Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Just completed Dragon Age: Origins

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
I'd not played a Baldurs Gate style RPG fir around 10 years when I played through Origins, and it was the perfect reintroduction to such games.

Meh, DA:O was nothing like Baldur's Gate, especially the first one (the second BG began many of the trends that eventually led to DA:O and its ilk). BG1 had real exploration and felt like a real world, with large adjacent maps that came together to abstractly model an open world. Compare this with the corridor maps of DA:O, where you are basically moving on rails.

BG1 had a much better plot, and the NPCs in it, while mostly having simple and/or silly dialogue, said it quickly. DA:O with its terrible plot and similarly simple/silly dialogue inflated the latter with self-importance and grandeur that was never there, and made you listen to it for hours until you wanted to join Darkspawn just to shut all the NPCs up.

BG1 had a much better combat/leveling system for the most part (the only exception being that non-caster characters had more actions available in DA:O). It had better itemization. More beautiful and charming graphics and sounds, UI.

The only thing that DA:O had over BG1 was probably C&C but even that was so black and white, it killed all the fun.

What I liked about BG 1 especially was the main objective. It was not about you being the baddest muthafukka out there saving the world, it was just you trying to get revenge for your foster father with the help of a ragtag bunch coming with you. It was overall a very personal story which as a byproduct helped the region you were active, the Sword Coast, which is only a tiny spec of land among dozens of much bigger kingdoms around.
Heck even BG 2 is still personal, going after Irenicus, only basically saving an elven city, and then Melissan. Sure you can opt to become a god or stay mortal, but regardless which choice you are NOT doing so for saving Faerun, basically just preventing Melissan from becoming a god in the first place.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,538
Location
Nottingham
Yep, that's just you. I played both BGs and DA:O, I still play BG2 nowdays and enjoy it while I can't get past Ostagar in DA:O. I agree with the good balance between old school and modern RPG but doesn't mean that make DA:O better game. Also, what is wrong with BG style? I love it. DA2 is a trash I wish I never touched... DA:O is the only decent one out of whole series imo.

Nothings wrong with BG style games, I just think Origins style is good too. If you get chance maybe give it another blast and try and force your way past Ostegar, as there's a lot of good gaming to be found. Defo play as mage or bladed rogue, warrior will drag the whole thing down.
Having both Morrifan & Alistair in your party helps too. The banter between them is great Imo.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,538
Location
Nottingham
Why don't you play PoE instead for the right mix of old style and modern solutions with improved mechanics?
Handily beats DAO and for me it tops BG also.

That and Tyranny are first on the shopping list when I get round to upgrading the PC.
 

Projas

Information Superhighwayman
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
1,202
Location
Best Republic
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Why don't you play PoE instead for the right mix of old style and modern solutions with improved mechanics?
Handily beats DAO and for me it tops BG also.

That and Tyranny are first on the shopping list when I get round to upgrading the PC.
You'll like Tyranny, it has the same shit level scaling and cooldowns as DA:O.
 

Haplo

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
6,134
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Not sure about it. Spell sigil system from Tyranny is kinda fun. Combos are much more meaningful in DAO though - but limited to magic. Well DAO did have more enemy variety.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
DAO is bad, Tranny is bad, BG is bad, BG2 is bad...

I wonder if it exist any good cRPG for this forum. Leaving aside Fallout.

That will depend on who's speaking. I'm not aware of the forum ever speaking, but then I'm not a mental case. Maybe when I'm 90 I'll hear the forum speak.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
It's almost as bad as a mage in Baldur's Gate not being able to wear a helmet. Doing arcane magic must make your head swell up or something.

That's actually a reasonable abstraction. It came from the idea that magic users would spend all their time in libraries/labs, and thus be weak and frail, unable to wear armor. It's a simplification of course, and not fully realistic, but it's reasonable and enforces balance. Rogues using huge weapons on the other hand goes against pretty much everything, logic, balance, etc.

What I liked about BG 1 especially was the main objective. It was not about you being the baddest muthafukka out there saving the world, it was just you trying to get revenge for your foster father with the help of a ragtag bunch coming with you. It was overall a very personal story which as a byproduct helped the region you were active, the Sword Coast, which is only a tiny spec of land among dozens of much bigger kingdoms around.

BG1 in general, was so beatifully low-key. People really don't appreciate this aspect. Everything from the abundance of wilderness (the emptiness of which contrasted perfectly with the places of interest), the itemization, the placement of settlements, and the plot came together to flesh out a realistic world/region. BG2 then started the decline with its forced epicness.

Well DAO did have more enemy variety.

:retarded: Tyranny has 2 enemy types?
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
High powered campaigns are always a lot more difficult to get right to balance between keeping the story compelling without going overboard with "epicness", much more so than low key ones. I would not say it was decline yet, even though it could have done better if they would have structured it so that you have to go through some wilderness areas before reaching places outside of Athkatla for example.

The romances were not particularly good either but there were some glimpses with Viconia for example which were good, like getting her away from the Drow ways in ToB and changing her to true neutral alignment, she also had the most ambiguous ending, wether you chose godhood or staying mortal, which is a plus in my book, not everyone gets a complete happy ending.
Ultimately though it does end up with you playing psychologist more than an actual romance though.

Also BG 2 has my favorite NPC in fantasy cRPGs, Jan Jansen, who is not a one dimensional boring joke like Minsc but had some actual genuine depth underneath all the silly stories and jokes imho.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
High powered campaigns are always a lot more difficult to get right to balance between keeping the story compelling without going overboard with "epicness", much more so than low key ones. I would not say it was decline yet, even though it could have done better if they would have structured it so that you have to go through some wilderness areas before reaching places outside of Athkatla for example.

The romances were not particularly good either but there were some glimpses with Viconia for example which were good, like getting her away from the Drow ways in ToB and changing her to true neutral alignment, she also had the most ambiguous ending, wether you chose godhood or staying mortal, which is a plus in my book, not everyone gets a complete happy ending.
Ultimately though it does end up with you playing psychologist more than an actual romance though.

Also BG 2 has my favorite NPC in fantasy cRPGs, Jan Jansen, who is not a one dimensional boring joke like Minsc but had some actual genuine depth underneath all the silly stories and jokes imho.

BG2 is a pretty good RPG due to high quality content, but you can trace the seeds of decline (Bioware-style decline) in it. If you think about all the things that make later Bioware games annoying, most of them appear in their early form in BG2 (and not in BG1). The hub structure that everyone hates (a hub and 4-5 areas around it) was first explored in BG2 which although not as formulaic as their later efforts, did have hubs that you went out from as opposed to the more organic continuous structure of BG1. The forced epic content (a leech here, a dragon there, a spaceship over yonder, some uberloot in every drawer, epic spells, etc). The telegraphed main plot, that you pretty much knew everything about since the intro or shortly afterwards. I feel like it's vastly overrated, although it is a pretty good all around RPG.
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
High powered campaigns are always a lot more difficult to get right to balance between keeping the story compelling without going overboard with "epicness", much more so than low key ones. I would not say it was decline yet, even though it could have done better if they would have structured it so that you have to go through some wilderness areas before reaching places outside of Athkatla for example.

The romances were not particularly good either but there were some glimpses with Viconia for example which were good, like getting her away from the Drow ways in ToB and changing her to true neutral alignment, she also had the most ambiguous ending, wether you chose godhood or staying mortal, which is a plus in my book, not everyone gets a complete happy ending.
Ultimately though it does end up with you playing psychologist more than an actual romance though.

Also BG 2 has my favorite NPC in fantasy cRPGs, Jan Jansen, who is not a one dimensional boring joke like Minsc but had some actual genuine depth underneath all the silly stories and jokes imho.

BG2 is a pretty good RPG due to high quality content, but you can trace the seeds of decline (Bioware-style decline) in it. If you think about all the things that make later Bioware games annoying, most of them appear in their early form in BG2 (and not in BG1). The hub structure that everyone hates (a hub and 4-5 areas around it) was first explored in BG2 which although not as formulaic as their later efforts, did have hubs that you went out from as opposed to the more organic continuous structure of BG1. The forced epic content (a leech here, a dragon there, a spaceship over yonder, some uberloot in every drawer, epic spells, etc). The telegraphed main plot, that you pretty much knew everything about since the intro or shortly afterwards. I feel like it's vastly overrated, although it is a pretty good all around RPG.

Knowing the goal is not necessarily a minus for me. Just think of System Shock 2, everyone who played SS 1 knew it would end up with you going up against Shodan. The way is usually far more important than the goal imho.

I am not sure if you can call Athkatla a hub like the camp in DA:O. In comparison to Denerim (?) and the camp, Athkatla was huge and also felt like it was not constructed around YOU. They did not so much change the formula as they just reversed the flow from BG 1, where reaching Baldur's Gate as the big city came at the end, while here you start in the big city, that is at least how I see it.
As mentioned before, nothing is really placed conviently so that can easily reach it in mere seconds. Also you could actually fail with party composition and romances, unlike DA:O where you could just continue to give presents until you are at +100 approval, a sytem so mindboggelingly retarded it defies comprehension to me.
Companions you would not take with you would also not all stay conviniently in one place, they would stay in more or less logical loctations, albeit that they would wait forever is a bit silly but can be overlooked.
Also dying was prevalent and could be permanent, with no chance of revival. DA:O? Can you even die in that game?

The magic system, despite it's flaws and potentials for abuse, which you could avoid with very little effort by the way, was also superior in most ways. Spell combos were nice, but in the end you would do the same combo over and over. Meanwhile you would, or at least I did, change my sequencers and contingencies on a regular basis, also used some rather odd spells like Hold Undead on my Wizard PC for example.

What annoyed me most was the removal of actual wilderness exploration, so despite being the bigger game it felt kinda smaller than BG 1, and also it was too easy to rest, should have been nigh impossible in enemy dungeons. Heck with a simple trick like having some reinforcments at the entrance back you could combine this to make you think really hard wether you use magic like candy or not.
 

eggdogg

Learned
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
102
I've got no real gripes with DA:O. I thought it was a solid effort to bring an older style of gaming into a newer era.
 

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
I'm also one who enjoyed the first BG a bit more than BG2. Both are very good, but I tend to like low-level campaigns more in RPGs in general. BG was definitely low-key, and the "twist" that you get to explore the actual city of Baldur's Gate many hours into the game was sheer brilliance, IMO. It was a curveball thrown deep into the campaign, changed the gameplay quite drastically for many hours and kept things interesting. It was also a very epic moment crossing that bridge into the city.

While I'd like to see that type of design in modern RPG gaming I can understand why it's not done more. If BG were released today it's likely that many of the gamers playing it wouldn't even get to the city of Baldur's Gate, thus all those resources and effort spend on the later content wouldn't be seen by many. Still, I really appreciate things like that.

Side note, but Divinity: Original Sin had a bit of that. Just a bit, but by continuously adding new, smaller-scale curveballs later into the game it helped to keep things fresh. I always found the addition of an entirely new skill - Tenebrium - many hours into that game to be a very interesting design concept, along with the rooms that opened up in Homestead later in the game. I wish it had been fleshed out more but it shows, IMO, that Larian is well aware of those low-key genius design tricks. D:OS 2 should have even more of that (hopefully.)
 

pippin

Guest
bg2 has more replay value than 1 though. there's no reason to go back to baldur's gate 1, other than playing through durlag's tower.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
I didn't like BG1 because I don't like low level combat. But it is still a decent game. I think BG2 is as close to RPG greatness as we've ever come though.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
If BG were released today it's likely that many of the gamers playing it wouldn't even get to the city of Baldur's Gate

Current gen gamers would probably get stuck in Candlekeep prologue, and need a wiki.
 

pippin

Guest
If BG were released today it's likely that many of the gamers playing it wouldn't even get to the city of Baldur's Gate

Current gen gamers would probably get stuck in Candlekeep prologue, and need a wiki.

To be fair, many old school developers have said that completion rates were really bad back in the day, which explains why official guides were made. It's just that player feedback is everywhere now.
 

Malpercio

Arcane
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
1,534
I never understood the deep roads is shit meme, for me it was the best part. Felt like a real gay warden venturing into the heart of the enemy. On nightmare you can lose some of the fights, and the death animations are still cool.

Because the enemy variety sucks, the battle system sucks and the exploration suck.

In short they just suck and really expose how shitty DAO's battle system is.
 

pippin

Guest
What are you saying?

There's still a big chance that very few people even got to find the city of Baldur's Gate back in the day. Not finishing games has always happened.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom