Dragon Age 2

[GhostofAnakin]

Speaking of Dragon Age: Origins, I see they're releasing that Morrigan DLC. I have to say, that's one of the only DLC I think I might enjoy.

[Volourn]

Laugh all you want, but BG is simply a subpar rpg espicially comapred to ME. And, using the awesome Tom Curise vid doesn't change that fact.

 

As for the Morrigan DLC. It's gonna be two hours max so its auto dissapoint.

[sorophx]

it's not a vid, it's an image. and ME isn't even an RPG in it's true sense

[Volourn]

Agreed. It's an Action RPG. An action rpg that has more role-playing than many full rpgs including BG.

[entrerix]

ME does have lots of roleplaying. but that doesnt make it a better game than baldurs gate.

 

if more roleplaying is all it takes to be a better game, then larping is the best "game" every invented...

[Amentep]

I've played ME more times over my ownership than I ever have either of the Baldur's Gate games.

 

In fact I played BG to completion once, TotSC once, BG2 twice, ToB once.

 

I beat ME three times with just one of my characters (I've got 5) and ME2 twice (once each with two characters).

 

Can't say one is better than the other since its up to personal taste, but for me I found ME a lot more replayable than BG games.

[Oner]

Can't say one is better than the other since its up to personal taste, but for me I found ME a lot more replayable than BG games.

Considering the difference in length, not a surprise.

 

Anyhoo, Extemded Trailer

[sorophx]

replayability is a modern curse. I don't want to play through a game more than once to unlock different endings or w/e. only if the game itself is a friggin' masterpiece. usually it's not. I'm playing Alpha Protocol right now and it's really frustrating that a) the game doesn't have a normal save game mechanic, b) as a result whenever I make a "bad" choice I more often than not can't reload and try again without having to blaze through a dozen minions again. it's like the game is mocking me, "you want to see how it would've turned out if you had clicked that button a little faster? START OVER dumb-ass!"

[Amentep]

Can't say one is better than the other since its up to personal taste, but for me I found ME a lot more replayable than BG games.

Considering the difference in length, not a surprise.

 

Length is part of it (as I tended to get bored about halfway through BG2). But I also found BG1's end to be terribly frustrating and only beat it the one time I did by cheating.

 

To tell the truth, I prefer IWD and PST to either BG games.

[Tale]

End boss fights in all three Baldur's Gate games are a sticking point for me. Mass Effect was much better in that regard, but it feels like a hassle to play through the first one at all.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Tale

[HoonDing]

So the almighty Qunari easily slays several well-armoured, well-armed & well-trained soldiers but then when Hawke emerges he's suddenly a wimp. Hawke must be speshul.

[Amentep]

replayability is a modern curse. I don't want to play through a game more than once to unlock different endings or w/e. only if the game itself is a friggin' masterpiece. usually it's not. I'm playing Alpha Protocol right now and it's really frustrating that a) the game doesn't have a normal save game mechanic, b) as a result whenever I make a "bad" choice I more often than not can't reload and try again without having to blaze through a dozen minions again. it's like the game is mocking me, "you want to see how it would've turned out if you had clicked that button a little faster? START OVER dumb-ass!"

 

Really? A modern curse? I replayed Adventure on the Atari 2600, Phantasie on the C64, Shining Force on the Genesis, Chrono Trigger on the SNES, Ogre Battle on PSX, IWD, PST and Fallout 1 and 2 on PC?

 

I have no interest in 100% completion. I don't go playing games just to get achievements. Very rarely do I care about alternate endings (unless I really like the game). But if I like a game, I'll usually want to play it multiple times.

 

To me Alpha Protocol was about living with the choices you made, not constantly reloading because you made a "bad" choice. I enjoyed it; making decisions on the fly that felt "right" at the time and seeing what happened.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Amentep

[sorophx]

End boss fights in all three Baldur's Gate games are a sticking point for me. Mass Effect was much better in that regard, but it feels like a hassle to play through the first one at all.

hmmm? I loved the final battle in BG2. and the one in BG2.5 was even better (I played on hard though). and then comes ME with some sort of a zombie that jumps around without doing any damage. it was a shooting gallery, really. maybe I missed something but I can't say Mass Effect had any kind of boss (well, maybe that ancient thing on one of the planets can be considered a boss, but that's about it)

 

edit:

Man do you know how many times I played Adventure on the Atari 2600?

heh, I played some games from start to finish over 20 times. not because they were made to be played that much. because those were great games. but you can't help getting curious when a game shows it's double-layered. and if the game has an interesting story I want to follow but the game design is ATROCIOUS and the process brings only frustration - this just makes me want to crack the designer's skull open. wtf was he thinking? this is especially true for AP. there's no way I'm replaying it. I'll download a couple of walkthroughs instead.

Edited August 25, 2010 by sorophx

[Oner]

Length is part of it (as I tended to get bored about halfway through BG2). But I also found BG1's end to be terribly frustrating and only beat it the one time I did by cheating.

Yea I loved the 60 damage/hit meat shields, really entertaining.

[Tale]

The final bosses of BG 2.5 was impossible for me to fight. "My weapon has no effect."

"My weapon has no effect."

"My weapon has no effect."

 

I've got only one character with a +5 weapon, everyone else had trouble finding better than +2. Holy christmas, Jaheira can't use anything better than a club or staff. There's like nothing better than +3 for either that I came across. Fighting that battle felt like the designers were calling me on the phone just to personally insult my mum. And half the enemies spawned by the boss resisted every spell that Edwin, Viconia, Jaheira, and Imoen threw at them. And the fight lasts as long as several boss fights with no resting, so those spells are never coming back anyway.

 

Maybe I'm completely terrible, but the game makes no effort to teach you how to get around that crap. You have to search internet forums for cheese that you won't know unless you're already intimate with D&D 2e.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Tale

[Amentep]

I didn't like TOB end fight; but I never had a problem with BG2's (probably why I finished it more than once).

[Amentep]

Man do you know how many times I played Adventure on the Atari 2600?

heh, I played some games from start to finish over 20 times. not because they were made to be played that much. because those were great games. but you can't help getting curious when a game shows it's double-layered. and if the game has an interesting story I want to follow but the game design is ATROCIOUS and the process brings only frustration - this just makes me want to crack the designer's skull open. wtf was he thinking? this is especially true for AP. there's no way I'm replaying it. I'll download a couple of walkthroughs instead.

 

And that's totally fair.

 

I was mostly just addressing replayablity as a modern issue (or maybe I was more addressing that I personally don't look out for games that are replayable so much as I replay games I really, really like).

 

I have no problem admitting I liked ME more than the BG games and understand others may feel differently (for what its worth, I probably enjoyed JE more than ME and I imagine I'm in a small population on that one).

[sorophx]

I was mostly just addressing replayablity as a modern issue

when I said "curse" I meant that some developers try *too* hard to prolong their game's life by sticking a few (more often - a lot) plot-forks in it. this approach to making games has got to go imho

[Tale]

I didn't like TOB end fight; but I never had a problem with BG2's (probably why I finished it more than once).

BG2's was better. His Mage form is a pretty standup fight. If you've figured out how to beat any mage by that point, you can beat him. It's the same dispel protections and hope you survive whatever big crap he tosses your way.

 

The demon form, or whatever you want to call it, I kind of hated. I usually only won that with summon cheese and by some of the enemies turning invisible, running away, and their AI glitching so they forget you exist.

[Oner]

I was mostly just addressing replayablity as a modern issue

when I said "curse" I meant that some developers try *too* hard to prolong their game's life by sticking a few (more often - a lot) plot-forks in it. this approach to making games has got to go imho

IMO it's non-linear mission progression that should be burned on a pyre.

[sorophx]

you mean choosing missions in any order? I'm with you on this one, the things developers have to sacrifice to make it look ok...

[Oner]

Yep, that's what I meant.

[Maria Caliban]

So the almighty Qunari easily slays several well-armoured, well-armed & well-trained soldiers but then when Hawke emerges he's suddenly a wimp.

 

It looks like the qunari beat Hawke handedly until the end. I'm not sure any of the well-armored, well-armed, and well-trained soldiers had a 'rip person in half' spell on them.

 

Hawke must be speshul.

 

The flaming dragon-claw hand does hint at that.

 

BG2's was better. His Mage form is a pretty standup fight. If you've figured out how to beat any mage by that point, you can beat him. It's the same dispel protections and hope you survive whatever big crap he tosses your way.

 

IIRC, I bubbled my mage, walked up to him, waited as he cast all his protection spells, and then left the area and rested.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Maria Caliban

[HoonDing]

The final bosses of BG 2.5 was impossible for me to fight. "My weapon has no effect."

"My weapon has no effect."

"My weapon has no effect."

 

I've got only one character with a +5 weapon, everyone else had trouble finding better than +2. Holy christmas, Jaheira can't use anything better than a club or staff. There's like nothing better than +3 for either that I came across. Fighting that battle felt like the designers were calling me on the phone just to personally insult my mum. And half the enemies spawned by the boss resisted every spell that Edwin, Viconia, Jaheira, and Imoen threw at them. And the fight lasts as long as several boss fights with no resting, so those spells are never coming back anyway.

 

Maybe I'm completely terrible, but the game makes no effort to teach you how to get around that crap. You have to search internet forums for cheese that you won't know unless you're already intimate with D&D 2e.

In SoA, the only weapons better than +3 are Carsomyr +5, Warblade +4, Cutthroat +4 & one of Drizzt's scimitars. Irenicus summons two baalors & two glabrezu in the end fight, but I don't remember if a +4 was required to hurt them (I think a +4 was only needed to hurt demogorgon & mariliths in ToB).

 

In Watcher's keep there's several +4 weapons, though... like staff of the ram & spectral blade that Jaheira can use.

Edited August 25, 2010 by virumor

[Volourn]

"ME does have lots of roleplaying. but that doesnt make it a better game than baldurs gate."

 

I didn't claim it was a better game in any of these posts. I claimed it was a better RPG than BG. HUGE difference. Whether BG or ME is a better game is a whole different issue. There can be no argument when it comes to role-playing though.

 

 

@ Hawke: That version of Hawke is posisble some sort of mage. On top of that,m it's silly to whine about the PC being stronger than NPCs in any game since that's true no matter what game it is. No normal NPC has a shot to beat The Master in FO1; but the PC can. *shrug*

 

@ BG2 End Battle: It was awesome.

 

@ TOB End Battle: It was okay, nothing special, but Melissan is probably BIO's 2nd worst main villain. *puke*