Zaleukos
Bum
- Joined
- November 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
As I said I did vote "less tactical but in the same vein" I think it is reasonable to distinguish that games have different strengths (even if BG in this case has many more of them)
I love BG2 and would rate it many stars above DA2, but the ruleset was crap and is actually one of few points where the latter game wins hands down IMHO. Characters were defined by class, gear and level to a MUCH greater extent than in DA2.
2nd edition D&D was extremely dull in terms of character building. Fighters and rogues actually had much more variety in DA2 than in BG (DA1 OTOH was crap in terms of character customisation). I mostly use mages for support, but I'm not sure BG wins on that account either, impressive spell count notwithstanding. BG2 mage fights were more often than not rather dull "can opening" fests where at least I spent much time taking down protective spells before the actual kill.
The Infinity engine was far superior for tactical control though, and the relative lack of wave combat (it existed in a few places in the Icewind Dales and possibly BG as well) meant that tactical positioning actually carried a lot more weight in those games.
EDIT: Not that there are that many post-infinity tactical games where you control a party. I havent played all releases, but from the top of my head we essentially have the Drakensang games, NWN2, and the Dragon Age games. DA2 is easily the worst of those in terms of tactical gameplay, but it does have the element. I'd argue that they all to some extent are in the same vein as BG2.
Other games where you have a party tend to have even more gimped tactics (Kotor) or uncontrollable companions (NWN1) which reduced tactical options even more. When we enter that territory I'd say we arent in the same vein any longer
You can't compare the half-baked combat mechanics of DA (1 or 2) to that of the D&D ruleset. In this 'vein', high level spells in BG not only offer an awesome button but also strategy on the battlefield. And, likewise, they could be countered, and re-countered.
I love BG2 and would rate it many stars above DA2, but the ruleset was crap and is actually one of few points where the latter game wins hands down IMHO. Characters were defined by class, gear and level to a MUCH greater extent than in DA2.
2nd edition D&D was extremely dull in terms of character building. Fighters and rogues actually had much more variety in DA2 than in BG (DA1 OTOH was crap in terms of character customisation). I mostly use mages for support, but I'm not sure BG wins on that account either, impressive spell count notwithstanding. BG2 mage fights were more often than not rather dull "can opening" fests where at least I spent much time taking down protective spells before the actual kill.
The Infinity engine was far superior for tactical control though, and the relative lack of wave combat (it existed in a few places in the Icewind Dales and possibly BG as well) meant that tactical positioning actually carried a lot more weight in those games.
EDIT: Not that there are that many post-infinity tactical games where you control a party. I havent played all releases, but from the top of my head we essentially have the Drakensang games, NWN2, and the Dragon Age games. DA2 is easily the worst of those in terms of tactical gameplay, but it does have the element. I'd argue that they all to some extent are in the same vein as BG2.
Other games where you have a party tend to have even more gimped tactics (Kotor) or uncontrollable companions (NWN1) which reduced tactical options even more. When we enter that territory I'd say we arent in the same vein any longer
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013