-Anyone else excited about this game? As someone who spent way too much time with the bauldars gate games back in the day, to see them come out with a "spiritual" successor is pretty exciting. I'm interested in the whole "playing through your characters origin story" as a game mechanic. I hope the game has deep character development, and isn't just focused on the story...though the story does look impressive. I'm a big fan of other BioWare games like the Kotor games, but again, those were more focused on the story than character development.
The book isn't bad. Gaider's a competent writer, so it's readable. But if for nothing else, the book's worth the read for the background to the game.More on topic: I'm excited about the game and will pick it up on release day (I'll likely get the Collector's Edition, actually), but I'm avoiding the trailers as I - like several others - think the marketing spin is... lamentable. But I have enough confidence in BioWare that I'm certain the game will be well worth the money.
Bingjack: I agree with you that the knee-jerk "EA is evil" reaction is tired and mostly ill-placed, but I also see, given EA's history, why people are suspicious. Hell, even I'm looking on this this sudden turnaround on their DRM stance for DA:O with a jaundiced eye, but I'm going to go on faith and assume they're not hiding anything sinister with it. If it turns out there's more to it than they're letting on, then I'll complain. A lot.
Since I consider Baldur's Gate 2 one of the great classics of video gaming, I am looking forward to Dragon Age. However, I hope that it is more like Baldur's Gate then Neverwinter Nights, which I personally consider the low point in Bioware's evolution. Anyway, I won't be buying Dragon Age before it gets thoroughly reviewed and after I read a lot of player feedback. I would love for the game to only have the disk-check DRM, but I have a churning feeling that EA might still pull a fast one on this issue.
It is much closer to BG , than NWN. NWN was more revered for its multiplayer and it's online content creation tools, than its single player RPG gameplay, which was average at best.
DA:O is more tactical, like BG, allowing you *full* squad control, by pausing at any time to take control/ issue anyone orders, whereas with NWN, any companions you pick up were more like "bots" with limited options and very little player control. IT will be real time... more like continuous turns... with an auto pause function availiable, just like BG. It also boasts robust content creation tools like NWN for making modules or game mods (although sadly, No Multiplayer at this point).
The story is also much more like BG in spirit, with the compaions you can find and recruit all having distinct and well fleshed out personalities, that will even rebel against you based on your decisions, and interact with other squad members differently.
I have several friends who have played the game at Cons, and they all say its great as far as the battle sequences they played through.
Im looking forward to this game and finally... I CAN GET NEW GAMES ON MY SWEET NEW PC! WOOT!
But I do have a question... is Steam or Impulse getting this game...? or is there no word on that yet? I have looked but seen nothing about it so far... Thanks.
Theres no official word as far as I know, but Steam is a virtual certainty.
Impulse...? Who knows. But I wouldnt bet money on it.
I have mixed feelings about DA:O ... I do like how it's more tactical like BouldersGate, but sad there's no multiplayer such as what was available in BouldersGate or Neverwinter Nights. The majority of content creation comes from the multiplayer community... so while there's a better a game editor it will never come near providing as much user made content, areas, and modules as what we see with Neverwinter Nights. I'll probably still get the game, but I'm worried about the replay value.
NWN was certainly driven by its multiplayer, as the single player game was very weak.
BG technically had MP capability, but it was not known for that, and the mods created for that game were driven by the SP game.
And your "people don't make mods for Single Player Games" assertion is not supported by the evidence. One only has to take into account the daunting list of mods made for Oblivion, and that game probably wont be as moddable with as good of a toolset as Bioware will deliver.
I want a highly scripted, quality single player RPG like Baldur's Gate. Any mods would go to enhance that game, or hopefully create another on the same level. NWN, with it's revolutionary toolset, created a *whole Lot* of content...but none of it made for as good of a game as Baldur's Gate series. NWN was quantity, not quality.
I wouldn't mind multiplayer at some point, and Id be suprised if the series was successful, it didnt get expanded in that direction (it is supposed to be the start of a new franchise, after all). But I want a great RPG first and formost with a good story and great gameplay, and no amount of community modding will make that happen if the actual SP game isnt good.
Yeah, that would be great!
YOU HEAR THAT FROGGY?!
Dunno if books would work out though, since Elemental is more of a build forces an battle strategies game as opposed to DA:O. Granted, they could tell a tale of how trouble 's brewing and one faction is building it's forces to oppose the threat (much like in LotR 2), but I really don't know if that would make people read it.
If it would, basically they could just as well have written a Galciv2 book or two by now...
Back on DA:O though:
The player - NPC interaction is one of the major things that makes me look forward to that game.
What's better than slitting someone's throat and make the good boys go WTF?!
While I did not provide supported evidence for lack of mods for Single Player Games, simply compare the mods from Obilivon to the mods from Neverwinter Nights and it's clear which community provides more to the community. Even reviewing other games such as TBS games such as Galactic Civilizations(very popular) while the community did provide additional modding content the current forums of this singleplayer game are deathly silent while older TBS games with multiplayer are still buzzing and new content being created.
You've also made some subjective comment without evidence:
Such as "NWN was certainly driven by its multiplayer, as the single player game was very weak." If you were to post that topic on the NWN forums you'd be shreaded. While NWN was more multiplayer focused the singleplayer game was not very weak.
Another subjective comment was "NWN, with it's revolutionary toolset, created a *whole Lot* of content...but none of it made for as good of a game as Baldur's Gate series. " While this might be your opinion, it's not my opinion and there's no official game judge which makes such decisions. It's a posted comment without evidence.
I don't need evidence for my *opinion*. ITs not like I said NWN turned people purple. I said NWN's single player RPG was weak...how could that be anything but subjective? There is nobody else on the net that doesnt understand that the things we write on forums are subjective.
NWN single player was a relatively lukewarm RPG, both in story and gameplay. Where NWN really shone was in Multiplayer, and from its online content creation tools.
It was great you could do the things you could do with NWN. It was reasonably revolutionary at the time. (although, not completely)
But none of the things produced with those tools ever made a single player RPG experience that was as good as Baldur's Gate 2.
I'd expect to get "shredded" on any game forum populated only by fans of that game, if I were to say that that game is not very good in one area or another. But that doesnt make them right. *Nobody* celebrates NWN for its single player RPG. Its always in reference to the stuff you could build with it.
Then I could say the same for my *opinion*... sorry but your *opinion* is not the almighty word of truth.
Again I must remind you that your *opinion* is not the almighty word of truth. To ask a member on the forums to provide "evidence" yet not provide "evidence" for your own claims is hypocritical. Both games are highly enjoyed by the RPG communities and NWN is actually better in some ways for the singleplayer experience.
Actually while the Baldur's Gate was great fun... it's a fixed world where many aspects don't change even after stuff provided by the community. On the other hand NWN provided an editor which has allowed for not only the 4 different campaigns from Bioware, but it's provided thousands of singleplayer campaigns generated from the community. Thus the NWN actually provides greater replay value because there's always new areas to explore, new unique items, new weapons/armor, new NPCs, new quests, new towns, new monsters, new bosses, new riddles, etc., etc., etc., which cannot be claimed by Baldur's Gate.
Just because NWN is more highly celebrated for its multiplayer doesn't mean *Nobody* celebrates the ENDLESS replay value of its singleplayer RPG.
As I ninja edited above, its not like I said NWN turns people purple. I said its single player RPG was weak. There is no way that can be interpreted as anything other than subjective.
Everyone else on the net seems to know that things we write on message boards are subjective. There is nobody that would read "the single player rpg of NWN is weak", and take it as fact if they felt differently. Nobody.
This is simply an argument made occasionaly by people who dont *like* someone else's opinion, and they try to nitpick when someone doesnt preface every single stament with IMO, when most people realize that is a given.
I'm sorry we disagree on the issue, and I bear you no ill will over the matter, but I think your point is not very strong. (IN MY OPINION).
Btw, I have already laid out several significant reasons why the single player RPG of NWN was not nearly as good as BG2, in previous posts, if that is what's bothering you. I could list many more, if you really wanted me to. But I don't think thats really going to serve anything, do you? You're not really interested in hearing them are you? I dont think that would have made you any happier about my opinion.
But if you want me to write a big wall of text post on it, if it will somehow earn my the right to speak subjectively, I'd be happy to.
Or we could just realize we disagree about a game, and not nitpick each other to death.
Yes, I have no problem with your opinion, but your opinion is not supported by the evidence. Which is the same comment you've made on my opinion.
Actually the twist here was after my original post regarding my opinion of DA:O you posted I provided no evidence. However, you responded with your own subjective statements while also providing no evidence. Which was placing a double standard.
Actually I've had several discussions regarding NWN singleplayer and although many found the singleplayer aspect as average... no one who's played all 4 campaigns referred to them as "very weak". Baldur's Gate provides more enjoyable battles which is one of the most important parts of any game as well as better character control. However, hypothetically, if for the next 10+ years I had only the choice of playing singleplayer NWN or singleplayer BG2 the obvious choice is singleplayer NWN because after 10games of BG2 I know where to find all the items, quests, NPCs, battles, towns, caves, etc., etc., and it would be the exact same plot whereas with NWN it would always be different from those available for download.
There was another individual on the shrapnel forums who was overall not happy with NWN. His first problem was he only played one out of the four Bioware campaigns. His second problem was he never tried any of the campaigns which were created by gamers online. After he provided a long list of features he wanted to see within his RPG game... I explained all of those features he wanted are possible within NWN except one or two. I provided him some links and he went to rediscover the true singleplayer value of NWN.
NWN provides endless replay value and if it's singleplayer aspect was weak or very weak then it would have suffered not only in ratings, but in sales since singleplayer gamers are much less likely to pirate software.
My opinion that NWN had a weak single player game compared to BG is supported by the fact that nobody ever talks about it in regards to it's single player RPG. Find any professional list of all time greatest RPGs, and BG2 is right up there somewhere. It is highly rearded by many many fans, and makes their amateur lists as well. Suggesting otherwise would be a little foolish.
How many people even remember the single player storyline in NWN? A single character? Some people, Im sure. But everyone who has played RPGs knows Minsc, Edwin, Imoen, and Jon Irenicus. Not to mention the gameplay inferiorities in NWN which yourself agree with to some extent, compared to the vastly superior tactical gameplay in BG.
NWN IS celebrated, deservedly so, and it makes a lot of lists too, but for entirely different reasons. Not for the single player RPG portion of it. A lot of people I know, who owned all the expansions, never even played through the SP campaign. They bought them for PW support. To play with their friends. In multiplayer.
Really, its silly to argue about this, especially when I agreed with you for the most part, that in the case of NWN, the game modding was driven by Multiplayer, and that that aspect of that game generated much more content, than will *probably* be generated for DO:A.
But thats not what Im buying DO:A. Im buying it for a superior single player gaming experience, which NWN was not. And as long as it delivers that, I dont care if a scrap of Multiplayer content is ever made for it. Truly great single player RPGs are much rare than average mulitplayer games now a days. And since when has it somehow become a poor value to buy what might be a truly great single player RPG, simply because there wont be mulitplayer mods for it?
If I want a sub par RPG with tepid gameplay and lots of multiplayer content, Ill go play a MMO.
If DO:A sucks, however statistically unlikely that is, Ill be the first one here complaining about it. But Im not going to wring my hands and dismiss a game, because a potentially great single player RPG might not have enough *community* (mostly poor) multiplayer content made for it.
And thats all I can say. Beyond that, we disagree as to quality of NWN as a single player RPG experience, and we'll have to let it go at that. At least *I'm* letting it go. Respond if you like, but I think we've gotten about all we can get from this discussion.
Peace.
The singleplayer is not highly mentioned because it's average... not very weak. Of course BG2 is a great RPG, but due to the fixed world its replay value limited. If you could only play one, two or three games of a single RPG your entire life then it would be BG2. If you could only purchase a single RPG to play repeatedly for the rest of your life then NWN would have a higher value.
As I mentioned NWN provides an average singleplayer game, but there's always new character builds, adventures, bosses, NPCs, items, weapons/armor, plots, towns, monsters, etc., etc., . There's been hundreds of RPGs and the majority have provided only fixed worlds where even the great RPGs eventually gets placed on a shelf only to be admired. Some games are memorable, but years from now, people won't just remember Neverwinter Nights--they'll also still be playing.
Of course NWN shines in multiplayer, but if someone who's interested in a singleplayer RPG which has extensive replay value... hence beyond three games I advise them to pickup NWN(Diamond Edition). If the individual rarely plays PC games and is looking for a singleplayer RPG then I advise them to pickup BG2.
I don't believe we were arguing, but more hammering out differences while discussing three RPG games.
I estimate DO:A has a good chance of providing a terrific singleplayer game and the editor will add to its replay value. Honestly the only multiplayer content which matters to me would be as long as multiplayer works, but even if multiplayer is never included I will probably still get the game. I never said DO:A was a poor value without multiplayer.
The vast majority of game content from the multiplayer community would be as equally valuable to the singleplayer gamers. The creatures, items, NPCs, shops, events, special effects and even most campaigns created can all be used by singleplayer gamers... the only difference would be if a special quest or riddle specific to the main plot required two human players to be in separate locations at the same time... which would be quite rare.
The only areas of improvement for NWN would be the battles and the character control, but those don't make this game weak. There's plenty of RPGs which qualify as weak due to game stability, broken quests, lack of strategies, limited character selection, too short, etc., etc., yet none of these exist within NWN.
Good grief, you've written so much over a pointless semantics?! I'll summarise for you:
P1: NWN: Strong multiplayer/mod creation, weak single-player
P2: Good multiplayer/mod creation, average single-player
You're effectively saying the same thing as Bingjack, so why are you so desperate to disagree?
Anyway I'm just glad to hear they've announced only a disk check will be used - I can really look forward to DAO now .
There's a significant difference between the view of "very weak" and the view of "average". Using details I explained how NWN was not "very weak".
I only said the single player RPG of NWN was "weak", not "very weak".
I would never exaggerate like that But like I said, discussion over. opinions vary.
I think both NWN 1 and 2 campaigns were the greatest single player RPGs of all time, surpassing those of Baldur's Gate, and even Planescape: Torment.
But back on topic, Dragon Age: Origins I'm actually pretty reserved about. It could either be really good, or really bad. No way of finding out until the game comes out, though.
Which is a great reason if you ask me. So far, they've been backing off a bit on the DRM aspect anyway. As for mutilating the game... no fix for that apparently.
Actually within Reply #57 you're exact words, "NWN was certainly driven by its multiplayer, as the single player game was very weak." As the discussion continued your opinion flexed between "lukewarm" and "weak". I estimate you haven't tried any of the popular singleplayer campaigns created by community members which have really enhanced the adventuring even better than those released from Bioware.
Several of the Baldur's Gate creators are the same ones who worked on Neverwinter Nights.
If I had enough free time I would love to create a singleplayer NWN campaign... creating the terrains, the towns, the NPCs, the merchants, the quests, the monsters, the deep dungeons, the forging shops, the assassins who hunt the player, the traps, ... the possibilities are enormous. Maybe one of these days.
The biggest stumbling block for modders with talent (I don't think I even fit into that catagory ) is writing! Oh so many mods have such terrible story/conversations that you could play in a diffrent language and it would make more sense. I can't write for shit - every mediocre thought comes out as if a two year old picto-gramed it in crayon on a wall.
The quality of the single player experience of NWN should be meassured by the quality of the single player campaign that came in the box, as that's what the majority of buyers are going to experience, not by the quality of other things you can get on the internet. Even most buyers won't ever open Aurora at all.
And given that, BG2 or Torment are far better. NWN will be remembered by the gaming crowd by it's awesome toolset, but in the normal consumers memory it will fade as a pretty common RPG which saving grace was the use of the Forgotten Realms/DnD 3e license.
By that statement even patches should not measure a games quality because they too come from the internet. Any games quality is measured by what's provided from the whole package. Just because someone has to connect with the internet to pickup a game patch or a game module doesn't mean it should be ignored.
As we can see DeCypher recently posted he found the NWN singleplayer campaigns far better than Baldurs Gate and Torment... so as stated earlier it's your opinion. Also while BG2 and Torment were fun they lacked replay value due to the fixed world. The NWN has been so successfull Bioware released 3 different expansion packs plus several premium modules. One other correction is that years to come BG2 and Torment will be remembered while with NWN it won't only be remembered, but many people will still be playing NWN because of the endless replay value from content online.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
