安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Try 1998. The reason many people like older games, particularly older RPGs, is because they were hands-down better than most of the garbage we have these days.
Oh yeah, in most cases they are - there is a few exceptional modern games, BG3 isn't one of them from what I hear. As for the remake of FF7, I don't think I am paying for several slices of an old game one at a time! Witcher 3 is a masterpiece and Zelda BotW is a great game too.
It's still the best game trilogy when it comes to Crpg RTWP, as far as I am concerned. (actual turn based is a different story.)
The reason for it is that I recently played Pillars Of Eternity and had a lot of fun playing it. I was thinking about buying the sequel but then I remembered that I still owned BG2 since it was re-released but never actually played it.
I'm having a good time and I'm surprised that I still know most of the quests by heart even though I didn't play it for a very long time. But I'm having more fun than with Pillars Of Eternity and that's nothing you can say about a lot 20+ year old game.
But to be clear here: I bought the game back in 1999 and started several hundred playthroughs and multiplayer co-op games with friends until the late 2000s. Then I lost my 4 CD box of the game when moving and forgot about this gaming gem.
For me it's definitely still a big recommendation to play.
I have revisited the BG series games after having played more modern CRPGs such as the Pillars of Eternity series and Tyranny and still have enjoyed it again. There are so many choices not limited to accepting random rolls during character creation, creating one or more custom companions, laying out specific plans for role-playing goals (alignment and also story companions and allies), planning ahead for specific weapons and/or fighting styles, and and and...
Sequels will never have that "first game electricity", no matter how good it is compared to the original.
I mean there are people who think BG1 is better than BG2.
It's like saying The Twilight saga is better than The Revenant or something.
And hey, not everyone want to pay 60 biden bucks to play games, waiting for the game to fully finish is always an options.
I always hate Japan's "RPG" so I never was fan of Final Fantasy, Also I generally hate Japan's Female design, like, make hentai or sum, not games, they put details on them tids and asses more than the actual system of the game. I mean we already have SFM artist if I wanted to masturbate to 3d hentai.
I hear BG3 is a worthy sequels, balanced modern and old aspect, and it has good feedbacks from TT player in particular, obviously they can't satisfy everyone.
What I'm saying is, relax, and lose them rose tinted glasses, BG3 is, at worse, a good game, with high product value for an EA. I mean I had other EA games that is actually shiddy.
BG2 may be bigger and for high-level characters (even if only staying in the Shadows of Amn base game areas and possibly up to around 3,000,000 XP for completionist players) - but its world and setting, its story and story progression, the atmosphere and immersion, the quest/combat design are not as good as in BG1. And BG2 is crammed with crap like innate abilities and immunities.
The first game shines because it is an implementation of the classic "start as a weak nobody and work your way up to a hero" RPG design. It does that in an almost open world, a set of loosely connected areas that give incentive to explore the surroundings rather than blindly chasing main quest goals.
Nonsense. There are plenty of games who's (first) sequel is far better than the original, even to the point where the original is completely "forgotten" by gamers. Jagged Alliance 2 anyone? 1999 release, still going strong today, almost nobody plays it's predecessor or it's successors.
Personally, I would also put Fallout 2 in that category. It took everything the original game did and made it bigger and better, making it the one people often go back to rather than bothering with the first game.
First of all, nobody here is showing any signs of not being perfectly calm. Saying we don't like something doesn't mean we're angry... it means we don't like it. That's allowed, even if you do like that thing.
Second, you're confused. Seeing things through "rose tinted glasses" is when you are relying on good memories of something to cloud your judgement of who good it was. That is not the case here since we have all recently played the old BG series, and therefore can easily make current and direct comparisons with newer games.
In your opinion. In my opinion, and the opinion of all those who have posted negative reviews about it, it is not a good game, doesn't compare to it's predecessors, and is not worth £50.
The reply was not intended to you. I just responding to what I thought was a joke with a joke. Relax.
I never claimed that the sequels always worse, I was just saying, no matter how great the sequels, it will never have the first game "electricity" / excitement. And, it was (as it often the case for an opinion) just an subjective observation.
I mean, a game franchise with multiple sequels, statistically speaking, have greater odds that one of the sequel, bound to be better than the original.
Relax. You need not to explained it to me. It was a perfectly cordial invitation to relax the opinion a bit. Nothing wrong if you want to disagree of course.
Oxford dictionary, which generally used as reference to explain the meaning of english words explain that Rose tinted glass is Optimisim bias, it does not necessarily about "remembering things in positive view and brush off the down sides".
So yes, it should be completely fair to cordially tone down optimism bias a bit to older games that we all clearly love, right?
Correct.
And it is fair. However my opinion was based on the statistical fact that the game is generally considered favorable for most people. And I also said they can't hit all the marks that everyone want their game to be.
And it's perfectly ok to not wanting spent your English "people" bucks to buy unfinished game. It's your money, afterall.
But I have to disagree with your opinion on how BG1 combat encounter/design was better than 2 — in my opnion (and I wager most of the player base agree) it's nonsensical, and it's almost completely mindless and as you would put it "blindly" exploring the areas for no apparent reasons except for exploring and finding the next quest locations.
And let's all be honest, BG 1 areas are mostly empty with almost random enemy placement. Almost all you did for the first half of the game is to clean the fog of war, and the fun part of BG1 came from exploring the city of Baldur's Gate itself, which Bioware try to recreate with Amn.
Additionally, but not less important, the simplistic story and dialogue. It's just... There. The story of Baldur's gate 1 can be watered down to "You chase shrowded figure who turned out to be your half-brother, and you found out that you are a Bhaalspawn. You chased and killed your brother because he kills your foster father. The end." — and with that knowledelge alone, even without playing it, you can move on to 2nd game with *almost* no loss of important knowledge of the game. Oh also the dialogue exchange, or almost lack thereof. Oh yeah, also quest design (mostly fetch quest or go here, kill that, come back, but with no strong reason to do it, apart for wanting to leveling up).
I honestly don't know what to say about immunities on enemies, the only opinion I have on that regard is that it can be satisfactory like solving puzzles. I don't enjoy puzzles, but I like the dopamine rush once I figured it out how to beat it. That being said, without immunities, the game will be easy, especially when you can easily abuse the system, like having your character with nigh-perfect stat and having op items that can help you even the odds against enemies with immunities.
Sure, there are multiple districts again - but much older CRPGs also featured cities that are separated into districts. The city Baldur's Gate features a second layer of areas below it. The large sewers add to the atmosphere and immersion tremendously, supporting actions of evil aligned characters. As well as expanding the options when returning to the city as a convict and trying to reach allies while avoiding contact with opposed members of the Flaming Fist. There are a few story NPC encounters when entering the city normally, but if relying on moving through the sewers, that part of the game becomes really good.
Obviously, most of the first game takes place in the city of Baldur's Gate. BG2 adds seemingly random filler content areas that are at the core of the game as to put hurdles before player. The underwater city, the Underdark, the strangely empty/unfinished areas when returning from the Underdark. Such as Small Teeth Pass, North Forest, Forest of Tethir - really, really odd stuff (also the nonsensical encounter with Safana and Coran), particularly since one must return to Athkatla for story reasons again anyway.
Where BG2 shines is complexity of the implementation. More voice-over (not only for the companions added by the enhanced edition), romances (having Sir Anomen start courting a female Bhaalspawn is golden), long quests such as working with Mae'Var and finally taking over the thieves guild, high levels and HLAs. BG1 doesn't offer anything like that. BG2 tried to be bigger and better, but not everything works well.
Kangaxx and other Liches, for example. Anti-magic zones. Content where player has to figure out the possibly single solution to a problem instead of getting a multitude of options to choose from (as a role-player).