Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Although I prefer DOS 1, it does have it's downside compared to DOS 2. As you said, DOS 2 has more added features and changes. If you're going to compare the two games, DOS1 has:
-lessor character story
-lessor ability list
-little to no magic attack spell on (freezing/stunning works, but no water/thunder damage) so no magician roleplay/characters
-focuses on damage through attack moves
-insignificant storyline (story is you, just out of nowhere become special and kill stuffs)
While it has less stuffs compare to the newer version, what it has is enough. If you want detailed stories and excessive skill choices, DOS 1 is not it.
But, if you want fun and games, DOS 1 will fit fine.
- There is no armor system so applying a buff or debuff is completaly based on luck which makes RNG huge part of combat. You may find yourself reloading the game in a fight because you failed to apply a debuff that had 95% chance to success. Which happens and is annoying.
- There are much more stats in a bad way. For example pickpocketing and lockpicking are 2 different stats instead of Thievery which has both in Dos2. There is no 'civil abilities' so you need to choose between giving points to lockpicking or warfare for example.
- Persuasion system is a weird rock paper scissors and you can technically persuate anyone in the game with enough luck eventhough you never invested in that ability.
couple of minor stuff here and there but I enjoyed both games and non of these bothered me that much.
I also like the story of the first game more. Without giving much spoilers, in Dos2 you have one goal. For the whole game you are trying to achive that by getting closer and closer to your ultimate destination. Dos1 puts you in a world, you have so little knowledge about who you are or what you are trying to do. When you look back after you played a while you realise how things changed since you first started your adventure.
Untrue. Buffs are checked against the corresponding attribute; as long as that attribute is high enough, you'll have 100% buff success rate.
Your tooltip debuff % is checked against enemy Bodybuilding/Willpower and level difference (at least against enemies that are higher level than you). Pretty sure resistances also play a role, at least situationally. Either way, the debuff chance your skill tooltip has only represent the number that gets calculated against enemy mitigations; a 95% chance on tooltip might as well be 30% against a highly resistant enemy. A debuff with 95% chance AFTER mitigations will practically always go through.
Really? :-O Not many attack spells? Because the footage I've seen made me believe that elemtal attacks are also a big part of it?!
Or do you mean indepth elemental combinations?
Also, there's no real benefit in focusing on a single magic type unless you REAAALLY want to rp with it. There's no reason not to drop a point in every magic type, which kind of makes every mage character you'll ever make similar to each other...
Well I only plan to play through the game once so "similar magic characters" won't be my problem ;-)
DOS 1 and DOS 2 are also radically different games from each other.
In terms of "going backwards," DOS 2 is the game that goes backwards, as it is a colossal downgrade and step backwards from DOS 1.
Uhmmm ... care to elaborate? :-P
Because from what I've read so far you're pretty much alone with your opinion ;-)
Lots of people, including myself, heavily criticized DOS 2 in the months and years when it first came out. I am certainly not alone in my opinion about it being a bad game, although its other detractors may not actively criticize it so much any more.
Although even if I was alone in my opinion, that still wouldn't make it wrong just because it's a minority view. That's why there is a logical fallacy called appeal to popularity: since just because an opinion is popular, that doesn't make it correct.
Would I care to elaborate?: sure thing.
DOS 2 completely butchers the combat from DOS 1, and dumbs-it-down to a ludicrous level.
During 90% of every combat encounter in DOS 2, your only possible choice of action boils down to kindergarten-level binary choice, of:
a) Do I damage the enemy's "magic armor"...? or
b) Do I damage the enemy's physical armor"...?
And whilst the enemy has physical & magical armors, then all of your characters' skills and unique abilities are completely irrelevant, as they cannot be used. If you do use a unique skill, it has no effect, and it's function is null & void, and it does nothing other than to damage the enemy's physical or magical armor.
This gameplay mechanic absolutely annihilates all possible strategic depth and interesting gameplay right out of DOS 2. It turns combat in DOS 2 into a repetitive, boring, snorefest, which is about as much fun as watching paint dry.
Now, let's contrast this with DOS 1. DOS 1 has no "magic armor" or "physical armor" in the way how DOS 2 does. Therefore, DOS 1 does not have the problem that I just described with DOS 2 wherein 90% of the gameplay consists of a binary, kindergarten-level choice.
Instead, DOS 1 offers a gigantic myriad of choices for 100% of any combat encounter. Instead of the only choice being "do I want to damage the enemy's physical armor or magic armor?," DOS 1 instead offers choices like:
do I want to charm the enemy?
do I want to move the enemy via teleportation?
do I want to poison the enemy?
do I want to freeze the enemy?
do I want to electrocute the enemy?
do I want to blind the enemy?
do I want to cripple the enemy?
do I want to curse the enemy?
do I want to bleed the enemy?
do I want to lower the enemy's Willpower so that my subsequent skills will be more effective in future turns?
etc. etc.
This myriad of possible tactical choices adds tons of depth and strategy and interesting & fun gameplay to the combat in DOS 1.
In DOS 2, for the ~10% of a combat encounter whilst an enemy's magical and physical armors are finally broken and hence similar choices finally become viable for a small percentage of the battle's duration, then the winner of the combat has already been decided before that point anyway, hence those choices are still largely an insignificant moot point in DOS 2, and hence not fun to use since you already know the battle's outcome by then, even if we ignore the incredibly boring slog that the player must endure in every battle before they even reach that point where the game finally allows them any choice of tactics.
Not to mention that fact that DOS 2 has a much lesser variety of high quality music tracks when compared vs. DOS 1.
And DOS 2 also has a much smaller variety of unique types of environments, landscapes, and monsters.
For example, there are no goblins or Orcs in DOS 2 (except for a single Orc ghost who is only in the game for about 2 minutes in total, LOL), whereas in DOS 1, Orcs and goblins both feature prominently as key races in world and whose presence makes a big difference in DOS 1.
I strongly disagree with that. Luck is certainly a factor, but it's nowhere close to being "completely based on luck."
Rather, your spell effectiveness is based largely upon how much of the correct stats you have pumped into the factors that boost that a particular spells' effectiveness, and also the enemy's stats like Bodybuilding and Willpower...which if they are too high for your spells to be effective vs. a particular enemy, then it means you are supposed to use cursing-style spells to lower those stats of the enemies, prior to using your main damaging spells on them.
So it's more skill than luck, if the characters are properly built, and if their skills are properly used.
Ok maybe I also sounded a tad agressive but you got me all wrong: I was just saying that nowadays DOS2 is hailed as the new gold-standard for CRPGs and you're basically the first player that I have met that dislikes the game so much.
Let's be objective for a minute tho: You can't tell me in all honesty that DOS2 is a bad game? It's flawed, sure (so is every game by the way) BUT a game that so many people rated overwhelmingly positive and even stands as my favorite RPGs (and I play A LOT of RPGs) is not "bad". That's very subjective to say the least.
I agree on that the magic/physical armor system is highly irritating. I know what they were going for and they succeeded to some degree but I also think that the game kinda promotes more boring one-sided party-setups (all physical or all magical - and everyone who played the game knows which one is more effective).
I play a hybrid buildup but by this point I know the work-arounds to the system. The dual-armor system not being there is actually one of the reasons I'm interested in DOS1.
Ehm what? :-D
I've played more than enough of the game at this point to tell you that that's not true and - again - highly subjective (and all the players doing guides on YT etc. would also like to disagree with that generalisation).
Most of the stuff you've described I do in DOS2 all the time?! :-/
Teleporting enemies FTW btw!
Well I can't say anything to that, I'd have to play DOS1 to find out (and I will, the game is 13 bucks on sale right now - I'd be crazy not to at least give the game a try anyways ;-))
More enemy variety is always a plus.
I do have to say that enemy variety in DOS2 did satisfy me tho.
I'm really looking forward to that part especially: More classic fantasy enemies :-)
If I had to guess I'd say that DOS2 is supposed to be darker and look ... "mature" (and small goblins running around would kinda undermine that feeling). That's only my guess tho..
...that's a short list of your first turn action choices though.
Basically if you played DOS1 first then DOS2, then DOS2 is really kinda poor on mechanics, gameplay (but much better graphics of course, better storytelling as it is improvement of DOS1).
DOS1 can be a bit overwhelming If you played DOS2 first, because you need to keep in mind more things to effectively use your action points. And the start of the DOS1, lets face it, is not too userfriendly. But once you overcome that barrier gameplay of DOS1 offers far more variety of strategies.
After a ~month and few new characters of playing you are ready to take things to the next level with Epic Encounters mod. That provides much more challenges and new mechanics and can easily prolong your gameplay for another months. It deepens all mechanics and levels battleground for npcs. So most battles will be unique.
Epic Encounters exist also for DOS2 but not as good as for DOS1.
Everything feels very smooth and I also like how the story is very slow and fantastical at the beginning - in contrast to DOS2 which actually feels really overwhelming (you get used to it but the lore dump is much worse there).
Mostly, I hate the way combat works in DoS. I mean, I really hate it. I hate how reliant it is on surface effects and blowing up explosive barrels. It just feels really off-putting to me.
I like the characters, the voice acting, the environments. Everything about the game except its combat, which I despise with every cell in my body.
I've been playing a lot of Baldur's Gate 3 though, and I LOVE that game. It has a bit of influence from DoS, which is the only parts of the game I don't like, but it's D&D and feels more like D&D and the combat is pretty good. Only downside to BG3 is that it's in EA and you can only access the 1st Act, although there is a pretty substantial amount of content there.