Why would someone choose, when comparing D:OS to old-school classics, an infinity engine game rather than Ultima, which has been stated multiple times to be the main inspiration behind D:OS ?
Well, it was my intention to compare D:OS to BG 2 because BG 2 is seen by many people (though there are of course people who disagree on that) as the best game of its genre. It wasn't my intention to say that D:OS should be like BG 2, not after all. I just wanted to show why BG 2 was so captivating in many aspects and how D:OS does compared to that.
If you want to make a comprehensive comparison between D:OS and Ultima VII, feel free to do so. I thnk it would be very much appreciated.
Anyway, in terms of combat, particularly, I feel like the comparison falls flat, the systems are so different from each other. I personnaly enjoy the combat in D:OS more than I have any IE game, even in its current state. That doesn't mean it can be improved still (particularly in terms of AI reactivity and challenge provided, systems & mechanics are actually OK), but I'm not sure BG2 is the optimal source of inspiration for that, I feel like the two systems aim at achieving different things.
Even if systems are different you can always take inspiration from working solutions. That doesn't mean that you follow the same route or abandon your own solution. But imo it's worth to see how other games solved similar problems, for better or worse.
As far as lore, story, roleplaying & quests design are concerned, well : I've never cared much for the Forgotten Realm backstories nor have I ever wasted any time entirely reading some in-game lore book in an Elder Scrolls game, which some gamers seem to be fond of. I just don't find them to be that good or interesting. To be honest, I don't care that much for Rivellon as a setting either : standard fantasy fare, nothing special to see here. I'd rather see Larian focusing on the quests depth and showing me an interesting main plot.
If you are generally not that interested in lore then it's of course not an important element of the game. That is quite understandable. I admit that I don't read any book in Tamriel or every item description in the Forgotten Realms as well. But just their existence adds to the atmosphere and "richness" of the game world to me, you know. It's more about a feeling for me than about the actual enjoyment of reading stuff...
And about those quests, particularly, I must say that I would take D:OS reactivity, free exploration, and its quests that can be solved in multiple ways over Bioware's morality & romance "C&C" any day of the week. I actually felt like my actions as a character had more of an impact in this game : I'm investigating a murder and I can get someone arrested, even if it's not the culprit, etc. "Player agency" is defintely stronger in this game than any IE games I've played.
Hm, I think there is a great difference between the Bioware of BG2 and the Bioware of Dragon Age/ Mass effect, for once. But I think you either misunderstood what I was trying to say or I wasn't able to make my point clear enough. I agree that maybe your actions in D:OS have more actual impact. But that's not what I critizied here. I critized the lack of possibilites for actual role playing. Let's take for example the co-op dialogues. In the current state of the beta you have to choose between two answers, both extreme positions. This actually destroys roleplaying because your have to take one of these extreme positions even if it doesn't fit your character and the way you want to play. So maybe those are two different levels of player agency. The first, which is quite good in D:OS, about what you can actually do and influence, and the second, which is lacking in D:OS, about how you can roleplay your character.
I agree that games like Ultima VII and D:OS have their focus on the first one, interactivty and influencing and changing the world like you want. Bioware games usually have a focus on the latter one with a quite "solid and unchangable environment" but pretty strong options to roleplay a character. I think it's maybe even two distinctive way of game design: a more linear, emotional approach like in Bioware games and a more sand-boxy, open approach like in a game like D:OS.
Well, I do admit that I'm quite a fan of Bioware games (though I think that BG 2 was the top and they slowly decayed after...) and I somehow miss the depth or role-playing the the richness of dialogue. To each their own I guess.
So, all in all, I agree that the game is far from perfect yet and that it can still be improved during the remaining development time, but I'd strongly disagree that BG2 should be taken as a model for this process. I don't want D:OS to resemble more an IE game : it already does most things in a different way, one that I personnally find preferable.
Again, it wasn't my intention to say that D:OS should be more like BG 2 or even adopt its systems. It was my intention to detect weaknesses in system design. A comparion with a great game of the same genre (often the reference game) is actually a good way for doing so.
