Speaking of Baldur's gate, do we know when the PS4-port of it and 2 is coming? Since 2 is my GOAT i'm super-excited to try it out.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Replaying Baldur's Gate(s) makes it ever more clearer how much of a disappointment Dragon Age: Origins was.
- Thread starter SofNascimento
- Start date
Yeah I'm not so sure about your point about BG's combat being better.
I got back into BG2 last weekend because I started watching Critical Role and I'm jonesing for some D&D and can't wait for BG3.
Not that fun to see your entire party swing/shoot and miss an imp for like 3 straight rounds while they swing and miss at you. Half the time I waste unnecessary spells on fights I could win easily just to get them over with.
I got back into BG2 last weekend because I started watching Critical Role and I'm jonesing for some D&D and can't wait for BG3.
Not that fun to see your entire party swing/shoot and miss an imp for like 3 straight rounds while they swing and miss at you. Half the time I waste unnecessary spells on fights I could win easily just to get them over with.
Whatever you might think of the quality of the game, this is wrong. The console versions of DA:O didn't even exist until the final year of development, and were farmed out to a different studio, Edge of Reality.
I disagree and agree with you on a few things.
For me personally, there are certain things that I like better in BG (such as the more understandable stats and some of the spells) but as a whole I prefer DA:O. For one, DA:O is using a combat system designed with RTwP in mind rather than a TB system that was somewhat awkwardly modified to run in realtime, which is why the combat generally feels smoother. There's no more waiting awkwardly for a few seconds while your mage does nothing between spell casts, no more watching as your characters roam around like headless chickens due to the awful pathfinding. I also like how DA:O doesn't have a million different status effects, each with their own specific counters that must be memorized and prepared before going into battle. This also means that pre-buffing isn't needed between each fight and that neither is save scumming.
One big area that was improved between the two games were Martial Classes which were far more interesting in DA:O since they had more things they could do. In BG, martial classes could really just only attack and run away. While kits like the berserker or inquisitor had a few more options, they hardly compared to the depth of a mage or sorcerer's spell list. In comparison, fighters and rogues can be just as fun to play as mages in DA:O.
However there are a few problems with DA:O's combat, the main one IMO being that everything is so goddamn slow. Fighters take an eternity to swing their swords and most classes have obnoxiously slow animation speeds. Rogues are generally better due to their momentum ability acting as a haste of sorts but their default attack speed is still not particularly great.
Can you explain what you think Baldur's Gate does better than DA:O when it comes to combat since this position is pretty rare amongst people who have played both game.
For me personally, there are certain things that I like better in BG (such as the more understandable stats and some of the spells) but as a whole I prefer DA:O. For one, DA:O is using a combat system designed with RTwP in mind rather than a TB system that was somewhat awkwardly modified to run in realtime, which is why the combat generally feels smoother. There's no more waiting awkwardly for a few seconds while your mage does nothing between spell casts, no more watching as your characters roam around like headless chickens due to the awful pathfinding. I also like how DA:O doesn't have a million different status effects, each with their own specific counters that must be memorized and prepared before going into battle. This also means that pre-buffing isn't needed between each fight and that neither is save scumming.
One big area that was improved between the two games were Martial Classes which were far more interesting in DA:O since they had more things they could do. In BG, martial classes could really just only attack and run away. While kits like the berserker or inquisitor had a few more options, they hardly compared to the depth of a mage or sorcerer's spell list. In comparison, fighters and rogues can be just as fun to play as mages in DA:O.
However there are a few problems with DA:O's combat, the main one IMO being that everything is so goddamn slow. Fighters take an eternity to swing their swords and most classes have obnoxiously slow animation speeds. Rogues are generally better due to their momentum ability acting as a haste of sorts but their default attack speed is still not particularly great.
I see what you mean but I don't think this due to a lack of identity or boring lore. It's more so Dragon Age Origins is just kinda bad when it comes to visual identity and armor/weapon design. All armors (especially light armors) have this generic brown look to them and are incredibly "samey" and boring. The same can be said about the weapons which were all fairly boring looking. I think the reason why BG is so much better in this regard is partially due to technical limitations and budget constraints; since the only you ever saw a weapon/armor in detail was in the inventory they could all be unique looking since it was just a matter of drawing a few still images for each weapon. In comparison, since DA:O uses 3d models for everything and weapons are visible at all times, Bioware probably didn't have the time or budget to make a 100 or so unique weapon and armor models.But I think the main disapppointment for me when it comes to the DA universe (and this takes into consideration the sequels, even if Origins is the worst of the bunch), is how uninspired it is. BG had the advantage of being based on a well stablished universe, yet DA had years and years of experience from Bioware that could have been directed into a interesting and unique universe. But that's not what we saw. To try to make my point a bit more clear, let me bring Mass Effect to the discussion, and this picture in particular:
Now if we made a game that asked which race (or faction) which one of these weapons belong to, most Mass Effect fans would be able to guess. There is an identity behind each weapons, because the universe itself has an identity. Something that Dragon Age never accomplished.
I won't agree here.
NeverWinter nights is great for it's multiplayer part, but the solo story is pretty meh. Dragon Age is far Superior.
i agree with the first neverwinter nights, neverwinter nights 2 i think is closer and mask of the betrayer has my favorite story in a crpg, so that one i definitely prefer.
OP
OP
You already talked about being too slow, I felt that they wanted to make it slower than BG (which is a good thing) but then went too far. But I think my main problem with Origins is how I felt mages took to much of the spotlight in the combat. You mention martial classes to defend Origins, and I would mention it to defend Baldur's Gate! Playing as a fighter in the latter I never felt my character was useless, every class had a role to play. Besides, although there was nothing much to do beyond moving and attacking, it was fine because of how fast the game was. And you could always dual class/multi class.
It's valid a point. One question that I asked myself while playing Origins (and other games) is: Is a lore good if it only exists as texts? If when it comes to the game you can't really see all that theory put into practice? I don't think the (written) world behind Dragon Age is horrible, but it is... mechanical? Take Mass Effect again, it has a lot of influences that can be seen in the game, but it went beyond. It wasn't simply a compilation of previous science fictions. And that's what Dragon Age feels to me, a simple compilation of ideas that were better executed somewhere else.
And when it comes to that, codex and written walls of texts is what matter the least. It's about what you experience.
This is the fantasy series that, when it came time to name its world, decided to make the acronym for its setting a noun: Thedas, or, "The Dragon Age Setting".
The mages taking the spotlight thing is a little strange IMO considering that's way more prevalent in Baldur's Gate than Dragon Age. Mages are definitely powerful in DA:O but at the same are still comparable to Warriors and Rogues who are also equally powerful with plenty of useful tools and abilities in combat. For example: Rogues can do a ton of damage with backstabs, stun enemies, and play dead to remove aggro off of themselves, Shield-wielding warriors can tank and use their abilities to CC and knock down enemies, Templars have various anti-magic abilities that make them useful, assassins have powerful debuffs that can increase the damage dealt to a boss or a powerful enemy, etc.
In comparison, magic in Baldur's Gate is so much more powerful than anything else. A high level mage has access to timestop and various other powerful spells and abilities that no other class can really compare to. To give an example, I was able to OHKO Irenicus in his boss battle at Suldanessellar by firing a spell sequencer loaded with 3 skull traps at him immediately after his dialogue ended. That's 60d6, for a minimum of 60 and maximum of 360 damage; no martial class can compare. The only thing limiting a mage is spell slots, and even that's a non-issue when you're playing a sorcerer due to project image and wish basically allowing you to have infinite spell slots. Thing's get even more insane when you factor in higher level damaging spells such as Horrid Wilting, Status effects such as emotion hopelessness, summons such as planetars, and the most broken ability in the game: Timestop, which when combined with improved alacrity lets you empty your entire spellbook in a turn.
There's also the fact that magic is the main solution to any problem the player faces in combat. Facing a difficult enemy? Use greater malison + doom + whatever debuff/status effect of your choice, offensive spells such as magic missile and flame arrow, cheese strats such as greater malison + doom + chromatic orb/finger of death, or just buff with haste, bless, defensive harmony, etc. Fighting a large group of enemies? Use an AoE spell such as fireball, skull trap, or Horrid Wilting. Enemies keep inflicting annoying debuffs such as panic, fear, or confusion? Prepare the appropriate spells or pre-buff before the fight. Enemy puts up a spell or physical defense? Prepare breach or the appropriate spell before the fight and use it during battle.
The only time a mage or sorcerer isn't straight up better than a fighter is when you're fighting an enemy with high MR or a lich/demilich. The former isn't a huge deal since you can just use lower resistance/pierce shield/magic resistance to lower or completely remove the MR. The latter is actually annoying since liches are immune to all spells lower than level 7 and demiliches are immune to all spells. Even then mages are still very good when fighting Demiliches since they can use spell immunity to become immune to imprisonment and just rely on weapon spells such melf's meteors and energy blades and buffs such as Tenser's Transformation.
OP
OP
Well, I must admit you're way more familiar with both combat systems than I am. All I can really say is how I perceived both games. In Origins defense, when I played it I was considerably less familiar with games of its type than I'm today, and I also spent much more time with BG (especially 2) than I did with the first Dragon Age game.
If I replay it one day I might leave with a different impression of its combat. I did started a new playthrough a while back but dropped it because of how lifeless and bland the game looks, which is my reservation about that game. I liked the combat of the other two games more, but they still couldn't make steps in the right direction when it concens art style and overall feeling of that universe.
Combat isn't just the "combat" itself, it's a combination of different factors. BG2 has a super encounter design and fantastic itemization, factors in which DAO completely lacks. BG2 makes use of the fantastic D&D's bestiary, in DAO it doesn't matter if you are fighting a darkspaw, a spider or a dragon, all encounters tend to go the same way.
Last edited: