Dragon Age II G4 Preview.

http://g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64227/dragon-age-ii/articles/72782/Dragon-Age-2-Preview/

Here's some paragraphs from the interview.

Our immediate impressions from the scant ten minutes we were able to play is that the same streamlining that occurred betweenMass EffectandMass Effect 2is occurring here betweenDragon Ageand its upcoming sequel. We noticed immediately that the menu screens and HUD had been both simplified and minimized, much easier to process at a glance and less of a presence on the screen itself.

The most impressive effect we saw during the battle was a rain of fire that plummeted from the sky down onto our flaming opponents. Playing as a Rogue proved to be a faster, more strategic experience than our last encounter with the game in which we played a sword-wielding knight. In this go-around, we dodged and slashed our way through the encounter with a pair of duel blades, peppering in a series of ranged attacks and commanding our team to engage with their crossbows, magic and broadswords.

Overall, it was a short-and-sweet demo, but even in that brief period of time we were able to get a sense thatDragon Age IIwill be a more manageable, action-intensive experience and a shift away from more hardcore RPG nature of its predecessor. With a release date coming in March, we're confident that we'll see even more in the weeks to come.

All the previews say that the game looks like a hack'n slash and that it has been streamlined and casualised.

at this point I'm so unsure about this game

will have to wait for some extensive pc gameplay which will probably be post release.

As he prepares to show me an extended demo of Dragon Age II, lead designer Mike Laidlaw elaborates, "You have every ability you had in Origins in terms of being able to attack, move and position guys. But it's faster, way more fluid, way more comprehensible."

"You may have to pause a little bit more to pull off the 'grand strategy,' but you can still pause the game, move between all of your characters... All those things are still there."

In other words, all of the old tactical elements remain intact. The attacks just hit a whole lot harder this time around.

Laidlaw demonstrates how that changes the gameplay by taking me over to the PC situated in the corner, where he takes a moment to demonstrate the new tactical camera before jumping into battle. It's actually not all that different from the original camera, though it sits at more of an angle this time around.

The idea is to afford a good view of the battlefield while resolving technical problems that lowered the graphical fidelity across all three platforms, Laidlaw says. My impression is that it makes for a solid middle ground between a pure third-person view and the overhead camera of old; at the very least, it doesn't impact the ability to issue orders and direct characters about the battlefield.

Laidlaw issues some orders using the familiar point-and-click interface from the first game, and then all hell breaks loose. Hawke rushes forward and reduces a pack of Darkspawn to tiny giblets, and his mage companion instantly lets loose with a devastating fireball. The action isn't that different from before, but everything seems to hit much harder this time around.

In describing the updated battle system, Laidlaw says that he didn't see any problem with the point-and-click interface of old. He just wanted the characters to move more quickly in implementing their orders.

Source

Im sure ill purchase it ..Considering my taste for rpgs..How ever like every one else im unsure about dao2 with all the stuff being said about it..Why do companies of late feel the need to nurf stuff..Dao was awesome, why not add to it..Give me more majic items, give me more spells..Give me more of every thing..Dont streamline it and take away stuff..Sure loved mass effect 2, how ever they sure did nurf the first one..Lackof items to be found around the game..Lack of weapons an armor...It had style yes..Lately this seams to be the trend of gaming..Im not liking it eiher..Go forward in life not back words..Give me more of the product that made your game great not less..

Im sure ill purchase it ..Considering my taste for rpgs..How ever like every one else im unsure about dao2 with all the stuff being said about it..Why do companies of late feel the need to nurf stuff..Dao was awesome, why not add to it..Give me more majic items, give me more spells..Give me more of every thing..Dont streamline it and take away stuff..Sure loved mass effect 2, how ever they sure did nurf the first one..Lackof items to be found around the game..Lack of weapons an armor...It had style yes..Lately this seams to be the trend of gaming..Im not liking it eiher..Go forward in life not back words..Give me more of the product that made your game great not less..

Gladestone1

We need to see some actual PC gameplay before we start assuming things. All these previews are more less saying the same thing every time. Regardless, the previewers seem to like the stuff they see so far, despite the changes from DAO.

It's the console preview. IIRC Dragon Age Origins for the PC was leagues better than the one on console if only because it had isometric view.

Nowadays games have been improved a lot since BG II.

I think being involved into the battle and not just staring the game doing all the battles

is just one of the imrovements.

So we have to leave Baldurs Gate battle-style back into the gaming history

and stare at the future without being skepticists.

Like i have said before... I was like "ok you have 2 paths... take the "right" one. And they took the left one.

*VO making the game more expensive to create, it dont add anything and it removes so much impersion from it.

*Hack and slash... Sure you can pause and "think" but then you notice... Why the hell should one do that... Like someone said "some times i just want to button mash my way to the next part"... Lol

*No improvments on the skills / stats by adding more of them and giving more choices as you level

*Less armors, weapons

*The little stratedgy that the first game had is now all gone.

*Less content and less gameplay time

*Interface have been made for consoles... *My eyes! They are bleeding!!!*

*From what i have seen in the videos and stuff... The ai is still as stupid as a rock...

*The conversation wheel of doom!

So instead of improving stuff they went and had to make it for casuals and remove stuff... Sure every rpg person is going to buy it at some point. Sure it will sell like water on a hot day. But will it be "great" and remembered over time? No it wont. Just like DAO. It will sell on hype and name.

Like i have said before... I was like "ok you have 2 paths... take the "right" one. And they took the left one.

*VO making the game more expensive to create, it dont add anything and it removes so much impersion from it.

*Hack and slash... Sure you can pause and "think" but then you notice... Why the hell should one do that... Like someone said "some times i just want to button mash my way to the next part"... Lol

*No improvments on the skills / stats by adding more of them and giving more choices as you level

*Less armors, weapons

*The little stratedgy that the first game had is now all gone.

*Less content and less gameplay time

*Interface have been made for consoles... *My eyes! They are bleeding!!!*

*From what i have seen in the videos and stuff... The ai is still as stupid as a rock...

*The conversation wheel of doom!

So instead of improving stuff they went and had to make it for casuals and remove stuff... Sure every rpg person is going to buy it at some point. Sure it will sell like water on a hot day. But will it be "great" and remembered over time? No it wont. Just like DAO. It will sell on hype and name.

KalDurenik

LOL :lol:

I'm not even sure where to begin - first of all, Dragon Age had as much strategy to it as every 'old-school' RPG did, second of all, you don't know jack about games.

The leveling has been said to be less linear with skills branching into more choices, the wheel is awesome: one of the highest rated RPG's ever had it and it worked great. And if you think only the amount of armour and weapons make a RPG, then go play an MMO because you've really lost me.

And last of all, but most importantly, if you think that Dragon Age 1 won't be remembered as a great RPG -- like pretty much almost any BioWare game will, heck, I've seen games that aren't half as good -- then you are DELUDING yourself. Dragon Age will be remembered as one of the greatest RPG's of our time, this is not an opinion -- it is a CERTIFIED FACT. And, and if you can't deal with it then... then you should stop playing REAL games and go play something like CARNIVAL GAMES. GOOD DAY SIR.

EDIT: AND how did Dragon Age just sell on hype and name? I've seen a gamespot article that said how much reviews influence a buyer's decision. Just look at the user score or critic score. You're kidding yourself. :lol:

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]

Like i have said before... I was like "ok you have 2 paths... take the "right" one. And they took the left one.

*VO making the game more expensive to create, it dont add anything and it removes so much impersion from it.

*Hack and slash... Sure you can pause and "think" but then you notice... Why the hell should one do that... Like someone said "some times i just want to button mash my way to the next part"... Lol

*No improvments on the skills / stats by adding more of them and giving more choices as you level

*Less armors, weapons

*The little stratedgy that the first game had is now all gone.

*Less content and less gameplay time

*Interface have been made for consoles... *My eyes! They are bleeding!!!*

*From what i have seen in the videos and stuff... The ai is still as stupid as a rock...

*The conversation wheel of doom!

So instead of improving stuff they went and had to make it for casuals and remove stuff... Sure every rpg person is going to buy it at some point. Sure it will sell like water on a hot day. But will it be "great" and remembered over time? No it wont. Just like DAO. It will sell on hype and name.

SkyWard20

LOL :lol:

I'm not even sure where to begin - first of all, Dragon Age had as much strategy to it as every 'old-school' RPG did, second of all, you don't know jack about games.

The leveling has been said to be less linear with skills branching into more choices, the wheel is awesome: one of the highest rated RPG's ever had it and it worked great. And if you think only the amount of armour and weapons make a RPG, then go play an MMO because you've really lost me.

And last of all, but most importantly, if you think that Dragon Age 1 won't be remembered as a great RPG -- like pretty much almost any BioWare game will, heck, I've seen games that aren't half as good -- then you are DELUDING yourself. Dragon Age will be remembered as one of the greatest RPG's of our time, this is not an opinion -- it is a CERTIFIED FACT. And, and if you can't deal with it then... then you should stop playing REAL games and go play something like CARNIVAL GAMES. GOOD DAY SIR.

Nowadays games have been improved a lot since BG II.

I think being involved into the battle and not just staring the game doing all the battles

is just one of the imrovements.

So we have to leave Baldurs Gate battle-style back into the gaming history

and stare at the future without being skepticists.

CDudu

why? i liked bg 2 and nwn battle style a lot better than current rpgs where you have 4 skills. in nwn 2 each mage had like 100 spells to choose from, every class had like 10 or 20 feats you could choose from, i wouldnt mind if dragon age and mainstream rpgs these days were faster but not at the cost of an excellent class system, they had druids barbarians paladins necromancers, does dragon age have any of this? as druid you could transform in elementals, like 10 kinds of animals and even dragon, you could even sumon demons and vampires if you wanted to... and what do we have in dragon age 2 ? a button smashing console game

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]

Like i have said before... I was like "ok you have 2 paths... take the "right" one. And they took the left one.

*VO making the game more expensive to create, it dont add anything and it removes so much impersion from it.

*Hack and slash... Sure you can pause and "think" but then you notice... Why the hell should one do that... Like someone said "some times i just want to button mash my way to the next part"... Lol

*No improvments on the skills / stats by adding more of them and giving more choices as you level

*Less armors, weapons

*The little stratedgy that the first game had is now all gone.

*Less content and less gameplay time

*Interface have been made for consoles... *My eyes! They are bleeding!!!*

*From what i have seen in the videos and stuff... The ai is still as stupid as a rock...

*The conversation wheel of doom!

So instead of improving stuff they went and had to make it for casuals and remove stuff... Sure every rpg person is going to buy it at some point. Sure it will sell like water on a hot day. But will it be "great" and remembered over time? No it wont. Just like DAO. It will sell on hype and name.

KalDurenik

LOL :lol:

I'm not even sure where to begin - first of all, Dragon Age had as much strategy to it as every 'old-school' RPG did, second of all, you don't know jack about games.

The leveling has been said to be less linear with skills branching into more choices, the wheel is awesome: one of the highest rated RPG's ever had it and it worked great. And if you think only the amount of armour and weapons make a RPG, then go play an MMO because you've really lost me.

And last of all, but most importantly, if you think that Dragon Age 1 won't be remembered as a great RPG -- like pretty much almost any BioWare game will, heck, I've seen games that aren't half as good -- then you are DELUDING yourself. Dragon Age will be remembered as one of the greatest RPG's of our time, this is not an opinion -- it is a CERTIFIED FACT. And, and if you can't deal with it then... then you should stop playing REAL games and go play something like CARNIVAL GAMES. GOOD DAY SIR.

Hahaha :lol:

I have played *many* old games that have been 'remembered' and most aren't even as complex as Dragon Age. Name one RPG that has a 90+% score on metacritic that hasn't been 'remembered'. You'll find NONE. This is not a matter of a opinion, so what you said is IRRELEVANT because it won't change the FACTS.

Dragon Age is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of games like Baldur's Gate 1, so if Baldur's Gate 1 can be remembered as 'Baldur's Gate 1', then I'm goddamn sure Dragon Age will be remembered as 'Dragon Age'. I've already said you know nothing about games. Time to give back your PC and go back to Carnival Games, because Dragon Age will go down in history as one of the best RPG's ever made. ;)

Oh wait, it already goddamn has.

I like people like you who associate everything mainstream with bad and brainless, put old games on a pedestal and hold incredible and irrational expectations for modern games and are disappointed when those new games don't meet your expectations. You then start to praise the more obscure titles for what they're not worth and start bashing everything that is mainstream, claiming it is 'brainless'.

Oh well, enjoy your old or obscure games while I play veritable works of art.

>Hahaha :lolI have played *many* old games that have been 'remembered' and most aren't even as complex as Dragon Age. Name one RPG that has a 90+% score on metacritic that hasn't been 'remembered'. You'll find NONE. This is not a matter of a opinion, so what you said is IRRELEVANT because it won't change the FACTS.Dragon Age is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of games like Baldur's Gate 1, so if Baldur's Gate 1 can be remembered as 'Baldur's Gate 1', then I'm goddamn sure Dragon Age will be remembered as 'Dragon Age'. I've already said you know nothing about games. Time to give back your PC and go back to Carnival Games, because Dragon Age will go down in history as one of the best RPG's ever made. ;)Oh wait, it already goddamn has.I like people like you who associate everything mainstream with bad and brainless, put old games on a pedestal and hold incredible and irrational expectations for modern games and are disappointed when those new games don't meet your expectations. You then start to praise the more obscure titles for what they're not worth and start bashing everything that is mainstream, claiming it is 'brainless'.Oh well, enjoy your old or obscure games while I play veritable works of art.

Baldurs Gate is light years behind Dragon Age? Whatever you have had... I want some... Sure if you care about the "bling" i guess it is... But i agree with you! Mainstream is good! When a person that have been locked in a basement for his entire life and dont have any arms can go up and play a game. And first of all no time have passed 2nd of all... The hype have died down for Dragon Age... If you asked most people to review it now when there is no "spiritual successor of BG" talk then it would drop in scores like a fly dying in mid air while flying. But i know! There is no way to have a good,fun,complex game that is fast responsive with good ai and great story and tactical battles! I mean if that would happen the mainstream people would die of a heart attack (hey they kinda did on Dragon Age because it was "so complex") Lol

But its kinda like when someone review a game the way the masses dont want it to be... Then that person is a idiot and not a real reviwer!

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

GeneralShowzer

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

KalDurenik

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

SkyWard20

Dragon Age is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of games like Baldur's Gate 1, so if Baldur's Gate 1 can be remembered as 'Baldur's Gate 1', then I'm goddamn sure Dragon Age will be remembered as 'Dragon Age'. I've already said you know nothing about games. Time to give back your PC and go back to Carnival Games, because Dragon Age will go down in history as one of the best RPG's ever made. ;)

SkyWard20

I haven't played BG 2 yet, so I can't really comment, but I've played a bit of Baldur's Gate 1 & like I said, the combat was mediocre when compared to modern RPG's. Needing to rest at the inn after you use two spells on your first enemy is Welcome to Lamesville - Home of the forgotten Combat System. Having to reload every time your party member dies is Return to Lamesville - Haven for the Outdated. I won't even mention the poor attack animations, because that's common for the games made back then, but the animations and slightly over the top blood-letting in Dragon Age: Origins felt quite satisfying, at least for me. When I wanted to steal something at the beginning of the game by playing a thief, I got killed by a single guard. wtf... That's just not fun, especially at the beginning of the game. It's just unnecessarily complicated, why would modern games want to do that again? To make a game so needlessly complicated in modern times would be Back to the Lamesville - Reach for the broken Gameplay Ideas.SkyWard20

While BioWare and most other developers of computer role-playing games have long since moved over into glorious 3D, it's still worth remembering that the glory days of CRPGs were back in the days of now-archaic 2D graphics, when games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate wove together interesting settings, wonderful combat systems, colorful characters, and incredible stories into what became some of the greatest computer games ever produced. Although everyone who played CRPGs in the late 1990s probably leans toward a particular favorite game, there's little doubt that Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn deserves to stand among the very best games of the era, or indeed among the greatest games of all time.

It wouldn't be a fantasy RPG without a few dragons, now would it?

No one can deny BioWare's pedigree as a developer of superb RPGs. Between the Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, BioWare has been steadily reimagining the way gamers interact with their RPGs and the characters within. Arguably its finest achievement, however, was the Infinity engine, which powered the Baldur's Gate games, as well as the Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment. While plenty of games had included an isometric perspective before Baldur's Gate, the Infinity engine managed to accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of taking TSR's turn-based Advanced Dungeons & Dragons gaming system and rendering it in real-time gameplay, while remaining mostly faithful to the underlying mechanics. Thanks to the artificial intelligence scripts that you could outfit your characters with and the pause-anytime command system (which let you freeze combat to adapt to a changing situation or override a script by issuing a new command to your party members), the Infinity engine was--if somewhat off-putting to D&D and turn-based gaming purists--immediately accessible to a wide audience that liked its games to have a bit more action and a bit less waiting.

Eventually you had to descend into Hell itself to reclaim your soul.

Though Baldur's Gate featured the Infinity engine, Baldur's Gate II is when BioWare really hit its stride as an RPG developer. In Shadows of Amn, you continued the story laid down in Baldur's Gate, in which you (the main character) were revealed to be one of the Bhaalspawn--that is, a child of Bhaal, the God of Murder. Most of the familiar characters returned from the first game, including Imoen, a somewhat naïve fellow orphan and fledgling mage/thief; Jaheira, a druid harper who was obsessed with keeping your character on a path balanced between good and evil; and the fan favorite Minsc, an eccentric ranger who kept his pet, Boo, a miniature "giant space hamster," on his person at all times. Numerous new non-player characters were included as well, including Aerie, a waifish member of a race of winged elves, and Jon Irenicus, the nefarious elven exile who saw your character as his key to godhood.

At the outset of the game, a few of the characters from the first game are killed off, and the remaining characters, including your player character, are placed inside one of Irenicus' lairs, underneath the great port city of Athkatla. After fighting your way out of imprisonment, your initial goal is to find and rescue Imoen, who has been locked away with Irenicus in Spellhold, a prison for spellcasters. When you do finally find her, however (and doing so will probably take 15 to 25 hours of gameplay, depending on how many side quests you take on), your reward is to have your half-divine soul stolen by Irenicus. A lengthy and involving adventure follows, which sees you pursue Irenicus through the Underdark and into an elven city that he's threatening to destroy. After killing him, though, you're sucked after him into hell, where you're forced to destroy him one last time to regain your soul, and your life.

All in all, Baldur's Gate II is a towering achievement in the history of role-playing games, giving you a huge world to explore, plenty of well-drawn NPCs to argue with or get romantic with, and an engaging story that's simultaneously epic and personal. -- Matthew Rorie

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6146695/index.html

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

SkyWard20

nwn 2 wins because has a great system while dragon age because it looks pretty, but if you can see beyond the graphics the system is not very deep. Of course some people say da is better than nwn 2 but thats because they have like 5 years of difference, if nwn 2 had the graphics of dragon age id take nwn 2 any day.

Too bad i never played baldurs gate series they look awesome too but too outdated for my taste now

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

devious742

Didn't exactly say that it sucks. There's this award on gamespot given to games that are too hard they become frustrating... so too hard can mean 'bad'.

I just said that this particular instance where you steal something with what only a thief character can apparently do, and then you have no chance to escape from the guard right at the beginning of the game. That sucks, that's all.

What I'm trying to say is that people tend to horribly overrate games of the past. I like Fallour 1, but damn, Fallout 3 blows it out of the water. It's so better in so many ways -- one of the best games I've ever played, actually.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Dragon Age is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of games like Baldur's Gate 1, so if Baldur's Gate 1 can be remembered as 'Baldur's Gate 1', then I'm goddamn sure Dragon Age will be remembered as 'Dragon Age'. I've already said you know nothing about games. Time to give back your PC and go back to Carnival Games, because Dragon Age will go down in history as one of the best RPG's ever made. ;)

devious742

I haven't played BG 2 yet, so I can't really comment, but I've played a bit of Baldur's Gate 1 & like I said, the combat was mediocre when compared to modern RPG's. Needing to rest at the inn after you use two spells on your first enemy is Welcome to Lamesville - Home of the forgotten Combat System. Having to reload every time your party member dies is Return to Lamesville - Haven for the Outdated. I won't even mention the poor attack animations, because that's common for the games made back then, but the animations and slightly over the top blood-letting in Dragon Age: Origins felt quite satisfying, at least for me. When I wanted to steal something at the beginning of the game by playing a thief, I got killed by a single guard. wtf... That's just not fun, especially at the beginning of the game. It's just unnecessarily complicated, why would modern games want to do that again? To make a game so needlessly complicated in modern times would be Back to the Lamesville - Reach for the broken Gameplay Ideas.SkyWard20

While BioWare and most other developers of computer role-playing games have long since moved over into glorious 3D, it's still worth remembering that the glory days of CRPGs were back in the days of now-archaic 2D graphics, when games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate wove together interesting settings, wonderful combat systems, colorful characters, and incredible stories into what became some of the greatest computer games ever produced. Although everyone who played CRPGs in the late 1990s probably leans toward a particular favorite game, there's little doubt that Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn deserves to stand among the very best games of the era, or indeed among the greatest games of all time.

It wouldn't be a fantasy RPG without a few dragons, now would it?

No one can deny BioWare's pedigree as a developer of superb RPGs. Between the Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, BioWare has been steadily reimagining the way gamers interact with their RPGs and the characters within. Arguably its finest achievement, however, was the Infinity engine, which powered the Baldur's Gate games, as well as the Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment. While plenty of games had included an isometric perspective before Baldur's Gate, the Infinity engine managed to accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of taking TSR's turn-based Advanced Dungeons & Dragons gaming system and rendering it in real-time gameplay, while remaining mostly faithful to the underlying mechanics. Thanks to the artificial intelligence scripts that you could outfit your characters with and the pause-anytime command system (which let you freeze combat to adapt to a changing situation or override a script by issuing a new command to your party members), the Infinity engine was--if somewhat off-putting to D&D and turn-based gaming purists--immediately accessible to a wide audience that liked its games to have a bit more action and a bit less waiting.

Eventually you had to descend into Hell itself to reclaim your soul.

Though Baldur's Gate featured the Infinity engine, Baldur's Gate II is when BioWare really hit its stride as an RPG developer. In Shadows of Amn, you continued the story laid down in Baldur's Gate, in which you (the main character) were revealed to be one of the Bhaalspawn--that is, a child of Bhaal, the God of Murder. Most of the familiar characters returned from the first game, including Imoen, a somewhat naïve fellow orphan and fledgling mage/thief; Jaheira, a druid harper who was obsessed with keeping your character on a path balanced between good and evil; and the fan favorite Minsc, an eccentric ranger who kept his pet, Boo, a miniature "giant space hamster," on his person at all times. Numerous new non-player characters were included as well, including Aerie, a waifish member of a race of winged elves, and Jon Irenicus, the nefarious elven exile who saw your character as his key to godhood.

At the outset of the game, a few of the characters from the first game are killed off, and the remaining characters, including your player character, are placed inside one of Irenicus' lairs, underneath the great port city of Athkatla. After fighting your way out of imprisonment, your initial goal is to find and rescue Imoen, who has been locked away with Irenicus in Spellhold, a prison for spellcasters. When you do finally find her, however (and doing so will probably take 15 to 25 hours of gameplay, depending on how many side quests you take on), your reward is to have your half-divine soul stolen by Irenicus. A lengthy and involving adventure follows, which sees you pursue Irenicus through the Underdark and into an elven city that he's threatening to destroy. After killing him, though, you're sucked after him into hell, where you're forced to destroy him one last time to regain your soul, and your life.

All in all, Baldur's Gate II is a towering achievement in the history of role-playing games, giving you a huge world to explore, plenty of well-drawn NPCs to argue with or get romantic with, and an engaging story that's simultaneously epic and personal. -- Matthew Rorie

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6146695/index.html

While I dont like the more action packed approach they are taking I must remember that the console version is different from the PC version, so I will give them the benefit of doubt. I have heard they said that all the spells in DAO are back and the tactical gameplay is still there. With that said I hope DA2 is a bit more tactical because I could beat most of DAO just by flinging fireballs and cones of ice at everything that moves.

I also hope the game punishes you much harder when your characters die, like how you were punished in Baldur's Gate by the fact that you will need to resurrect fallen allies. I actually like the permadeath system as well, but it wouldnt fit a game like this.

While I dont like the more action packed approach they are taking I must remember that the console version is different from the PC version, so I will give them the benefit of doubt. I have heard they said that all the spells in DAO are back and the tactical gameplay is still there. With that said I hope DA2 is a bit more tactical because I could beat most of DAO just by flinging fireballs and cones of ice at everything that moves.

I also hope the game punishes you much harder when your characters die, like how you were punished in Baldur's Gate by the fact that you will need to resurrect fallen allies. I actually like the permadeath system as well, but it wouldnt fit a game like this.

Maroxad

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

SkyWard20

Didn't exactly say that it sucks. There's this award on gamespot given to games that are too hard they become frustrating... so too hard can mean 'bad'.

I just said that this particular instance where you steal something with what only a thief character can apparently do, and then you have no chance to escape from the guard right at the beginning of the game. That sucks, that's all.

What I'm trying to say is that people tend to horribly overrate games of the past. I like Fallour 1, but damn, Fallout 3 blows it out of the water. It's so better in so many ways -- one of the best games I've ever played, actually.

So basically you hate the fact that people prefer other games over your favorite games. Ever heard of human diversity?

And i also consider Fallout 1&2 far far superiour in comparison to Fallout 3 in every way, except the graphics. I could elaborate, but you wont read or change your opinion. So basically, i'll say that just because you suck at gaming, doesn't mean games are bad.

So he said BG1 sucks because it is too hard? Unfortunately, I know someone irl with a similar problem.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

While I dont like the more action packed approach they are taking I must remember that the console version is different from the PC version, so I will give them the benefit of doubt. I have heard they said that all the spells in DAO are back and the tactical gameplay is still there. With that said I hope DA2 is a bit more tactical because I could beat most of DAO just by flinging fireballs and cones of ice at everything that moves.

I also hope the game punishes you much harder when your characters die, like how you were punished in Baldur's Gate by the fact that you will need to resurrect fallen allies. I actually like the permadeath system as well, but it wouldnt fit a game like this.

GeneralShowzer

Unfortunately that seems to be the case, but the mere thought of this happening upsets me, so I will go back and pretend that the console versions will be completely different from the PC version :P, a man can hope cant he.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Lucianu

Didn't exactly say that it sucks. There's this award on gamespot given to games that are too hard they become frustrating... so too hard can mean 'bad'.

I just said that this particular instance where you steal something with what only a thief character can apparently do, and then you have no chance to escape from the guard right at the beginning of the game. That sucks, that's all.

What I'm trying to say is that people tend to horribly overrate games of the past. I like Fallour 1, but damn, Fallout 3 blows it out of the water. It's so better in so many ways -- one of the best games I've ever played, actually.

So basically you hate the fact that people prefer other games over your favorite games. Ever heard of human diversity?

And i also consider Fallout 1&2 far far superiour in comparison to Fallout 3 in every way, except the graphics. I could elaborate, but you wont read or change your opinion. So basically, i'll say that just because you suck at gaming, doesn't mean games are bad.

I don't suck at gaming; I can tell great games from the good ones, or the bad ones. Many people here can't. Fallout 1 wasn't a hard game. It deserves credit for making the Fallout franchise what it is today and it's a good game in its own right, but there are better alternatives. I don't know how people can say that Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 completely destroys the game in terms of gameplay, graphics, atmosphere, sound, you name it. Heck even the roleplaying is better than in Fallout 1:o. Every quest in Fallout 3 had some kind of noteworthy decision, some quests in Fallout 1 don't, the characters there have no good reason to join you -- it's done on a whim and you can level up your character by planting and taking back items from an NPC's inventory. There aren't that many quests and the game seems pretty short since I got to what is apparently 'mid-game' in 1 day.SkyWard20

"One of the great things about Fallout is how it lets you play as any number of completely different character types, depending on your decisions during character creation. You can play as an expert marksman or as a brutish close-range fighter. You can be exceptionally strong but incredibly stupid to the point where you can't even coherently respond to other characters in the game"

"You can also play as a brilliant and charismatic diplomat and talk your way out of even the most dangerous situations. Though it isn't easy, it's possible to finish Fallout without ever getting into a single fight"

I dont think you can do that in fallout 3..:| in fallout 3 you can be a master all trades.. :lol:

----------

Fallout's near-future settings, characters, and weapons fit perfectly in with the game's unique sense of sty.le

What's so SPECIAL about GURPS?

Though it didn't exactly explode onto store shelves, Fallout was a fairly highly anticipated game for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it arrived at a time when computer RPGs were few and far between, and for another, it was supposed to incorporate Steve Jackson's GURPS (generic universal role-playing system) pen-and-paper role-playing rules. GURPS was always popular for its open-endedness and for how it could lend itself to pretty much any setting, whether historic or fantasy or futuristic, so it seemed well suited for a game like Fallout. Then, in the eleventh hour, Steve Jackson pulled out of the project apparently because of creative differences with the Fallout team; among other things, Jackson apparently didn't want GURPS associated with a game featuring as much grisly violence as Fallout. You'd think that to lose the underlying ruleset would completely cripple any RPG, but the Fallout team came up with its own SPECIAL system--and this system actually remains quite possibly the best character generation system of any computer RPG to date.

A memorable cast of characters is brought to life with some of the best voice acting of any game to date.

If you consider yourself a fan of role-playing games, but you've never played Fallout, then you should be completely ashamed of yourself, you horrible person. Go sit in the corner! But seriously, although this first role-playing game from Black Isle Studios showed up quietly on PC store shelves back in 1997, it's now remembered reverently by most anyone who had the pleasure of playing it. Set in a postapocalyptic future, Fallout features not only a unique setting, but also one of the most successful implementations of open-ended gameplay to date. That, along with a cast of memorable characters (many of whom are brought to life by celebrity voice actors), a great sense of **** plenty of humor, and lots of over-the-top combat, makes Fallout not just one of the greatest RPGs ever, but one of the greatest games ever made in any category.

Fallout is clearly inspired by Interplay's own 1987 role-playing game, Wasteland, another postapocalyptic RPG. In turn, both these games draw upon the sorts of pop-culture depictions of a grim and chaotic future popularized by influential sci-fi action movies such as The Road Warrior and The Terminator. However, despite its many conscious references to other postapocalyptic sci-fi, Fallout had a ****all its own. The premise of the game was that the bombs came crashing down apparently sometime in the 1950s, when Leave it to Beaver and its ilk was all the rage and family values were the in thing. Well, some of society managed to sneak into thickly armored underground bunkers to avoid incineration, but in so doing, these people pretty much locked themselves in a time capsule. At some point in the 21st century, one of those bunkers starts having some technical difficulties and runs out of drinking water. And guess who's the lucky stiff your friends and family decide to send out into the world to find a solution to this life-threatening problem?

Thus you set foot into a weird, memorable world filled with sci-fi kitsch, as well as a lot of serious threats, problems, and weapons. One of the great things about Fallout is how it lets you play as any number of completely different character types, depending on your decisions during character creation. You can play as an expert marksman or as a brutish close-range fighter. You can be exceptionally strong but incredibly stupid to the point where you can't even coherently respond to other characters in the game (but boy, can you beat them up). You can also play as a brilliant and charismatic diplomat and talk your way out of even the most dangerous situations. Though it isn't easy, it's possible to finish Fallout without ever getting into a single fight. Also, you can play as a sneaky character and get your way by picking locks, stealing, conniving, and so forth. The game offers unique rewards for all these approaches and for shades in between. Though Fallout isn't a particularly lengthy game from start to finish, few RPGs to date have offered as much replay value.

For good measure, Fallout features what's certainly one of the best endings of any game to date. Without spoiling anything, the game just does an excellent job of tying up all the loose ends and showing you the specific consequences of your actions from earlier in the game. It's a genuinely touching finale to a game that remains unrivaled and completely recommendable even all these years after its release.

If you got me at gunpoint and made me pick my single all-time favorite game, I'd probably blurt out "Fallout." The retail version of the game had some bugs and such that probably kept it from getting even higher praise, but eventually, all those problems were addressed in patches, leaving a game that I consider to be completely flawless. I ended up playing through Fallout on three separate occasions, each time as a completely different character, and have some mighty fine memories to show for it.

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/p-14.html

I don't suck at gaming; I can tell great games from the good ones, or the bad ones. Many people here can't. Fallout 1 wasn't a hard game. It deserves credit for making the Fallout franchise what it is today and it's a good game in its own right, but there are better alternatives. I don't know how people can say that Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 completely destroys the game in terms of gameplay, graphics, atmosphere, sound, you name it. Heck even the roleplaying is better than in Fallout 1. Every quest in Fallout 3 had some kind of noteworthy decision, some quests in Fallout 1 don't, the characters there have no good reason to join you -- it's done on a whim and you can level up your character by planting and taking back items from an NPC's inventory. There aren't that many quests and the game seems pretty short since I got to what is apparently 'mid-game' in 1 day.SkyWard20

To each he's own then, i'm not going to debate your taste, afterall, we each have our taste in games. But never assume that your taste in games is absolute fact. Its relative, and subjective, as is entertainment.

For example, you may consider a game such as Minecraft overrated and useless, but at the same time i could consider it revolutionary (actually, i do, its the most unique game ever, and once its in its final release, and focuses on the MMO aspect, it shall be the greatest thing since Mario).

I loved Fallout 3, i like open ended games. And i'm currently playing Fallout New Vegas. But, i've played Fallout 2 & 1 atleast 5 times now (finished it the 5th time just two months ago), and no matter how much i think about it, it will always be superiour to Fallout 3, in every way, except obviously the graphics.

Like i said, i can elaborate and explain in detail why, just as the posted above me explained (devious), but it would take me some time (and my free time is extremely limited), so i'll leave it at that.

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

GeneralShowzer

Every quest in Fallout 3 had some kind of noteworthy decision, some quests in Fallout 1 don'tSkyWard20

Most of the decisions just seemed to be there for the sake of being there. Not even my evil guy would nuke a city, yes the caps might have been nice, but is it really worth destroying a city for that little money. Also for what reason would he put the tree on fire, a waste of ammo in my evil character's opinion.

I dont think you can do that in fallout 3..:| in fallout 3 you can be a master all trades.. :lol:

devious742

They were way too generous with skill points in Fallout 3. Each skill had 25 books associated with it so with the Comprehension perk that meant that you would get 50 skill points alone from just skill books, then there are the bobbleheads. which gave an additional 10 skill. 100 being the max-50-10=40 meaning you as a player would only need to put each skill at 40 and then let the quests, skill books and bobbleheads do the rest for you.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

But not on Gamespot. Which is the most popular and credible gaming site.

You were not just swearing that DA had the same depth as any other RPG, were you not? You're retracting that?

No class in NWN 2 felt the same. Each had his things and felt special.

In Dragon Age every once in a while someone will shout out "Hello Dwarf!" or "Hello Elf". In NWN2 that didn't really happened. And it doesn't make any difference.

the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Okay from the previous page I gathered that many of you didn't like Dragon Age 1. And the same bunch of people keep saying that "DA2 has changed completely" and "bring back all the good stuff". But you didn't even like the games to begin with. Then WTH do you like? :evil:

Stop contradicting yourselves. It makes you look stupid.

Okay from the previous page I gathered that many of you didn't like Dragon Age 1. And the same bunch of people keep saying that "DA2 has changed completely" and "bring back all the good stuff". But you didn't even like the games to begin with. Then WTH do you like? :evil:

Stop contradicting yourselves. It makes you look stupid.

ralph2190

I may not have liked Dragon Age 1, but these changes are looking to make the bad even worse. What they should have done was improve what didnt work, because there were good elements in there. But now they just remove them completely and replace them with something that looks even worse. Dragon Age: Origins is a great throwback to older RPGs and a quality game in its own right.

Here are some things I wanted to be done: No/reduced (like BG does it) level scaling, more interesting items, better quest design, higher penalties for failure (the death penalty in DA:O was minimal where they wake up immediately after the battle with a slight debuff) and more variety in combat.

Okay from the previous page I gathered that many of you didn't like Dragon Age 1. And the same bunch of people keep saying that "DA2 has changed completely" and "bring back all the good stuff". But you didn't even like the games to begin with. Then WTH do you like? :evil:

Stop contradicting yourselves. It makes you look stupid.

ralph2190

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] I don't suck at gaming; I can tell great games from the good ones, or the bad ones. Many people here can't. Fallout 1 wasn't a hard game. It deserves credit for making the Fallout franchise what it is today and it's a good game in its own right, but there are better alternatives. I don't know how people can say that Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 completely destroys the game in terms of gameplay, graphics, atmosphere, sound, you name it. Heck even the roleplaying is better than in Fallout 1:o. Every quest in Fallout 3 had some kind of noteworthy decision, some quests in Fallout 1 don't, the characters there have no good reason to join you -- it's done on a whim and you can level up your character by planting and taking back items from an NPC's inventory. There aren't that many quests and the game seems pretty short since I got to what is apparently 'mid-game' in 1 day.devious742

"One of the great things about Fallout is how it lets you play as any number of completely different character types, depending on your decisions during character creation. You can play as an expert marksman or as a brutish close-range fighter. You can be exceptionally strong but incredibly stupid to the point where you can't even coherently respond to other characters in the game"

"You can also play as a brilliant and charismatic diplomat and talk your way out of even the most dangerous situations. Though it isn't easy, it's possible to finish Fallout without ever getting into a single fight"

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/p-14.html

I don't know if you're serious or just playing dumb, but have you actually played the game? Sure, the idea of not getting into a fight is nice, but you just miss out on experience in the game, so it's pretty pointless not to. Yeah, you can be a jack of all trades in Fallout 3, but believe it or not, some might actually LIKE that.

I don't get you. You can fight unarmed, with melee weapons, small guns, energy weapons and big guns also just like in Fallout 1 and the weapon range is a lot more diverse than in Fallout 1. You are actually praising a game for giving you more LIMITED options. You can go with melee weapons just fine through the game; you don't have to touch other weapons, except maybe once or twice during a quest.

I have played the game with a stupid character -- the game is just limiting access to content that way. There are a few differences in dialogue, but no one in Shady Sands is even willing to give you the quests you normally get. I don't know if it's even possible to get directions that way if you're playing as a silly character. Like I said, praising the game for limiting you is NOT a bonus.

The most viable option to play as remains the following -- play a charismatic, intelligent character as some quests are mostly or only based on conversation. Some quests you get are more linear, i.e. kill the radscorpions, talk down that guy to save the hostage -- there's only one way of completing that quest. I'm not sure, but I believe that EVERY quest that appears on your Pip-boy in Fallout 3 gives you some decisions, unlike Fallout 1.

And actually, you can become a jack of all trades character by doing the following:

Use the steal skill to level up.

Get lots of caps.

Buy an unlimited supply of books.

Like I said, Fallout 3 gives you ALL that AND MORE. Fallout 1 has some crap useless skills like the Gambling or Explosives Skill ( explosives are rare in Fallout 1 and there's no quest that requires your explosives skill apparently ) Fallout 1 is also fairly linear in comparison.

Don't reviews say that too about Fallout 3? That' you can play your character in a lot of different ways? The fact that it's harder to get those skills in Fallout 1 is really not a bonus in and of itself, since Fallout 3 is HUGE compared to Fallout 1, so it's natural that players will eventually WANT to max out their characters ( at least for me ), even if it happens a little too easy.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] Every quest in Fallout 3 had some kind of noteworthy decision, some quests in Fallout 1 don'tMaroxad

Most of the decisions just seemed to be there for the sake of being there. Not even my evil guy would nuke a city, yes the caps might have been nice, but is it really worth destroying a city for that little money. Also for what reason would he put the tree on fire, a waste of ammo in my evil character's opinion.

I dont think you can do that in fallout 3..:| in fallout 3 you can be a master all trades.. :lol:

devious742

They were way too generous with skill points in Fallout 3. Each skill had 25 books associated with it so with the Comprehension perk that meant that you would get 50 skill points alone from just skill books, then there are the bobbleheads. which gave an additional 10 skill. 100 being the max-50-10=40 meaning you as a player would only need to put each skill at 40 and then let the quests, skill books and bobbleheads do the rest for you.

[QUOTE="ralph2190"]

Okay from the previous page I gathered that many of you didn't like Dragon Age 1. And the same bunch of people keep saying that "DA2 has changed completely" and "bring back all the good stuff". But you didn't even like the games to begin with. Then WTH do you like? :evil:

Stop contradicting yourselves. It makes you look stupid.

GeneralShowzer

Yeah, dude! Marvel at the complexity of old school RPG's. Feel the superiority and complexity of the gameplay design that makes not prime Dragon Age look like a bad tomato in comparison:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rG1m19KDw4

Step 1: Get rat.

Step 2: Click on the Rat.

Repeat step 2 until rat is dead then ====> repeat step 1

Also, have fun when 10 years from now people like you will say how complex old games like Dragon Age were when compared to whatever games we get in 2020.

I don't know if you're serious or just playing dumb, but have you actually played the game? Sure, the idea of not getting into a fight is nice, but you just miss out on experience in the game, so it's pretty pointless not to. Yeah, you can be a jack of all trades in Fallout 3, but believe it or not, some might actually LIKE that.

SkyWard20

If you are playing as a diplomatic character you will be getting more than enough experience from completing quests. I must say that one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in a roleplaying game is to beat Fallout 1 without killing anyone. And the problem with Fallout 3 is not that you can be a jack of all trades (you can in Fallout 1+2 as well) but rather that you can be a master of all trades. Meaning that specialization is rather non-existent. Why would I specialize in a certain few skills when I can and probably will max every skill.