Dragon Age - Might Not Catch with Console Gamers

Good point JDR and I agree.

However, I can understand other people's point of view a little better if they played it later after it revitalized the rpg genre, not before. We we're going through a dry spell there for awhile. There were some great games, sure, but not too many like BG.

Originally Posted by JDR13
If a game is truly great, then it shouldn't matter if you didn't get to play it until years after it was released. I didn't play System Shock 1 for the first time until about 3 years ago. It still blew my mind, and I could easily understand why so many people consider it one of the best computer games ever.

I completely agree - and that is something I always think about with regards to console folks comparing FO3 to 1 & 2.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Benedict, I agree with everything you said in your post except this. I have to ask you, when did you play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2? When it first came out or much later? If you played it when it first came out then I would like to know what you considered (back then) a game that stuck out?

Hmmm . . . checking the release dates to make sure my memory isn't playing tricks . . . .

Seems Might & Magic VI came out in '98, same year as Baldur's Gate, and then VII & VIII came out over the next couple of years, both of which I enjoyed more than Baldur's Gate, although Baldur's Gate was pretty solid. I liked the Might & Magic worlds & enjoyed their class & skill systems way more than the early D&D used in baldur's gate, and although the plot was good in Baldur's gate and I liked the way encounters were skewed towards fairly specific enemies rather than endless faceless foes I just got more into the world in M&M and it suited my tastes better (cliched stuff but a knowing tribute to cliched that didn't take itself too seriously).

And of course Planescape Torment came out in 99 that utterly reset the bar, and in fairness to Baldur's Gate II I'd probably have enjoyed it a lot more (and did think it was much better than the first one) had I not been yearning for another game that scratched the Planescape itch (still yearning).

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Good point JDR and I agree.

However, I can understand other people's point of view a little better if they played it later after it revitalized the rpg genre, not before. We we're going through a dry spell there for awhile. There were some great games, sure, but not too many like BG.

See I don't know why people thought there was such a massive drought before Baldur's Gate . . . . a steady flow of M&M releases that from IV to VIII were IMO really good games, wizardry had one in 96 and another a couple of years later, return to krondor, shadows over riva, Albion, daggerfall (which was a bit shit but at least pushing things forward although after oblivions clearly in the wrong direction), . Games like Planescape and Siege of Avalon and Arcanum and Wizardry 8 and Gothic in between Baldur's Gate I and II or at the same time as II.

There were a lot of good solid RPGs being released and a couple of really great ones (Gothic, Planescape, Shadows over Riva, Arcanum, Return to Krondor and for my money the M&M games all have fonder memories than either baldur's gate).

IMO the drought starting kicking in for the few years after baldur's gate, diablo was released in 1997 and it was the aftermath of that and its massive success that led to the real drought IMO, the couple of years after that had some great games still in the pipeline but then such a large part of the rpg output started being shitty diablo clones (IMO clones of a shitty original game) that the decent releases became fewer & further between.

And I don't think either baldur's gate game could be said to have revitalised the genre . . . . where was the flow of similar games? Where was the innovation that built on the new market created by the baldur's gate games? I just remember a lot of gamers saying "We really enjoyed those games, can we have some more" and the industry doing fuck all about it.

EDIT - looking a bit more . . . fallout 1997, fallout II 1999.

Originally Posted by Benedict
See I don't know why people thought there was such a massive drought before Baldur's Gate . . . . a steady flow of M&M releases that from IV to VIII were IMO really good games, wizardry had one in 96 and another a couple of years later, return to krondor, shadows over riva, Albion, daggerfall (which was a bit shit but at least pushing things forward although after oblivions clearly in the wrong direction), . Games like Planescape and Siege of Avalon and Arcanum and Wizardry 8 and Gothic in between Baldur's Gate I and II or at the same time as II.

Because the fact is that quality crpgs were indeed sparse for a period prior to Baldur's Gate. Almost all the games you mentioned were released after BG1 Daggerfall was released in 1996, but had very little impact, mostly due to the fact that it was bug-ridden crap.

I've never heard anyone claim a drought between BG1 and BG2, but rather just for a few years before BG 1. With the exception being Fallout 1, there's no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Because the fact is that quality crpgs were indeed sparse for a period prior to Baldur's Gate. Almost all the games you mentioned were released after BG1 Daggerfall was released in 1996, but had very little impact, mostly due to the fact that it was bug-ridden crap.

I've never heard anyone claim a drought between BG1 and BG2, but rather just for a few years before BG 1. With the exception being Fallout 1, there's no doubt about it.

Fallout 1? M&M VI? Albion? Return to krondor? Shadows over Riva? All out in the couple of years before Baldur's Gate and all (IMO) a heck of a lot better quality. And some good strategy games with a bit of a role playing game feel like starcraft, a couple of X-Com releases and some of the early HOMM games

If that's a serious RPG drought then I could do with another drought, I really don't remember having any shortage of thoroughly engaging games to play up until about 2002 / 2003 when everything seemed to be diablo clones.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Fallout 1? M&M VI? Albion? Return to krondor? Shadows over Riva? All out in the couple of years before Baldur's Gate and all (IMO) a heck of a lot better quality. And some good strategy games with a bit of a role playing game feel like starcraft, a couple of X-Com releases and some of the early HOMM games

If that's a serious RPG drought then I could do with another drought, I really don't remember having any shortage of thoroughly engaging games to play up until about 2002 / 2003 when everything seemed to be diablo clones.

Fallout 1? I specifically mentioned that game already. M&M VI? Same year, not prior. Albion, Return to krondor, Shadows over Riva? If you really consider any of those to be more significant than Baldur's Gate… then you are part of a small minority.

I'm personally glad you didn't have a shortage of great(in your opinion) crpg's to play during that time period, but that doesn't change the larger perception.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Fallout 1? I specifically mentioned that game already. M&M VI? Same year, not prior. Albion, Return to krondor, Shadows over Riva? If you really consider any of those to be more significant than Baldur's Gate… then you are part of a small minority.

I'm personally glad you didn't have a shortage of great(in your opinion) crpg's to play during that time period, but that doesn't change the larger perception.

I know, but as part of a larger group of games it adds to the weight. And M&M VI was earlier in the year I think, I have vague recollections of leaving baldur's gate for a while until I'd finished that.

Anyway, what was so significant about Baldur's gate? The D&D license was already popular. There were hardly a stream of clones of that isometric viewpoint. The party interaction type thing has only really been repeated (and repeated and repeated) by bioware & predecessors.

I suppose it was the first major real time with pause rpg, and the first with party interaction. Ultimately I'm not disputing that that is the larger perception, I'm just trying to understand why that is the perception because it just seemed fairly average to me.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Because the fact is that quality crpgs were indeed sparse for a period prior to Baldur's Gate. Almost all the games you mentioned were released after BG1 Daggerfall was released in 1996, but had very little impact, mostly due to the fact that it was bug-ridden crap.

I've never heard anyone claim a drought between BG1 and BG2, but rather just for a few years before BG 1. With the exception being Fallout 1, there's no doubt about it.

Daggerfall was extremely popular back then even with the bugs, so this is incorrect.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Daggerfall was extremely popular back then even with the bugs, so this is incorrect.

Yes it was extremely popular among fans of the Elder Scrolls series.

Go look up the sales figures for Daggerfall, and then come back and tell me how popular it was in general.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Anyway, what was so significant about Baldur's gate? The D&D license was already popular. There were hardly a stream of clones of that isometric viewpoint. The party interaction type thing has only really been repeated (and repeated and repeated) by bioware & predecessors.

I suppose it was the first major real time with pause rpg, and the first with party interaction. Ultimately I'm not disputing that that is the larger perception, I'm just trying to understand why that is the perception because it just seemed fairly average to me.

I won't really say anything regarding BG's place in history, as I'm not too familiar with the games before. For what it's worth, I also played M&M6, and I loved both games.

For a game to become a true classic that is not only beloved by a few enthusiasts but by a great range of gamers, it has not only to contain novelties like the party interaction or be pretty for the more optical oriented crowd. Rather, it has to get nearly everything right. Somehow, this game managed to capture old fans of the RPG genre and a more casual crowd alike, which means it got the mixture of elements right. This somehow guarantees its place at the top of many of the CRPG popularity lists, as it was liked by many but hardly hated by anyone.

Its significance is based on the fact that this mix could only be achieved twice. Making this type of games is expensive, and expensive games need a broader audience. We know the result.

Well, I'm having a bit of a hard time finding sales data…you got a website for that? It got rave reviews despite the bugs according to the wiki. It was huge too, reading the wiki made me remember just how many towns etc where there…it was the size of turkey aparently.

Oh gosh, unbelievable to me that someone might prefer M&M6 over BG. M&MVI : "Mandate of heaven" had a bland story, villages that felt totally unreal, very little interaction, battle that were mostly about fighting rooms full of Dwarf king, dwarf lord, dwarf soldier… (replace the word dwarf by any other cliché fantasy creature) in a very twitchy way.

Everyone talk about how great BG dialogues, story etc were. And they certainly were. But personally, but one great thing about BG that is often forgotten was the combat gameplay. Fights were exciting, strategic. Much better than anything Bioware has ever done after. And fighting a dragon, a lich, even an ogre at the beginning of BG1 could be totally awesome. It was not just another dragon, it was "THE Dragon". Icewind dale shared the same combat system but it was ruined by the repetitiveness and a lackluster story.

NWN2 was too linear and its combat put too much emphasis on ai and an over-complication that came with DnD 3rd edition that distracted from the most interesting part of the battles. For that, I'm very glad that DA abandoned the DnD system.

In my opinion, the best post-BG combat system we have seen in a non-indie cRPG is the one found in Temple of elemental evil. But that game had basically no story and the temple of elemental evil itself felt much more like a battle simulator than a full fledged game.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Yes it was extremely popular among fans of the Elder Scrolls series.

Go look up the sales figures for Daggerfall, and then come back and tell me how popular it was in general.

In terms of significance though it was the first pass at a real sandbox type experience and has ultimately had a bigger impact on gaming tropes than BG.

Originally Posted by Turjan
This somehow guarantees its place at the top of many of the CRPG popularity lists, as it was liked by many but hardly hated by anyone.
.

Nothing wrong with it certainly, can't see any rpg fan actually disliking them, good solid games. Just nothing that for me spurs any real love.

Originally Posted by vanedor
Oh gosh, unbelievable to me that someone might prefer M&M6 over BG. M&MVI : "Mandate of heaven" had a bland story, villages that felt totally unreal, very little interaction, battle that were mostly about fighting rooms full of Dwarf king, dwarf lord, dwarf soldier… (replace the word dwarf by any other cliché fantasy creature) in a very twitchy way.

I forgave M&MVI a lot on the grounds that it shamelessly embraced the utter vanilla cliches and had fun with it, to my mind baldur's gate felt pretty vanilla too (even though I admit its plot & dialogue were much better) but took itself so seriously. Or alternatively afterwards was taken so seriously by its fans that I scaled down my appreciation for it just because I couldn't see why it had been quite so much better received.

Ultimately BG1 followed hot on the heels of Fallouts 1 & 2 and BG2 followed fairly hot on the heels of Planescape and to my tastes were poor seconds to those other games in terms of the things that made the baldur's gate games good. Had they come a couple of years before or a couple of years afterwards I'd have fallen on them like a starving wolf, but at the time they were just solid but not groundbreaking releases.

All told I probably should give BGII another go. I was probably too hard on it at the time for it not being anywhere near as cool as planescape, but there's plenty of room between being as cool as planescape and being much better than 99% of other games.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Just nothing that for me spurs any real love.

Fair enough. The optimal mix of RPG elements is different for everyone.

Originally Posted by Benedict
All told I probably should give BGII another go. I was probably too hard on it at the time for it not being anywhere near as cool as planescape, but there's plenty of room between being as cool as planescape and being much better than 99% of other games.

Don't put the game away before you make it out of that initial dungeon. That one was a bit of a trudge.

Originally Posted by Benedict
In terms of significance though it was the first pass at a real sandbox type experience and has ultimately had a bigger impact on gaming tropes than BG.

I'm talking about impact on the state of the genre at that time. It's not even close, Daggerfall practically flew under the radar compared to Baldur's Gate.

Sorry guys didn't mean to sidetrack this thread with the virtues of BG and whether or not we we're going through a drought before baldur's gate.

Once again Benedict I agree with everything you said except M&M. I really hated those games. Preferred Wizardry or Ultima. But "to each is own" as they say. Thanks for answering my silly little question. It makes a lot more sense now. If you prefer M&M series then BG wouldn't be your cup of tea, so to speak. I still wouldn't of said "nothing stuck out"

As for the draught. IMO, there always has been a draught in this genre and always will be. Sometimes we'll get more products for a time that are really good like BAK or the ones you mentioned, but normally unless there is a hugely popular game like BG or Oblivion, our little genre doesn't quite see as many titles. This is why I'm excited about DA being delayed(after Patrick mentioned that EA was really interested effectively marketing this game) If we can get more companies promoting our little genre and seeing that they can make a nice little profit, then maybe we'll start to see some more quality (hopefully) games.*Warning: The above was pure opinion, nothing based on facts other than my own observations

You know it still gives me a warm fuzzy feeling everytime I think about that poor MTV console guy getting confounded by DA.