Can't get over how good POE is & why Bioware abandoned this style of gameplay.

[Volourn]

"n Baldur's Gate you can actually roleplay your character using the systems of the game rather than just selecting between RED and BLUE options. In Baldur's Gate if you're in a town you can flip out and kill people if you want to, which makes it meaningful when you don't, while in modern Bioware games you can only kill sanctioned targets (and are usually obligated to), you can stealth past many enemies in BG that in a Bioware game would lock you in cutscene out of stealth and then force you to fight them however you'd approached it. And hell, even the choice between RED and BLUE options is often utterly miniscule."

 

Wait. Your idea of role-playing is simply the choice of kill nobody or kill everybody? LMAO

 

\Sorry, bub, role-playing wise the newer BIO games have more role-playing options. PERIOD.

[PIP-Clownboy]

PoE is in no way a DA:I killer. The scale is just too different.

 

That's because DA: I killed itself. 

[zombo]

I have to admit that I prefer the Dragon Age: Origins (or Eclipse) engine to this one, but that's because I really like being able to shift and move the camera perspective. But that's just a personal preference. This is so far an excellent story and one that I'm taking my time in enjoying.

I prefer Dragon Age Origins, but this is a really really good game.

[yaggaz]

"I can't get over" why people need to bash one game that is loved by many to praise another. PoE and DA:I are very different games, both have their strengths and weaknesses and which one you prefer is a matter of taste.

 

DA:I's strengths could be counted on a three fingered hand, whereas it's weaknesses would take days to list.

[yaggaz]

"n Baldur's Gate you can actually roleplay your character using the systems of the game rather than just selecting between RED and BLUE options. In Baldur's Gate if you're in a town you can flip out and kill people if you want to, which makes it meaningful when you don't, while in modern Bioware games you can only kill sanctioned targets (and are usually obligated to), you can stealth past many enemies in BG that in a Bioware game would lock you in cutscene out of stealth and then force you to fight them however you'd approached it. And hell, even the choice between RED and BLUE options is often utterly miniscule."

 

Wait. Your idea of role-playing is simply the choice of kill nobody or kill everybody? LMAO

 

\Sorry, bub, role-playing wise the newer BIO games have more role-playing options. PERIOD.

 

The one you are quoting is spot on. And it's obvious you know as much about true roleplaying as Isis knows about mercy and peace.   Bioware games have crap roleplaying options. PERIOD.

[yaggaz]

 

Most of their modern RPGs are superior to BG when it comes to actual role-playing. Nice try, though.

LOL are you trolling?

 

 

It's Chris Priestly in disguise

[Volourn]

"The one you are quoting is spot on. And it's obvious you know as much about true roleplaying as Isis knows about mercy and peace.   Bioware games have crap roleplaying options. PERIOD."

 

Are you on drugs? We're comparing BIO games so whether or not 'BIO has crap roleplaying options' is totally irrelevant.

 

The bottom line is newer BIO games are better at role-playing than BG. PERIOD.

[the streaker]

Stop saying PERIOD! It's the "." on your keyboard, for god's sake.

 

Also DA:I sucks. The controls are just horrible, and the "roleplaying" is more like an railroaded action game.

[Volourn]

"Stop saying PERIOD! It's the "." on your keyboard, for god's sake. PERIOD."
 

Fixed it for you for more emphasis, boss. :D

[Bryy]

And it's obvious you know as much about true roleplaying as Isis knows about mercy and peace.  

Wow.

 

Um.

 

Well.

[falchen]

You had very little roleplaying options in BG, most conversations gave you only generic responses and you rarely had choices other than do quest, don't do quest, don't do quest and kill quest giver with no consequences. BG2 your whole reason for doing the game's story was that some douche abducts your foster sister, ignoring that your character just might not care about her.

 

Dragon Age inquisition lets you define how your character thinks and feels about things, lot of quests let you make decisions that actually change the outcome, and the story and characters would react to what you do.

 

Getting to murder random npcs without consequence is not roleplaying.

Edited April 24, 2015 by falchen

[Zwiebelchen]

If someone liked any game - it's already not a complete ****.

 

Good point.

[Luckmann]

 

"n Baldur's Gate you can actually roleplay your character using the systems of the game rather than just selecting between RED and BLUE options. In Baldur's Gate if you're in a town you can flip out and kill people if you want to, which makes it meaningful when you don't, while in modern Bioware games you can only kill sanctioned targets (and are usually obligated to), you can stealth past many enemies in BG that in a Bioware game would lock you in cutscene out of stealth and then force you to fight them however you'd approached it. And hell, even the choice between RED and BLUE options is often utterly miniscule."

 

Wait. Your idea of role-playing is simply the choice of kill nobody or kill everybody? LMAO

 

\Sorry, bub, role-playing wise the newer BIO games have more role-playing options. PERIOD.

 

The one you are quoting is spot on. And it's obvious you know as much about true roleplaying as Isis knows about mercy and peace.   Bioware games have crap roleplaying options. PERIOD.

 

 

Volourn is literally worse than Hitler.

 

Guys keep in mind, I was talking about Inquisition. Dragon Age Origins was an incredible game, I LOVE DAO, but that Bioware we know is dead. This new Bioware only cares about making their games as gay as possible and making all the women look like men (except for morrigan & leliana).

 

In regards to my avatar, I modified that picture to give Cassandra female facial proportions. Unfortunately her original vanilla mesh face structure is based on male skeletal structure which is why she looks like a god damn man, which is also why she's popular amongst gay men and women. To think she's supposed to be a romance option for straight males, lol. *shakes head*.

 

Calisca's 2D art is ten times more fantastical and beautiful than Christopher ****ing Pentaghast's horrid face.

 

It's funny, because while I agree, Calisca's portrait is the only one in-game that I actually hate. It looks like placeholder art, and doesn't fit the overall art style.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Luckmann

[Bryy]

In the other BG thread, with the BG2 post-mordem, it is even stated that BG2's design only allowed for three real choices in dialogue. 

 

So all this "RED, BLUE, GREEN being New BioWare" talk is moot.

 

What you are really meaning to talk about is flavor dialogue.

[Gorbag]

The bottom line is newer BIO games are better at role-playing than BG. PERIOD.

Yeah, no. PERIOD.

Better how?

Romances? lol

Non-one-gimmick-cardboard-cutout characters and companions? Nope. 

Choices and consequences? More like ads and PR.

More/better dialogue options? Big wheel keep on turnin'.

The gameworld reacting to anything you do? Yes, largely by ignoring it.

The ability to roleplay any character you like and personalize the story around that character? Sure, as long as you don't expect it to matter.

 

The bottomline is that newer BIO games are just as inert to your "roleplaying" as ever.

[Volourn]

No. PERIOD.

[FlintlockJazz]

Look guys, at least start using tampons or something if you are going to have PERIODS all over the place?

[Fredward]

Aw lawd jesus its a fyyre.

[Blovski]

 

"n Baldur's Gate you can actually roleplay your character using the systems of the game rather than just selecting between RED and BLUE options. In Baldur's Gate if you're in a town you can flip out and kill people if you want to, which makes it meaningful when you don't, while in modern Bioware games you can only kill sanctioned targets (and are usually obligated to), you can stealth past many enemies in BG that in a Bioware game would lock you in cutscene out of stealth and then force you to fight them however you'd approached it. And hell, even the choice between RED and BLUE options is often utterly miniscule."

 

Wait. Your idea of role-playing is simply the choice of kill nobody or kill everybody? LMAO

 

\Sorry, bub, role-playing wise the newer BIO games have more role-playing options. PERIOD.

 

Wait. Your idea of role-playing is simply the choice of kill nobody or kill everybody? LMAO

 

\Sorry, bub, role-playing wise the newer BIO games have more role-playing options. PERIOD.

If you like the newer Bioware approach to roleplaying, I'd say that Telltale's The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us are both vastly better examples of the same thing, really. Linear stories where you define your protagonist in relation to the story through dialogue choices. Unrest is a really interesting indie twist on this, with vast dialogue trees, genuine reactivity, compelling writing and a game showing you multiple characters' perspectives on the same events.

 

If you only want to roleplay on the rails, the rails may as well be good ones.

 

----

 

Now, for the type of roleplaying I'm talking about, have you played the original Fallout? Baldur's Gate isn't as good at offering you roleplaying options as that but is a roleplaying game for the same reason - you define your character BY PLAYING THE GAME rather than by accruing blue or red points so you can do more blue or red things.

In Baldur's Gate you could choose between serious and sarcastic options, except that it would generally have consequences there. Plying NPCs with gifts until they fall in love with you so you can see a terrible sex scene doesn't really qualify as roleplaying in my book. In Mass Effect you can't be a raving maniac on the run from the law (unless the story wants you to be on the run from the law, in which case you will have to be on the run from the law), you can't be a sneaking utility pacifist, you can't really do much meaningful self-definition at all. You're obligated to take certain companions (Morrigan and Miranda being egregious examples of characters who are written to push your buttons but whom you can't just refuse to take with you) along with you regardless of your gameplay style or your opinions about them, so you can't be a loner or a principled character. In addition, the approach to cut scenes forces you to stop roleplaying and sit back and watch Kai Leng shoot someone and run away, for instance, because your character has cutscene-induced paralysis.

 

This is without even getting into Mass Effect's much vaunted TRILOGY-WILL-REACT-TO-YOUR-CHOICES concept that was completely undermined by ME 3 not having the resources or design philosophies to let any of your choices have an impact on the gameplay (see the Rachni decision, for instance).

Now, I really like Jade Empire, which suffers from much of the above, because it had great worldbuilding, a really strong central story and excellent villains, innovative if flawed character-building/combat and offered you meaningful decisions that affected the world. Bioware could really still offer good games with a mixture of lightweight roleplaying with a focus on companion characters, light action gameplay, light character building and an emphasis on worldbuilding, which used to be their biggest strength. It's a shame that they seem to have stopped doing that.

 

For the record, I quite like KOTOR, Dragon Age: Origins and Jade Empire. I sort of liked the first couple of Mass Effect games in places but at best they're choosing from takeaway options while the roleplaying games I tend to like are more like cooking.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Blovski

[falchen]

Really?

 

What consequences did anything in Baldur's Gate have? The plot is entirely on rails too.

Edited April 24, 2015 by falchen

[Idleray]

Oh lord this thread is a riot.

 

The usual predictable "BG2 WAS CREATED IN MY PRECIOUS CHILDHOOD THEREFORE IT ARE BEST GAME EVAR WUT DRAGON AGE ROMANCES EWW TRASH" people.

[VioNectro]

Role playing to me quite simply is this: how close to the pen and paper RPG feel can it get and still be a computer game.

 

In that sense Bioware's post DA:O games are vastly inferior to those preceding it. You won't understand unless you've ever played pen and paper.

[Bryy]

You won't understand unless you've ever played pen and paper.

*rolls eyes*

[VioNectro]

 

You won't understand unless you've ever played pen and paper.

*rolls eyes*

 

Roll your eyes all day, doesn't make it any less true.

[Dadalama]

It's not posturing Bryy, some people's complaints do have tabletop gaming contexts. Nobody is saying people who don't play tabletop are worse gamers or any other posturing. It's just context to a complaint.
 

Like my problems with modern gaming's hitpoints. To most video gamers, that's how things always were. But to a tabletop gamer that's "less of D&D/Palladium feel and more of a GURPS feel". But that doesn't make me a better gamer. I'm a pc gamer with a nearly 8 year old budget PC. I don't have any new consoles and I am not particularly skilled at any set of games. I'm half the gamer most of the other people on the boards are.

 

But if you look for games that borrow some of the feel of tabletop games, and most western rpgs do that to varying extents, you need to know the context to understand some of the argument. I really, honestly think that's all he was on about.