DOS 1 EE vs DOS 2

[Kunksy]

As to someone who is fairly new to this genre but has been wanting a great RPG style game which one should I play? I work midnights and don't have a lot of time but I would like to invest it in one of the two at least on my days off.

[Dragon]

That's a big question.

I have played 180+ hours on DOS 1 EE and 12+ hours on DOS 2.

IMO, DOS 1 EE is way better than DOS 2 overall, and also in many specific ways, but most especially the combat (which comprises core gameplay). DOS 2 has vastly dumbed-down & over-simplified its combat and therefore taken all the strategy/tactics and fun right out of it. If DOS 1 EE's combat was akin to attending university, then DOS 2's combat would be akin to attending kindergarten.

DOS 1 EE's combat/core gameplay is orders of magnitude better than DOS 2's.

But for some strange reason, DOS 2 is a super popular game that legions of people love, so YMMV, I guess?

As for not having a lot of time: both games are huge and will probably take 100+ hours to complete, especially if you do most or all of the side quests and/or explore everything.

So my recommendation is DOS 1 EE.

Plus, if you are okay buying from GOG, then DOS 1 EE is on sale there for super cheap right now, 66% off for $13.59 USD. DOS 2 won't ever be on sale that cheap for at least another couple of years.

[Kunksy]

Originally posted by Dragon:

That's a big question.

Thanks for the input! I was leaning more towards DOS EE so I’ll get that one whenever it goes back on sale via Steam.

[Crisarssen]

Is DOS 2 story linked to DOS EE? Would be great if it is.

[Kunksy]

Originally posted by CrisX:

Is DOS 2 story linked to DOS EE? Would be great if it is.

From what I read the stories are far apart and not linked to each other.

[PrinceXavieR™]

wait, what.. 100 hours needed to fully complete this game?

[Crisarssen]

From what I read the stories are far apart and not linked to each other.

well could be interesting, I'm still playing DOS EE, I'm waiting the next sale to get DOS 2.

wait, what.. 100 hours needed to fully complete this game?

to fully complete I think it will be a little more, I have 60 hours and far from the end of this game. But I'm not rushing it, I'm exploring and doing everything.

[PrinceXavieR™]

Originally posted by CrisX:

From what I read the stories are far apart and not linked to each other.

well could be interesting, I'm still playing DOS EE, I'm waiting the next sale to get DOS 2.

wait, what.. 100 hours needed to fully complete this game?

to fully complete I think it will be a little more, I have 60 hours and far from the end of this game. But I'm not rushing it, I'm exploring and doing everything.

thanks for the input.. looks like it will take me an entire month to finish this game, since I normally play slow and easy

[v0]

Originally posted by Dragon:

That's a big question.

I have played 180+ hours on DOS 1 EE and 12+ hours on DOS 2.

IMO, DOS 1 EE is way better than DOS 2 overall, and also in many specific ways, but most especially the combat (which comprises core gameplay). DOS 2 has vastly dumbed-down & over-simplified its combat and therefore taken all the strategy/tactics and fun right out of it. If DOS 1 EE's combat was akin to attending university, then DOS 2's combat would be akin to attending kindergarten.

DOS 1 EE's combat/core gameplay is orders of magnitude better than DOS 2's.

kinda sad to hear dos2 became oversimplified :/ well i guess i'll move it down to middle of list then..

[Blowfeld]

Originally posted by PrinceXavieR:

wait, what.. 100 hours needed to fully complete this game?

I think 100+ hours sounds about right when you want to explore and experience the game completely (which I recommend, as the quest stories are really great and far off the usual "get me 10 of this or kill 20 of that for stupid reasons)

[Emiliorth]

I've spent couple of hours in first town and still not completed quests in it. Quite needy this game is, like it I do :D

[v0]

Originally posted by oO:

Originally posted by PrinceXavieR:

wait, what.. 100 hours needed to fully complete this game?

I think 100+ hours sounds about right when you want to explore and experience the game completely (which I recommend, as the quest stories are really great and far off the usual "get me 10 of this or kill 20 of that for stupid reasons)

not to mention if you play without outside help some puzzles *will* take lots of trial and error and headscratching. they may even prove impossible ;)

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

Originally posted by Dragon:

That's a big question.

I have played 180+ hours on DOS 1 EE and 12+ hours on DOS 2.

IMO, DOS 1 EE is way better than DOS 2 overall, and also in many specific ways, but most especially the combat (which comprises core gameplay). DOS 2 has vastly dumbed-down & over-simplified its combat and therefore taken all the strategy/tactics and fun right out of it. If DOS 1 EE's combat was akin to attending university, then DOS 2's combat would be akin to attending kindergarten.

DOS 1 EE's combat/core gameplay is orders of magnitude better than DOS 2's.

I've played only about 30 hours of DOS1 so far, and am finally getting through the second "act" as of now. Given that the combat in DOS1 seems "extremely" flawed to me by this point, literally being a game of spamming crowd control to win (or else waiting for your enemies to do the same), hearing that this is somehow "superior" to the combat in the second game makes me hesitant to want to play the second one. So far, every hard fight I've won in DOS1 has been due to spamming mass crowd control because there's literally no other way to win fights when every single enemy can cast as much magic as you, and they typically outnumber you as well.

Beating Braccus Rex for example, and his three summons, basically required me to keep him spam-stunned for something like 5-10 turns while I took out the rest of the enemies, and that just doesn't seem like fun gameplay to me.

I find that to be poor combat design, and while it is neat to get occasional victories due to smart use of the terrain and environmental effects and such, I don't like how you essentially are forced to abuse mass crowd control as your only real option.

So since DOS1's "complex" combat systems lead to only one actually optimal way of playing the game, is DOS2 really the worse combat system? I feel it wouldn't be unless it had the same problem, but then, I won't be getting it until I finish this game.

[Crisarssen]

Originally posted by Echonian:

Originally posted by Dragon:

That's a big question.

I have played 180+ hours on DOS 1 EE and 12+ hours on DOS 2.

IMO, DOS 1 EE is way better than DOS 2 overall, and also in many specific ways, but most especially the combat (which comprises core gameplay). DOS 2 has vastly dumbed-down & over-simplified its combat and therefore taken all the strategy/tactics and fun right out of it. If DOS 1 EE's combat was akin to attending university, then DOS 2's combat would be akin to attending kindergarten.

DOS 1 EE's combat/core gameplay is orders of magnitude better than DOS 2's.

I've played only about 30 hours of DOS1 so far, and am finally getting through the second "act" as of now. Given that the combat in DOS1 seems "extremely" flawed to me by this point, literally being a game of spamming crowd control to win (or else waiting for your enemies to do the same), hearing that this is somehow "superior" to the combat in the second game makes me hesitant to want to play the second one. So far, every hard fight I've won in DOS1 has been due to spamming mass crowd control because there's literally no other way to win fights when every single enemy can cast as much magic as you, and they typically outnumber you as well.

Beating Braccus Rex for example, and his three summons, basically required me to keep him spam-stunned for something like 5-10 turns while I took out the rest of the enemies, and that just doesn't seem like fun gameplay to me.

I find that to be poor combat design, and while it is neat to get occasional victories due to smart use of the terrain and environmental effects and such, I don't like how you essentially are forced to abuse mass crowd control as your only real option.

So since DOS1's "complex" combat systems lead to only one actually optimal way of playing the game, is DOS2 really the worse combat system? I feel it wouldn't be unless it had the same problem, but then, I won't be getting it until I finish this game.

Let me tell you how I beat Braccus Rex: First time I thought "no way it's impossible with those damn meteors!", then I splittered up my group to avoid his meteors. In my turn, I summoned spiders and undeads near them to act as shield, then I used debuff spells to finally kill them. Most of combats I'm facing now are challengings, yet they are fun. Too bad I spend a good time crafting/blacksmithing, but overall I'm having fun. lol

[Human Marionette]

I'm officially enjoying the first one more than 2.

Dos2 is easy once you know how to cheese most fights... No spoilers.

I did the whole game honour run with using heavy object splatter build... 30 mins give or take for the game start to end... In my opinion it's a great game but way way to short...

I'm 40 hours into the first game and still only just got the ore.

Yes the ranger could have been better like in DoS2 but meh.

I like dos:EE better because you have to use your noodle on tactician.

[OldGoo]

I have played DOS-1 for more than 1000 hours and DOS-2 for more than 700 hours. I played DOS-1 many times and reached the end three times. In DOS-2, I have never been able to reach the end because of the significantly lower difficulty and because of this, interest drops in the second half of the game. Moreover, I want to note that if you install the Epic Encaunters mod in DOS-1, then the game will play with other colors and become more interesting and more difficult. For the second part, there is also such a mod and it adds interest to the game, but the game does not become much more complicated as the mod does in the first part...

p.s. I always play at the most difficult level, if anything...