@taltamir - You probably know this, but there is a reason for the limitations: the original BG1 artwork was lost and the dev team was not allowed to alter original content (I'm not sure if this includes NPC banter).
I have heard as such, and therein lies the problem. This game could have been 10/10 if beamdog had gotten a better contract. Instead they were not allowed to HD it properly, not allowed to make major changes, had to put their new content "outside" the main game, aren't allowed to add banter to the existing BG1 NPCs. Got shafted with the whole steam thing where atari put an alpha version of it against their explicit statement and then pointed at fine print that allowed them to do so. Then got reamed even worse when they were forced to stop selling it entirely.
You have the potential for awesome which is getting a legal beatdown from thug lawyers. I agree with the OP's 7/10. And I think if some of those legal issues were resolved then this could easily become 10/10
This game could have been 10/10 if beamdog had gotten a better contract. Instead they were not allowed to HD it properly
This is not entirely accurate. The reason why BG:HD wasn't possible is that the source art assets were lost and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This has nothing to do with our contract.
see I suspected you would say something like that.
its not just the graphic I had a problem with in BG1, it was the story,characters and gameplay. I never said it was bad, im saying for me in 2013 I expect more - or atleast if im gonna give it a high score. Dragon Age delivers that today, Baldur's Gate 2 did that in 2000.
You keep repeating about the story... how DA and BG2 is better.. if you are talking about story-telling - perhaps, but if are talking about the plot itself - how exactly?!
You love BG2 and obviously played it first - once you did that you removed the element of surprise from the BG1 plot, it similar to reading the last chapter of a book and than read the book itself...
By knowing that you are a Bhaal spawn , Imoen is your sister and Sarevok is your brother you missed the sense of revelation and discovering which is the strong side of the plot... also you miss the sense of What Is Going On?!
I'm saying that graphic from 1998 and today in 2013 is a huge diffrence.
And in my opinion its easier to get immerse into the story and characters with better graphic. Does that mean graphic is all that matters, clearly not, or else everyone would just play Crysis 2 and 3 etc.
I disagree... Its like saying movies are better and get you more into the story than books.. In that sense BG1 is more like a game-book hybrid, while other games have better graphics and although that in bg1 you can select the voice/color/clothes-armor, you can still imagine how your character and party would actually look like - how would it be standing at the entrance of Durlag's Tower or the Gnoll stronghold - Much more room for imagination.
Also one VERY strong aspect of BG1 comparing to DA or any other newly game is replayability. I have played DA only once and I don't see myself play this game,well.. ever - while BG1 draws me back year after year - And I yet to actually explore all of the classes or party combinations..
As I said: Sakaguchi , not me, who has been producer and worked on titles such as:
Final Fantasy 1-10 Parasite eve 1-2 Chrono Trigger Chrono Cross Saga Frontier 2 Romancing Saga Vagrant story Xenogears
Try and visit gamerankings and see what these games ended up at.
He, not me, but Sakaguchi said that: The better hardware we get to work with = better immersion through improved graphics,better body and face animations so its easier to sympathize with their - characters- struggles. Do you really think that games such as Vagrant Story,Final Fantasy6,Chrono Cross or Xenogears never focused on the story first?
Once again, I never, ever, said that graphic is all that matters. I must be an idiot, if I, in 2013 pick up BGEE over steam and buy 4 copies and give it to 3 friends if Im that into graphic.
Btw, did anyone else of you buy 4 copies + gog version? I suspect not.
I'm in my 20's if my grammar/english is horrible (...which I suspect it is) it's because i'm Swedish.
So, anyway when I was a kid/child my sister and father bought me games at random, my dad for ex could sometimes fly to France,Spain and England in buisness trips - because his best friend's company had 250+ employers and they had to import well anyway bla bla bla when he got home he came home with games such as: "shining in the darkness" yes, that was my first rpg he ever bought me.
Any kid age 10 who doesnt speak english, go ahead and see if they wanna/can go through this game.
but I was into the fantasy settings and, saving the princess. During the genesis time I played mostly sonic and other games which I forgot. Then my sister, got us a n64 and playstation 1. Suddenly I got Zelda 64,Final Fantasy 7 and my sister or mom, bought me Baldur's Gate 2. See these are my first rpg's:
Shining in the darkness,final fantasy 7 and Baldur's gate 2.
Now my point was, which keeps getting forgotten, is that there are more choices out there. I still think Final Fantasy 7 and Baldur's Gate 2 is a 10/10. And among Halo,Starcraft,world of warcraft and Persona 4, the best games ever made. Now I don't play World of Warcraft, because it would be too time consuming and I only played it for a year because of a girl in school and when she quitted, so did I. BUT I COULD SEE how great it was.
Anyway, Shining in the darkness was an amazing game, even though I couldnt understand english and I was 10. However, some people on this forum, seem to argue then that "well if you liked it at age 10 why can't others?" and here is my point, there is much better options for newcomers to fantasy today. Dragon Age is one. Yes, Dragon Age use the plot that, bla bla evil lord of the rings invasion is coming from the east bla bla. Its just a set up. And it create an atmosphere better then "oh there is an iron shortage". But even beside that, both games arnt made or break about that. What I liked about Baldur's Gate 1 was the strategic combat, building up a good party and finding new gear and overcome challenges. See, this was one thing I liked as well in Baldur's Gate 2, but Baldur's Gate 2 on top of that had great graphics,characters and story.
Now, please remember, I was a kid when BG2 was out. I thought things like Minsc and Boo was hilarious, I don't today. Does that mean Minsc and Boo isnt funny? no, but in my 20's I changed I guess.
Maybe the BG2 story is very cheesy, I just remember as a kid thinking the game was 10/10. That's all. And i'm very thankful for the developers who made it. It was the best fantasy experience you could get, I liked it even more then lord of the rings, which I read.
Dragon age 1 was one of the most mediocre RPG experiences i ever had. The story was simplistic, save the world, no plot twists(maybe except that pathetic excuse for an NPC, Morrigan), no nothing, everything out from hour one.
It's not the best example out there, but it is obvious that its graphics will attract people more than Baldur's Gate.
Dragon Age was based as far as structure goes on BG2, not BG1. Hence the banters, closed world etc.
Now, if you ask me, since, we have different strokes for different folks and all, i find Dragon Age's graphics atrocious. Absolute mediocrity in graphics design and art direction that Bioware was never able to escape from, no matter what they worked on.
They only answer you will find in BSN is "It's not about the graphics". Yeah, that's why millions of dollars are wasted in 3D modelling, artists, animators and cutscenes for every one of their recent games.
But, yeah, in general, BG1 is not a huge masterpiece or anything.
It was however, the first step to today's party based RPGs. And thankfully it existed and succeeded, and now we can wait for games like Project Eternity, Torment, and maaaaaaaaaaybe DA:I, if Bioware shape's up.
If Dragon Age was a mediocre RPG experience then please tell me what isnt. Maybe I missed out on great games recently.
Btw, speaking of "Project Eternity" I don't have them most faith in Obsidian Entertainment. What they did with "Dungeon Siege III" was horrible. Alpha Protocol was a mess. NWN 2 and KOTOR 2 was pretty good but never "epic" storywise.
Fallout: New Vegas felt like a big expansion and copy of Fallout 3, so it was good though.
I hate Dragon Age with passion. But if I would have been new to the genre, I don´t know which game would I choose. Also, Dragon Age graphics aren´t better in many aspects. I would take less detailed sprite with beautifully painted portrait over those ugly plastic models from DA anytime.
This game could have been 10/10 if beamdog had gotten a better contract. Instead they were not allowed to HD it properly
This is not entirely accurate. The reason why BG:HD wasn't possible is that the source art assets were lost and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This has nothing to do with our contract.
I don't see how the original art assets could be of any use for a game from 1998. Sure you could rerender them in HD but it is so old that if you want proper HDifying you need to remake each of them from scratch anyways
Maybe such a large undertaking was out of your budget range... But AFAIK even if it was you aren't allowed to do so. And then there are still all those other issues that stem from licensing problems
@taltamir - Source art assets are, by their very nature, vectorial; vectorial files may be "scaled to the size of the moon without losing a single detail" (quote from here). With those available, our "HDfying" of Baldur's Gate would have been virtually flawless.
I agree with many of OPs point, but IMO they are all minor. I am not looking for a musical experience when playing an RPG. BG so far has a very immersive world so I am enjoying it.
Diablo was advertised as a RPG, it's something that might not be true but they still put that title there to draw in more people. And as a RPG game Baldur's gate did everything better.
1.) More classes 2.) More customization 3.) NPCS that were actually alive. 4.) Many NPC's 5.) A huge alive world to interact with.
The only thing Diablo did better was the multiplayer part.
I don't consider Diablo 2 a RPG, but I actually disagree with you in there being less character customization in D2. If you're willing to stray from the cookie cutter builds, D2 has an insane amount of possible character builds due to stat points, skill points, and items that have particular abilities. On the other hand, 2nd edition is rather limited in what you can do once you create your character. For example, a fighter is just a fighter and will always play like one unless you dual class him later.
The only thing Diablo 2 has for customization are skill points. Baldur's gate has so much more.
1.) Stats 2.) The looks of your character 3.) Race 4.) Many more classes 5.) Sub classes 6.) Multi and dual class option 7.) Thieving skills 8.) NPC party
Not to mention the storyline and how you proceed with it. I have played Diablo 2 insanely much and for many years but no matter what you do a sorcerer is still a sorcerer and a paladin is a paladin, even with Niché builds like bear sorcerer and bowadin.
Based on what do you call bear sorceress a niche build? It is a very viable build. Diablo 2 hammerdin is as different from a zealadin as hammerdin is different from a cookie cutter barbarian. You dont know anything about D2.
D2 has 7 classes BG has what, 10-12? Now if you count all the builds that are viable in D2 you get between 50-100 "classes". The second part of D2 character customization is items. Both of these aspects are vastly more rich than in BG, IWD, etc.
D2 is an ARPG while BG games are traditional RPGs where your character is made up of a lot of stuff that is not entirely combat based.
A niché build in D2 is a build that requires a certain item to work. Dragon and Dream for auradin etc. And no there aren't 50-100 classes in Diablo 2. If you count skill combinations then you can play endless in BG2 with skill proficiensy etc.
Axe barbarian Sword Barbarian Mace Barbarian
Long sword fighter Two handed sword fighter Bastard Sword Fighter Katana Fighter
So no there aren't more class and such in Diablo 2.
I actually played Dragon Age 1 + DLCs + Awakening before the Baldur's Gate (not EE, but 1+2+ToB). Baldur's Gate series gets better (from ok to super brilliant) in every way as it progresses. But it's quite the opposite in Dragon Age! It's a brilliant game, if you can live with the fact that there are basically only 3 classes. But the expansion, DA:Awakening and most of the dlcs were disappointing, and DA2 got so poor reviews that I never bought it. Unless DA3 proves out to be at least as good as the original DA, it's better to reroll another dnd game character, ha ha ha haaaa!!!
3 classes in Dragon Age?
Yes, but with many diffrent playstyle to each of them;
A warrior can be a berserker with 2handed Axe and focus on stamina and swinging without heavy, stamina-draining armor and skills. And yes, he will do an insane amount of fast,hard hitting aoe damage. Or he might go dual wield if he feels like it. Or a warrior can be a tanking mage slayer, who can dispel magic and boost party members stats with his aura, and be a walking tank who deflect arrows with his shield.
A Rogue can be an archer with a wolf or bear to figh along them, or an assassin going dual wield with daggers and crit in backstabs and drop traps to disrupt the enemy or hold them.
A mage can focus on great single dps spells, or aoe-spells. Or he can choose the healing specc, and focus on buffing party members and healing, and debuff or hold enemies with magic.
I mean, I seen a few times now how people say there are no choices and only 3 classes, which makes me wonder - did you guys really play Dragon Age at all?
@taltamir - Source art assets are, by their very nature, vectorial; vectorial files may be "scaled to the size of the moon without losing a single detail" (quote from here). With those available, our "HDfying" of Baldur's Gate would have been virtually flawless.
It would NOT be flawless, it would be higher resolution version of the same boxy (not blocky, different things) and low detail art. A high resolution but low detail image is better than a low resolution and low detail one. But can't compare to a high detail high resolution.
Character models aren't going to magically sprout individual fingers, defined muscles, realistically shaped shoes, realistic skin tones, skeletal animations, shading (instead of the rough gradients currently used), and so on just because you increased the resolution on a vector art.
Although in retrospect you are technically correct, since HD = High Definition it would mean that HDifying = increasing resolution. What I actually meant was "modernize the graphics" rather than just re-rendering the same art in HD.
I'll be honest i've always been a wargamer(CMBO that sort of thing) for the past 13 years and Dragon Age Origins(when it came out) was my first foray into RPG land.I'll be honest yeah it looked great,nice graphics etc but story wise,it just didn't hold my attention and gameplay wise i got bored half way through it.BG2 was going cheap on Gamersgate and i just bought it for the sake of having a look at it rather than playing it.Nothing much to look at when i booted it up.Then i had that "Christ,David Warners in it" moment and stuck with it for a bit.Before i knew i was totally sucked into the game.Hours and hours of gaming out of it.I was like,why the hell didn't i get this game all those years ago.Wonky and buggy as it was(until i got into the mods) i thought this game is epic and as for replayabilty,well i always go back to it for a run through.Not something you can really say about a lot of today's eye candy products.
Again i'm one of those who doesn't give a monkeys about graphics, but if the gameplay holds you,thats enough for me.Bg vs DAO,only one winner,the truly original game.DAO was like "hey great,shiny,colourful box and all that but who the hell's ate all the Turkish Delight." Again though,everyone to their own.
@Sheikh, @SionIV - Are you guys really comparing D2 and BG2? I like both games quite a bit, but they are totally different. D2 is all about build optimization and grinding for rare items (and best of all playing on a server with friends). BG2 is all exploration/questing, party/NPC interaction and tactical turn-based combat. At least that's what they are to me
@Sheikh, @SionIV - Are you guys really comparing D2 and BG2? I like both games quite a bit, but they are totally different. D2 is all about build optimization and grinding for rare items (and best of all playing on a server with friends). BG2 is all exploration/questing, party/NPC interaction and tactical turn-based combat. At least that's what they are to me
I agree with you on every point you made. I was just trying to say that Blizzard sold Diablo 2 under the title RPG which puts it in the same category as Baldur's Gate when it comes to game magazines and reviews. And as a RPG game Baldur's gate is much better.
And then we came to talk about which game got more customization. And this should be incredible simple beacuse in Diablo 2 you got 5 characters that are already made for you and the only way you can customize them is by 3 talent trees. While in BG you can create your own character from scratch. Male, female, looks, stats, and everything else.
@SionIV - Okay, sorry, I missed the context! I will say that build optimization in D2 is an interesting topic. There are a few builds that really stand out and the criteria for success is pretty harsh. You can more easily enjoy BG2 without have to do as much build optimization (not that you can't make uber builds, but the game doesn't hinge on that).
I enjoy playing odd builds in Diablo2 and it's a great game in it's own right. I just don't think that the build creation in diablo 2 is more customization than everything in BG.
A niché build in D2 is a build that requires a certain item to work. Dragon and Dream for auradin etc. And no there aren't 50-100 classes in Diablo 2. If you count skill combinations then you can play endless in BG2 with skill proficiensy etc.
Axe barbarian Sword Barbarian Mace Barbarian
Long sword fighter Two handed sword fighter Bastard Sword Fighter Katana Fighter
So no there aren't more class and such in Diablo 2.
An axe barbarian still plays exactly like a sword barbarian. Most of the customization you mentioned earlier are also purely cosmetic. On the other hand, a bear sorc plays nothing like a chain lightning sorc. Of course, cosmetic customization such as race, gender, etc matter from a role-playing standpoint, but Diablo 2 isn't that kind of RPG at all so there's no point in comparing them in that way.
The reason Diablo 2 is still played and regarded as better than D3 is because of it's high level of individual character customization in terms of gameplay. 2nd edition games just don't have that. Which is fine; it's not their main appeal. Saying a fighter using a long sword is somehow different from one using a bastard sword is akin to saying a zeal paladin using grief is somehow different from one using a botd. 3-3.5 is a different story of course, and is why Neverwinter Nights was so popular despite a lackluster original campaign.
A niché build in D2 is a build that requires a certain item to work. Dragon and Dream for auradin etc. And no there aren't 50-100 classes in Diablo 2. If you count skill combinations then you can play endless in BG2 with skill proficiensy etc.
Axe barbarian Sword Barbarian Mace Barbarian
Long sword fighter Two handed sword fighter Bastard Sword Fighter Katana Fighter
So no there aren't more class and such in Diablo 2.
An axe barbarian still plays exactly like a sword barbarian. Most of the customization you mentioned earlier are also purely cosmetic. On the other hand, a bear sorc plays nothing like a chain lightning sorc.
And a bear sorc is a Niché build because it isn't possible without one spesific item (Beast).
I agree with many of OPs point, but IMO they are all minor. I am not looking for a musical experience when playing an RPG. BG so far has a very immersive world so I am enjoying it.
Diablo was advertised as a RPG, it's something that might not be true but they still put that title there to draw in more people. And as a RPG game Baldur's gate did everything better.
1.) More classes 2.) More customization 3.) NPCS that were actually alive. 4.) Many NPC's 5.) A huge alive world to interact with.
The only thing Diablo did better was the multiplayer part.
I don't consider Diablo 2 a RPG, but I actually disagree with you in there being less character customization in D2. If you're willing to stray from the cookie cutter builds, D2 has an insane amount of possible character builds due to stat points, skill points, and items that have particular abilities. On the other hand, 2nd edition is rather limited in what you can do once you create your character. For example, a fighter is just a fighter and will always play like one unless you dual class him later.
The only thing Diablo 2 has for customization are skill points. Baldur's gate has so much more.
1.) Stats 2.) The looks of your character 3.) Race 4.) Many more classes 5.) Sub classes 6.) Multi and dual class option 7.) Thieving skills 8.) NPC party
Not to mention the storyline and how you proceed with it. I have played Diablo 2 insanely much and for many years but no matter what you do a sorcerer is still a sorcerer and a paladin is a paladin, even with Niché builds like bear sorcerer and bowadin.
Based on what do you call bear sorceress a niche build? It is a very viable build. Diablo 2 hammerdin is as different from a zealadin as hammerdin is different from a cookie cutter barbarian. You dont know anything about D2.
D2 has 7 classes BG has what, 10-12? Now if you count all the builds that are viable in D2 you get between 50-100 "classes". The second part of D2 character customization is items. Both of these aspects are vastly more rich than in BG, IWD, etc.
D2 is an ARPG while BG games are traditional RPGs where your character is made up of a lot of stuff that is not entirely combat based.
A niché build in D2 is a build that requires a certain item to work. Dragon and Dream for auradin etc. And no there aren't 50-100 classes in Diablo 2. If you count skill combinations then you can play endless in BG2 with skill proficiensy etc.
Axe barbarian Sword Barbarian Mace Barbarian
Long sword fighter Two handed sword fighter Bastard Sword Fighter Katana Fighter
So no there aren't more class and such in Diablo 2.
There are 50-100 "classes" dont put words into my mouth. Theres very little difference between a barbarian with an Axe +2 and a barbarian with a sword +2 in terms of gameplay. Perhaps only in your mind. Its just up to luck if you happen to find a good magical sword or axe and what you specialized in.
But as I mentioned theres tons of difference between different builds of the same class in D2. How they work mehcanically, how much dough (fg) it takes to build them, the way they play, how powerful they are and in which cases, are they good for pvp, mf, ubers or only pvm? All BG characters are only good for playing through the game...
There is no single occasion in BG where you particularly need any fire, electrical or cold resistance, since you dont find enough auxiliary items to give everyone resists anyway. You can call these things small boni or flavor. In D2 doing ubers you NEED 300+ stacked resists. For example.
I could go on and on, but fact is if you categorize D2 builds according to whether they need a special item or not (define special item) you dont know anything about it. Probably because you never had any currency to build anything but a meteorb.
The discussion's getting a bit off-topic, fellas. If you want to debate the differences between BG and Diablo (of which there are many--I had those arguments all through high school), go ahead and start a new thread for it.
7/10 seems like a fair score for original BG, IMO.
Many seem to forget that BG1's good rep rides on BG'2's rep and it's mere inclusion in the saga. It's still a great game, though.
It's sort of like what OZ was to television: a good show, but not [i]that[/i] good in retrospect. However, it paved the way for fantastic TV-series like The Wire and Sopranos, which David Simon himself has even stated.
Comments
You have the potential for awesome which is getting a legal beatdown from thug lawyers. I agree with the OP's 7/10. And I think if some of those legal issues were resolved then this could easily become 10/10
You love BG2 and obviously played it first - once you did that you removed the element of surprise from the BG1 plot, it similar to reading the last chapter of a book and than read the book itself...
By knowing that you are a Bhaal spawn , Imoen is your sister and Sarevok is your brother you missed the sense of revelation and discovering which is the strong side of the plot... also you miss the sense of What Is Going On?! I disagree... Its like saying movies are better and get you more into the story than books.. In that sense BG1 is more like a game-book hybrid, while other games have better graphics and although that in bg1 you can select the voice/color/clothes-armor, you can still imagine how your character and party would actually look like - how would it be standing at the entrance of Durlag's Tower or the Gnoll stronghold - Much more room for imagination.
Also one VERY strong aspect of BG1 comparing to DA or any other newly game is replayability.
I have played DA only once and I don't see myself play this game,well.. ever - while BG1 draws me back year after year - And I yet to actually explore all of the classes or party combinations..
Final Fantasy 1-10
Parasite eve 1-2
Chrono Trigger
Chrono Cross
Saga Frontier 2
Romancing Saga
Vagrant story
Xenogears
Try and visit gamerankings and see what these games ended up at.
He, not me, but Sakaguchi said that: The better hardware we get to work with = better immersion through improved graphics,better body and face animations so its easier to sympathize with their - characters- struggles.
Do you really think that games such as Vagrant Story,Final Fantasy6,Chrono Cross or Xenogears never focused on the story first?
Once again, I never, ever, said that graphic is all that matters. I must be an idiot, if I, in 2013 pick up BGEE over steam and buy 4 copies and give it to 3 friends if Im that into graphic.
Btw, did anyone else of you buy 4 copies + gog version? I suspect not.
I'm in my 20's if my grammar/english is horrible (...which I suspect it is) it's because i'm Swedish.
So, anyway when I was a kid/child my sister and father bought me games at random, my dad for ex could sometimes fly to France,Spain and England in buisness trips - because his best friend's company had 250+ employers and they had to import well anyway bla bla bla when he got home he came home with games such as: "shining in the darkness" yes, that was my first rpg he ever bought me.
Any kid age 10 who doesnt speak english, go ahead and see if they wanna/can go through this game.
but I was into the fantasy settings and, saving the princess.
During the genesis time I played mostly sonic and other games which I forgot. Then my sister, got us a n64 and playstation 1.
Suddenly I got Zelda 64,Final Fantasy 7 and my sister or mom, bought me Baldur's Gate 2.
See these are my first rpg's:
Shining in the darkness,final fantasy 7 and Baldur's gate 2.
Now my point was, which keeps getting forgotten, is that there are more choices out there.
I still think Final Fantasy 7 and Baldur's Gate 2 is a 10/10.
And among Halo,Starcraft,world of warcraft and Persona 4, the best games ever made.
Now I don't play World of Warcraft, because it would be too time consuming and I only played it for a year because of a girl in school and when she quitted, so did I.
BUT I COULD SEE how great it was.
Anyway, Shining in the darkness was an amazing game, even though I couldnt understand english and I was 10. However, some people on this forum, seem to argue then that "well if you liked it at age 10 why can't others?" and here is my point, there is much better options for newcomers to fantasy today.
Dragon Age is one.
Yes, Dragon Age use the plot that, bla bla evil lord of the rings invasion is coming from the east bla bla.
Its just a set up. And it create an atmosphere better then "oh there is an iron shortage". But even beside that, both games arnt made or break about that.
What I liked about Baldur's Gate 1 was the strategic combat, building up a good party and finding new gear and overcome challenges.
See, this was one thing I liked as well in Baldur's Gate 2, but Baldur's Gate 2 on top of that had great graphics,characters and story.
Now, please remember, I was a kid when BG2 was out. I thought things like Minsc and Boo was hilarious, I don't today. Does that mean Minsc and Boo isnt funny? no, but in my 20's I changed I guess.
Maybe the BG2 story is very cheesy, I just remember as a kid thinking the game was 10/10.
That's all. And i'm very thankful for the developers who made it. It was the best fantasy experience you could get, I liked it even more then lord of the rings, which I read.
It's not the best example out there, but it is obvious that its graphics will attract people more than Baldur's Gate.
Dragon Age was based as far as structure goes on BG2, not BG1. Hence the banters, closed world etc.
Now, if you ask me, since, we have different strokes for different folks and all, i find Dragon Age's graphics atrocious. Absolute mediocrity in graphics design and art direction that Bioware was never able to escape from, no matter what they worked on.
They only answer you will find in BSN is "It's not about the graphics". Yeah, that's why millions of dollars are wasted in 3D modelling, artists, animators and cutscenes for every one of their recent games.
But, yeah, in general, BG1 is not a huge masterpiece or anything.
It was however, the first step to today's party based RPGs. And thankfully it existed and succeeded, and now we can wait for games like Project Eternity, Torment, and maaaaaaaaaaybe DA:I, if Bioware shape's up.
Btw, speaking of "Project Eternity" I don't have them most faith in Obsidian Entertainment.
What they did with "Dungeon Siege III" was horrible. Alpha Protocol was a mess.
NWN 2 and KOTOR 2 was pretty good but never "epic" storywise.
Fallout: New Vegas felt like a big expansion and copy of Fallout 3, so it was good though.
Also, Dragon Age graphics aren´t better in many aspects. I would take less detailed sprite with beautifully painted portrait over those ugly plastic models from DA anytime.
Maybe such a large undertaking was out of your budget range... But AFAIK even if it was you aren't allowed to do so. And then there are still all those other issues that stem from licensing problems
Axe barbarian
Sword Barbarian
Mace Barbarian
Long sword fighter
Two handed sword fighter
Bastard Sword Fighter
Katana Fighter
So no there aren't more class and such in Diablo 2.
Yes, but with many diffrent playstyle to each of them;
A warrior can be a berserker with 2handed Axe and focus on stamina and swinging without heavy, stamina-draining armor and skills. And yes, he will do an insane amount of fast,hard hitting aoe damage. Or he might go dual wield if he feels like it.
Or a warrior can be a tanking mage slayer, who can dispel magic and boost party members stats with his aura, and be a walking tank who deflect arrows with his shield.
A Rogue can be an archer with a wolf or bear to figh along them, or an assassin going dual wield with daggers and crit in backstabs and drop traps to disrupt the enemy or hold them.
A mage can focus on great single dps spells, or aoe-spells.
Or he can choose the healing specc, and focus on buffing party members and healing, and debuff or hold enemies with magic.
I mean, I seen a few times now how people say there are no choices and only 3 classes, which makes me wonder - did you guys really play Dragon Age at all?
A high resolution but low detail image is better than a low resolution and low detail one. But can't compare to a high detail high resolution.
Take a look here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tessellation.html
Notice how detail (and quality) is progressively increased with each step of tesselation, the resolution is identical.
Character models aren't going to magically sprout individual fingers, defined muscles, realistically shaped shoes, realistic skin tones, skeletal animations, shading (instead of the rough gradients currently used), and so on just because you increased the resolution on a vector art.
Although in retrospect you are technically correct, since HD = High Definition it would mean that HDifying = increasing resolution. What I actually meant was "modernize the graphics" rather than just re-rendering the same art in HD.
Again i'm one of those who doesn't give a monkeys about graphics, but if the gameplay holds you,thats enough for me.Bg vs DAO,only one winner,the truly original game.DAO was like "hey great,shiny,colourful box and all that but who the hell's ate all the Turkish Delight." Again though,everyone to their own.
And then we came to talk about which game got more customization. And this should be incredible simple beacuse in Diablo 2 you got 5 characters that are already made for you and the only way you can customize them is by 3 talent trees. While in BG you can create your own character from scratch. Male, female, looks, stats, and everything else.
The reason Diablo 2 is still played and regarded as better than D3 is because of it's high level of individual character customization in terms of gameplay. 2nd edition games just don't have that. Which is fine; it's not their main appeal. Saying a fighter using a long sword is somehow different from one using a bastard sword is akin to saying a zeal paladin using grief is somehow different from one using a botd. 3-3.5 is a different story of course, and is why Neverwinter Nights was so popular despite a lackluster original campaign.
But as I mentioned theres tons of difference between different builds of the same class in D2. How they work mehcanically, how much dough (fg) it takes to build them, the way they play, how powerful they are and in which cases, are they good for pvp, mf, ubers or only pvm? All BG characters are only good for playing through the game...
There is no single occasion in BG where you particularly need any fire, electrical or cold resistance, since you dont find enough auxiliary items to give everyone resists anyway. You can call these things small boni or flavor. In D2 doing ubers you NEED 300+ stacked resists. For example.
I could go on and on, but fact is if you categorize D2 builds according to whether they need a special item or not (define special item) you dont know anything about it. Probably because you never had any currency to build anything but a meteorb.
Many seem to forget that BG1's good rep rides on BG'2's rep and it's mere inclusion in the saga. It's still a great game, though.
It's sort of like what OZ was to television: a good show, but not [i]that[/i] good in retrospect. However, it paved the way for fantastic TV-series like The Wire and Sopranos, which David Simon himself has even stated.