well, I don't see where. You just click on enemy or select spell and click on enemy. That's really hardcore, eh?
Character advancement? I see it more complex in NWN series than BG. Can't really recall selecting feats etc in BG…

You're overrating BG just because it's old. That's retarded and sounds like RPGCodex.

EDIT:
I didn't see fourth page -_-
Konjad is offline

Konjad

Konjad's Avatar
Watch traitor from Codex

#65

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 711

Default 

September 24th, 2009, 21:22
Originally Posted by Konjad View Post
You're overrating BG just because it's old. That's retarded and sounds like RPGCodex.

Actually, your comment is the one that sounds like it belongs at The Codex.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#66

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,461

Default 

September 25th, 2009, 12:33
Originally Posted by TheNevers View Post
I first know about "no MP" in a 1up video interviewing the bioware doctors.
The host actually kids that the interview is over when they announce there will be no MP in DA.

What piss me off is, they claim "it cannot be done".

You can do BG more than a decade ago with MP.
Now with all the new Tech more resources and you CANNOT do it.
IMHO, They care more about their profit than their users, us gamers.
I don't give a damn to their EXCUSES. Bioware is a no for me ever since then.
WTF would I buy their game funding them when they're not working for the gamer's best game experience.
They said they would have had to shorten the single player game if they included mp. They only have a certain amount of resources to use for the game. I am glad they put those resources into the sp instead of adding mp.
stefan9 is offline

stefan9

Watcher

#67

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pretoria,South Africa
Posts: 68

Default 

September 26th, 2009, 09:50
Replied "yes, but it won't be as good". From what I can tell, the tactical combat seems like it might be on par with that in BG2, but something tells me the characters, overall plot and the world itself will be somewhat below it. However, the formula will be similar I suspect.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#68

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

September 28th, 2009, 08:29
Originally Posted by TheNevers View Post
So because they already took 5 years no MP is not a problem. With same logic if they've put 10 years of development time you can overlook combat system? or if they've put 15 you can over look plot too?
5 or 10 or 15 no one gives a damn. Hey may be they could just throw Duke Nukem out in any sorry state because since they've put so many years brewing it, customer should just buy whatever they put out.
It's THEIR problem, not mine, my concern is get the best out of my money.
That makes no kind of sense. Do I really have to even point this out? Having MP or not is an optional feature of a game. Whether the gameplay and/or plot are good is a question of quality. While some games may focus on one element more than another, whether or not a game has multiplayer has no bearing on the quality of the product, just the kind of product it is. What you're doing is saying that because it's not the kind of game you want, that it's a bad game, and that Bioware are lazy. That's nonsensical. The comparison to Duke Nukem makes even less sense. The bit about it being their problem makes less sesne again.

NWN in no way is about multiplayer, it's about the toolset that let you create custom adventure. OC is crap, and OC multiplayer experience is even WORSE.

OK I admit they're not lazy, they're just getting worse at making games then.
Did you tried to answer my question?
If they can make BG MP more than a decades ago, why not NOW?
There is NO excuse. Development cost is not players concern. it's their PMs.
Players like you are encouraging developer to be lazy, because you're just so damn forgiving.
Clearly you didn't really understand what I was saying. I'm guessing based on your writing style that English isn't your first language, so maybe it's best to drop this now. To briefly address your question - I deny its premise. They can make multiplayer, they choose not to. It's not a question of excuses, it's just that they aren't making the kind of game you want them to.
Badesumofu is offline

Badesumofu

Badesumofu's Avatar
SasqWatch

#69

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 447

Default 

September 28th, 2009, 09:48
Just to throw in a developer's 2 cents, adding multiplayer to a game which hasn't been designed for it from the ground up is a giant pain in the ass and takes a fair amount of resources (time/money).

Generally, you decide in the beginning if you want to commit the resources to multiplayer or not, you don't just "tack it on" unless you're forced to, and then it generally ends up a shambles. Choosing to not spend the resources on mp is not a sign of lack of quality, it's a question of your choice of focus.

Indie game developer.

Dev Blog
Naked Ninja is offline

Naked Ninja

Naked Ninja's Avatar
Watchdog

#70

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 195

Default 

October 15th, 2009, 15:35
I didn't care for the first Baldurs Gate and so DA:O may or may not be a true successor but I'm not sure I care yet. If the game is fun it will be the first Bioware RPG I've liked. For reference, I do like RPGs like the early Ultimas, Questron, Dungeon Master, Alternate Reality and Tomenet RPGs. I tried the NWN games and thought they were meh… Mass Effect, I didn't see much RPG at all and don't like story heavy games like that. There hasn't been a good RPG in a long while. Fallout3 isn't much RPG by my standards. Will try Echelon Book II and Age of Decadence. Those seem like games I might like.
Daroou is offline

Daroou

Sentinel

#71

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 317

Default 

October 23rd, 2009, 12:42
Voted yes, but not as good.

The one thing that i don't like about DA is the lack of skills/spells. Hopefully this can be improved in a sequel.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#72

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 939

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 00:56
I think I need to resurrect this one..
Kostas is offline

Kostas

Kostas's Avatar
Dormant Watcher

#73

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dear Green Place
Posts: 1,630

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 10:48
I'm glad you did and voted fourth option - No.
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
RPGWatch Donor

#74

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,638

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 15:23
Shame there's not a "significantly better than BG" option
Benedict is offline

Benedict

SasqWatch

#75

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,348

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 15:36
Now that I'm playing it, I think it is definitely a BG successor, and actually improves on it in many things.
It's a shame I can't change my vote. I selected 'no, Bioware doesn't make them like it anymore'… and I was wrong. Granted, I'm not even halfway through, but the gameplay (in hard difficulty) definitely feels like BG.
wolfing is online now

wolfing

wolfing's Avatar
Wonders what SasqWatch is

#76

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,109

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 15:48
Originally Posted by wolfing View Post
It's a shame I can't change my vote. I selected 'no, Bioware doesn't make them like it anymore' and I was wrong.
Maybe a second poll should be created,the game certainly surprised most of us.
Kostas is offline

Kostas

Kostas's Avatar
Dormant Watcher

#77

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dear Green Place
Posts: 1,630

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 15:55
Good idea.

Creating this poll before the realease of the game was pretty pointless, imo, anyway.
vanedor is offline

vanedor

SasqWatch

#78

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Quebec city
Posts: 457

Default 

November 9th, 2009, 18:16
A new poll's definitely needed, or maybe a "how much did DA live up to the hype" poll.
Benedict is offline

Benedict

SasqWatch

#79

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,348

Default 

November 10th, 2009, 04:36
Originally Posted by wolfing View Post
Now that I'm playing it, I think it is definitely a BG successor, and actually improves on it in many things.

It does improve on many things, but it also takes a step backwards in others.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#80

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,461
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » Polls & Comments » Is Dragon Age really a BG successor?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch