Dragon age, good interactive movie, bad game [Archive]

taltamir

2009-11-22, 07:20 PM

Dragon age is a terrible game mixed with an excellent "interactive movie". The story is well written, the setting is well crafted, the graphics are cool, the voice acting is amazing, and so on.

But what they messed up on is the game part. The game is just a boring uninspired grind fest with too many MMO trappings, a horribly unbalanced system, a ton of character design traps that will make you suck if you don't bypass them...

A bioware employee actually explained that the reason their skill/spell/talent descriptions were so vague is that they locked in all the final wordings in the game for translation while they were still working on balancing the gameplay. So, yes, every single line of dialogue was set in stone before they finished balancing the gameplay (which they never did finish).

The bugs are annoying, many of which are balance critial, for example the description says that dex contributes to bow damage, but it is actually STR that determines your damage with a bow. Many skills have issues like that, or they are just plain terrible.

Premium content decimates suspension of disbeleif (in game merchants selling it, your journal shows "premium content" as a town name, and lists quests, your map shows some areas in Gold, they are DLC areas, etc... and those are all there if you bought it or not... buying it still means it is labeled premium content and a different color.

Best party is 1 shield tank with knockdown immunity and 3 mages... hard and impossible are no different than normal, while easy is still too hard, and is only made "easy" by making AoO spells not affect your own guys (another suspension of disbeleif issue).
Dragons, trolls, bosses, etc are all push overs while the most difficult fights are the 20+ random mooks spawns you keep on facing. (not to mention that as usual you leave 2/3 of your people in the camp while only you and 3 helpers fight)

And lets not forget the terrible uninspired side quests... (fetch this, kill this, etc.)

Despite being single player every aspect of it is MMOish... enemies run through your warriors who block the door, unless your warrior uses his "aggro" skills. You can just chug potions, etc etc etc... terrible game. I finally got the point where I couldn't play it anymore despite wanting to see what happens next.

warty goblin

2009-11-22, 07:28 PM

Haven't played the game. What I will say is that games need to stop trying to be movies.

It's why I don't play Call of Duty games. I have no desire to play an action movie. If I want that experience, I'll watch one. I'd much rather play something that's designed from the ground up to take full advantage of the interactivity uniquely available in a game.

Mx.Silver

2009-11-22, 07:34 PM

Shouldn't this be in the Gaming section? Hell there's already at least 1 Dragon Age thread there where this would have been better suited.

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-22, 07:37 PM

The search function is your friend.

taltamir

2009-11-22, 07:39 PM

Fiendish_Dire_Moose

2009-11-22, 07:40 PM

Wait...The setting is well crafted and not ripped out of the nearest copy of LoTR?

taltamir

2009-11-22, 07:40 PM

Shouldn't this be in the Gaming section? Hell there's already at least 1 Dragon Age thread there where this would have been better suited.

I was actually looking for where exactly to place it... and I missed the gaming (other) forum... you are right that it would have been a better spot for it.
If someone will move the thread there I'd be much obliged.

Wait...The setting is well crafted and not rippied out of the nearest copy of LoTR?

They take basic LOTR things like "elves and dwarves" for granted... but the setting includes the whole magic, religion, fade, etc that are all new and I almost dare say original.

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-22, 07:44 PM

frankly, I'd like to have some cheats to just "skip" the rest of the terrible game and get to the next point in the interactive movie... I want to see the ending but I really can't stomach it anymore.

if you intend to play the game, get on the forums and read about character optimization... by "tactical game" they meant "some classes / builds suck, some are awesome, read the forums or replay a lot".
Well... except they deleted the forums to make a new "dragon age social network".
its... sufficiently forum like... check out the char op forum here:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/66/index

I haven't found any build that really sucks. Even archery isn't that bad if you play intelligently. The only thing I can see being bad is if someone really stupid decides to play and thinks, "Hey, I'll take one talent each in two-handed weapon, weapon and shield, dual-weapon, and archery! I'll be awesome!"

taltamir

2009-11-22, 07:47 PM

I haven't found any build that really sucks. Even archery isn't that bad if you play intelligently. The only thing I can see being bad is if someone really stupid decides to play and thinks, "Hey, I'll take one talent each in two-handed weapon, weapon and shield, dual-weapon, and archery! I'll be awesome!"

All the cohorts that join you are preleveled to your current level automatically... all of them are preleveled EXACTLY THAT WAY.
The party stash is only available if you you buy one of the DLCs, then you need to finish it, and then it acts as your party stash.
There are whole lists of "bad design decisions" bioware made on the forums.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose

2009-11-22, 07:48 PM

I was actually looking for where exactly to place it... and I missed the gaming (other) forum... you are right that it would have been a better spot for it.
If someone will move the thread there I'd be much obliged.

They take basic LOTR things like "elves and dwarves" for granted... but the setting includes the whole magic, religion, fade, etc that are all new and I almost dare say original.

Creepy Templaric religion is nowhere close to original, it's almost done to death in magical settings. The only original thing about the magic is it's just that, magic. No specialized BS with a social title attached and prettied up. Any mage can heal, any mage can shapeshift(after a spec point of course), and any mage can cast burny burny death.

Even the enviornments looked LoTR-ish. Anything that was stone and not in dirty dirty poor man land is almost covered in white out. Even racial relations are in the crapper.

While I find the game fun to play for an hour or two, I can't help but feel(and know) that I've seen it all before. The game brings very little new to the table.
It's Mass Effect with dragons.

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-22, 07:52 PM

All the cohorts that join you are preleveled to your current level automatically... all of them are preleveled EXACTLY THAT WAY.
The party stash is only available if you you buy one of the DLCs, then you need to finish it, and then it acts as your party stash.
There are whole lists of "bad design decisions" bioware made on the forums.

What's wrong with the way they're preleveled?

Dienekes

2009-11-22, 07:59 PM

The interesting thing, is for the "creepy templar religion" I found is that, really it's not so creepy.

Now there can be, and is, arguments if what they're doing is right and honorable and so forth. But they do some very good things, they do some things that seem to be came from a good idea though may or may not have been twisted.

Now as to the game itself. I rather liked it. I play on hard, and I love how difficult it is. I enjoy the tacticality of the combat. If you go in guns blazing with little thought, you will be screwed. If you actually take the time to make plans you will be very rewarded.

I would ask to speak of what balancing problems you've had. Cause really, I haven't found any. Now some classes are more useful than others, that's no lie. But really, I found almost any party can be made useful on hard anyway. Though I haven't played on nightmare.

The in game selling of premium content IS annoying. You and I agree 100% there.

So yeah, anyway. Mileage may vary for this one apparently.

taltamir

2009-11-22, 08:00 PM

What's wrong with the way they're preleveled?

take lilliana.. she has half her points in bows, and half in melee. making her a crappy bowman and a crappy meleer. Since she didn't specialize in either.

This is actually pretty common... their stats area always all over the place (stats being "strength, dexterity, etc".) and so on.

Now as to the game itself. I rather liked it. I play on hard, and I love how difficult it is. I enjoy the tacticality of the combat. If you go in guns blazing with little thought, you will be screwed. If you actually take the time to make plans you will be very rewarded.
And by tactics you mean exploiting the artificial stupidy. pulling =! tactics. (bioware explicitly cites pulling as an example of "tactical play")

I would ask to speak of what balancing problems you've had. Cause really, I haven't found any. Now some classes are more useful than others, that's no lie. But really, I found almost any party can be made useful on hard anyway. Though I haven't played on nightmare.

I didn't have any tactical problems, I was lucky enough to start off as a wizard so my early mistakes didn't matter, I also consulted the forums, and have some experience with such games so I was able to develop some very effective strategies. So really I had no problems kicking anything's ass. The assumption that someone must be a "noob" to not like bad gameplay is a fallacy.

The infinite identical mobs (who are each stronger than the dragon I faced a little while ago due to level scaling) I have to mow through as I go through TINY areas with invisible walls up the wazoo to get to the next "interactive movie" point... that I have a problem with. I want to get to the next area without having to kill 500 "level appropriate" random mooks.

If you want to know some of the balancing problems in the game then check the forums that I linked. they have about a million threads explaining in detail (which, I actually post in under the same name as here; well, used to until they switched it to "social networking" from forums)

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-22, 08:05 PM

take lilliana.. she has half her points in bows, and half in melee. making her a crappy bowman and a crappy meleer. Since she didn't specialize in either.

This is actually pretty common... their stats area always all over the place (stats being "strength, dexterity, etc".) and so on.

And by "half her points in melee" you mean the one point in Dirty Fighting that all rogues start with, and the one point in Below the Belt which leads to Lethality, a great talent for rogue archers?

Edit: As opposed to the four points in archery, two points in lockpicking, and one point in Song of Valor.

taltamir

2009-11-22, 08:16 PM

And by "half her points in melee" you mean the one point in Dirty Fighting that all rogues start with, and the one point in Below the Belt which leads to Lethality, a great talent for rogue archers?

Edit: As opposed to the four points in archery, two points in lockpicking, and one point in Song of Valor.

not just a great talent, a required talent... which I am surprised they haven't fixed it...
According to the tooltips dex determines bow damage, str melee damage, and lethality allows replacing str with cunning (if higher) for melee damage.
Those are wrong.
All damage, including bow, is determined by str, and cunning lets you replace ranged damage with cunning as well.

Presumably they will make a patch soon that either changes the description, or changes misbehavior to match the description.

I HOPE they weren't aware of this bug and were intentionally going for it.

Dienekes

2009-11-22, 08:18 PM

And by tactics you mean exploiting the artificial stupidy. pulling =! tactics. (bioware explicitly cites pulling as an example of "tactical play")

I was referring to when to use which spells and abilities to maximize your damage output per encounter and using whatever terrain you have as an advantage along with traps. But if you want to put words into my mouth that's cool too.

I didn't have any tactical problems, I was lucky enough to play a wizard, check the forums, and have some experience with such games. So really I had no problems kicking anything's ass. The assumption that someone must be a "noob" to not like bad gameplay is a fallacy.

I play a warrior type on hard with only 1 wizard in my party. I did not say you were a noob, again lovingly putting words into my mouth. If anything I am since this is my second Bioware game and I have only once looked at a charops page. I merely asked which balancing problems you were having since I as of yet have not experienced anything broken.

The infinite identical mobs (who are each stronger than the dragon I faced a little while ago due to level scaling) I have to mow through as I go through TINY areas with invisible walls up the wazoo to get to the next "interactive movie" point... that I have a problem with. I want to get to the next area without having to kill 500 "level appropriate" random mooks.

A valid argument, as mooks do scale, and I as well have met an invisible wall. However, I enjoy the combat so it's not a problem for me.

If you want to know some of the balancing problems in the game then check the forums that I linked. they have about a million threads explaining in detail

Cool, I haven't really come up to them though.

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-22, 08:28 PM

not just a great talent, a required talent... which I am surprised they haven't fixed it...
According to the tooltips dex determines bow damage, str melee damage, and lethality allows replacing str with cunning (if higher) for melee damage.
Those are wrong.
All damage, including bow, is determined by str, and cunning lets you replace ranged damage with cunning as well.

Presumably they will make a patch soon that either changes the description, or changes misbehavior to match the description.

I HOPE they weren't aware of this bug and were intentionally going for it.

At release, chance to hit with bows was determined by dexterity and damage with bows was determined by both strength and dexterity. A patch has already been released to fix this, so that only dexterity is used in determining damage with bows.

Lord Seth

2009-11-22, 09:25 PM

Obligatory Zero Punctuation link (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1096-Dragon-Age-Origins).

taltamir

2009-11-22, 11:49 PM

warty goblin

2009-11-23, 12:14 AM

The impression I got from Yahtzee's review was that the story was pretty good although probably nothing to write home about, but the gameplay was very much old hat.

My personal feeling on this sort of gameplay is that I have a limited desire for it, and currently that is completely satiated by the infinitely less pretentious and 40% cheaper Drakensang: The Dark Eye, which also has the advantage of featuring colors besides brown and gore.

Tavar

2009-11-23, 12:16 AM

featuring colors besides brown and gore.

What are these colors you speak of?:smallconfused:

Hallavast

2009-11-23, 12:16 AM

well, yahtze complained about the excess use of words, and said "if you like RPGs you will probably like this one, I don't know, I don't like RPGs"... then again, he is saying the game gripped him and he can't wait to see what happens next. I know the feeling... if you can just make it last until the end of the game...

I love RPGs and I hate this one (well, the game play, I like the interactive movie part)...

Well, the guy doesn't come off as capable of giving a credible review of the game, since he's not familiar with fantasy OR RPGs. It's actually kinda funny, because he insists that the game is not dark fantasy (and ridicules the term) but rather just straight fantasy. Then he references conan... This tells me he knows nothing about what he's trying to review. I'll pass on his advice.

Avilan the Grey

2009-11-23, 06:47 AM

I have just read the OP post and ???

Of course everyone's taste is different, but I love the feeling of playing a classic, well made Bioware game again.

It is basically BGIII, and I love it.

Shadowcaller

2009-11-23, 07:09 AM

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-23, 07:19 AM

I have just read the OP post and ???

Of course everyone's taste is different, but I love the feeling of playing a classic, well made Bioware game again.

It is basically BGIII, and I love it.
{Scrubbed} True, characters and the game world were done pretty well, especially considering the world was done from scratch just for this game, the story is more a lot more complex than is typical for most "kill generic stuff and become hero of the realm" RPGs, different starts for different character types is an awesome idea but the MMO gameplay, Alistair's spiky hair, Morrigan's stripperific outfit, in-game aggressive selling of the DLC's all make it seem like the game's target audience is 13 year olds. At least the game isn't that stripperific, but it still has way too many faults.

Oh, and no combat log + really vague skill/ability descriptions. Seriously, I've never done any programming in my life, but just use damn numeric strings for the localization.. eg:

Dexterity increases your attack by (String 1) for every point you increase it.
-is the same as-
Dextérité augmenté votre attaque de (String 1) pour chaque point que vous augmentez

Write something like when localizing and just make a damn text file with all the values for it. Voila!

Avilan the Grey

2009-11-23, 07:30 AM

It's basically BGIII for 13 year old X-box morons. True, characters and the game world were done pretty well, especially considering the world was done from scratch just for this game, the story is more a lot more complex than is typical for most "kill generic stuff and become hero of the realm" RPGs, different starts for different character types is an awesome idea but the MMO gameplay, Alistair's spiky hair, Morrigan's stripperific outfit, in-game aggressive selling of the DLC's all make it seem like the game's target audience is 13 year olds. At least the game isn't that stripperific, but it still has way too many faults.

Oh, and no combat log + really vague skill/ability descriptions. Seriously, I've never done any programming in my life, but just use damn numeric strings for the localization.. eg:

Dexterity increases your attack by (String 1) for every point you increase it.
-is the same as-
Dextérité augmenté votre attaque de (String 1) pour chaque point que vous augmentez

Write something like when localizing and just make a damn text file with all the values for it. Voila!

I completely disagree.

1. Spiky hair? What spiky hair? Are you sure you are not using a mod?

2. Yeah because we all know that in D&D no female mages are wearing a casterkini. Evar.

3. What does In Game marketing (which is a bad idea) have to do with target audience age? I am sorry, I just don't see the connection.

4. I don't think the descriptions are vague. They are clear enough. Of course I am not really into the "Uber-optimizing" thing. Besides, this point of yours seems to contradict the "For 13-year old morons" part.

Kcalehc

2009-11-23, 10:34 AM

So far I'm enjoying it. Some of the interactive movie sequences are a bit too long for my tastes though - I'd actually rather be playing.
Not very far in but I'm enjoying the new world that they built, mildly original in places, still different enough to feel new. The downloadable content thing is a bit annoying however, they could have left that to a seperate place where you knew it would be.

Mewtarthio

2009-11-23, 12:32 PM

Wait, what's all this about in-game marketing of DLC? I've not run into anyone referencing a DLC before I downloaded it.

jmbrown

2009-11-23, 12:41 PM

Out of curiosity, what version are you guys playing because the PC version has either been patched to fix those things or can be easily modified.

I stand by my belief that Dragon Age never should have been made for consoles. It was originally going to be a PC exclusive but when Electronic Arts jumped on as publisher, they forced BioWare to port it to 360 and PS3 because EA beleives that PC games aren't profitable. The console versions were literally rushed out the door (at PAX 08, the PR and marketing guys said it was PC exclusive then a week later they said they were porting it to consoles). Had the game stayed on path as a PC exclusive they would have had more time to hammer out the problems instead of splitting the team to work on multiple versions.

EA is also the bigger proponent of DLC. I don't mind DLC especially good stuff that adds to the gameplay, but EA releases DLC the day of launch which is absolutely ridiculous. Are you trying to tell me that these "features" were separately funded and developed after the game went gold and the discs were printed? Because if not, they should have been in the final product from the very beginning.

Long story short, I feel absolutely terrible for the people playing this on the consoles and getting a bad opinion. After beating the game I opened up the editor and modified the attack value of all the bosses and skills and even created some unique items I felt would make the game more interesting. I plan on running through it again on hard and seeing if the experience changes any. After that I'll probably start working on some story modules.

Comet

2009-11-23, 12:42 PM

Wait, what's all this about in-game marketing of DLC? I've not run into anyone referencing a DLC before I downloaded it.
Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner both do this.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I still get to decide whether or not I download the DLC and there's no harm in refusing to do so.
As for immersion, you could say that my immersion breaks every time I visit the options-screen. I don't really see anything different here.

Mewtarthio

2009-11-23, 01:02 PM

Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner both do this.

I played through the entire game and didn't see the merchant who tells you about Soldier's Peak. Then I bought Warden's Keep (waste of money, by the way :smallannoyed:) and he showed up in my camp.

As for Stone Prisoner: Getting the Stone Prisoner quest requires traveling to an area that's not even available until you download the DLC. Did you honestly get given quests in-game related to DLCs that you had not purchased?

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-23, 02:17 PM

I played through the entire game and didn't see the merchant who tells you about Soldier's Peak. Then I bought Warden's Keep (waste of money, by the way :smallannoyed:) and he showed up in my camp.

As for Stone Prisoner: Getting the Stone Prisoner quest requires traveling to an area that's not even available until you download the DLC. Did you honestly get given quests in-game related to DLCs that you had not purchased?
Yes, they're in my game (including the camp) and they're annoying enough that they bother you about quests and tell you just enough to get you interested and as soon as you start talking about it a bunch of chat options and menu links pop up telling you to buy the DLC.

snoopy13a

2009-11-23, 02:19 PM

Comet

2009-11-23, 02:26 PM

I don't fully understand the criticism in this thread. It seems more of a critique of single player RPGs in general than the actual game. It is akin to someone who doesn't like sports video games complaining about Madden 2010.

True. This might mainly be because Dragon Age is the most "pure" representative of it's genre we've had in years.
I think the game makers themselves were pretty honest about the fact that Dragon Age is, first and foremost, classic single player fantasy adventuring.

I like it, for one. Sure, it invents almost nothing new, but it really doesn't have to as long as the content is well thought-out and polished.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-23, 02:33 PM

My criticism - I like it as an RPG.

{Scrubbed} system that doesn't even tell you what the abilities do so you can't decide between two spells/abilities that look the same on the surface. Which leads to taking a completely useless one in favour of a nice one (I'm still quite pissed I took Earthquake and Petrify, both do absolutely nothing). And obviously there's nothing I can do about it without cheating.

Also, you need two mages who can cast Cone of Cold to kill 99.9% of things in the game on any difficulty level with no problems. Don't even really need a tank. CoC will freeze absolutely everything after which you can pound on it however you wish. The high dragon? Wynne, Morrigan to freeze it and my rogue to beat the crap out of it by poking it under the tail with a pair of daggers. Revenants? Wynne, Morrigan to freeze them and my rogue to beat the crap out of them by poking them with daggers. Etcetera.

5 generic bandit archers? Oh boy, I'll probably use about a dozen healing potions before I manage to kill even one.

SmartAlec

2009-11-23, 02:38 PM

I immensely hate the {scrubbed} system that doesn't even tell you what the abilities do so you can't decide between two spells/abilities that look the same on the surface. Which leads to taking a completely useless one in favour of a nice one (I'm still quite pissed I took Earthquake and Petrify, both do absolutely nothing). And obviously there's nothing I can do about it without cheating.

I thought it made quite a nice change to be in the position of having to figure things out for myself. I am learning more about the game as I go; that feels right, to me.

Poison_Fish

2009-11-23, 02:41 PM

(I'm still quite pissed I took Earthquake and Petrify, both do absolutely nothing).

Petrify + throwing rocks to shatter tends to work wonders and saves you mana. As does Cone of Cold + throwing more rocks.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-23, 02:44 PM

Petrify + throwing rocks to shatter tends to work wonders and saves you mana. As does Cone of Cold + throwing more rocks.
Cone of Cold has something like 95% success rate. Petrify I'm lucky if works 40-50% of the time and only affects a single target while using up more mana and doing no damage.

Myatar_Panwar

2009-11-23, 02:47 PM

I immensely hate the {Scrubbed} system that doesn't even tell you what the abilities do so you can't decide between two spells/abilities that look the same on the surface.
{Scrubbed}

And COME ON. You say that CoC is super powerful and you use it all the time, yet you can't find a use for earthquake? What game are you playing?

Morty

2009-11-23, 02:52 PM

jmbrown

2009-11-23, 02:54 PM

{Scrubbed}
And COME ON. You say that CoC is super powerful and you use it all the time, yet you can't find a use for earthquake? What game are you playing?

Having a lack of information about the inner workings of the mechanics does dumb it down. Imagine Baldur's Gate 2 without the phone book manual and you can never see what your THAC0 or AC is.

The cold line of spells are undoubtly powerful, more so than any other elemental line of magic. No other elemental spell does the same damage an average cold spell does, cold spells have a ridiculously high chance to freeze any enemy, very very very few enemies are weak against cold damage, and... yeah, ice magic is the way to go.

Saying someone shouldn't abuse a broken spell doesn't change the fact that it's a broken spell.

Myatar_Panwar

2009-11-23, 02:58 PM

I was more referencing that earthquake is an immensely powerful tool to use with CoC.

Earthquake knocks down everyone in the area.

Anyone knocked down while frozen is shattered.

Drascin

2009-11-23, 02:59 PM

A lot of the abilities in the game do look weak at a first glance. Tempest seemed useless to me when I took it... but then I discovered how handy is it to take care of annoying archers.
And I'm kind of baffled about the "made for morons" argument. If anything, Dragon Age is too difficult at times.

Yeah, Tempest looks horrible at first. Then you notice it's a fire-and-forget for archer groups, AND it eats stamina every time it damages anything. Area Paralyze, Tempest, run away, come back to only the easily-sniped leaders surviving :smallbiggrin:.

Comet

2009-11-23, 03:02 PM

And who cares about effectiveness and such when Tempest and Inferno fired at the same spot simultaneously looks like the coolest thing ever?

Morty

2009-11-23, 03:08 PM

Yeah, Tempest looks horrible at first. Then you notice it's a fire-and-forget for archer groups, AND it eats stamina every time it damages anything. Area Paralyze, Tempest, run away, come back to only the easily-sniped leaders surviving :smallbiggrin:.

Sadly, I don't have any AoE immobilizing effects except for Sleep in my party. But it'll change in a few levels.

Drascin

2009-11-23, 03:12 PM

And who cares about effectiveness and such when Tempest and Inferno fired at the same spot simultaneously looks like the coolest thing ever?

I always preferred Blizzard and Tempest, personally.

Storm of Vengeance! :smallbiggrin:

Faulty

2009-11-23, 03:19 PM

Earthquake + Grease + Fire Storm + Tempest = everything in the area sits there and takes it.

Muz

2009-11-23, 04:20 PM

Having a lack of information about the inner workings of the mechanics does dumb it down. Imagine Baldur's Gate 2 without the phone book manual and you can never see what your THAC0 or AC is.

*points to the lower left hand side of the character record* All that stuff is there.

Saying someone shouldn't abuse a broken spell doesn't change the fact that it's a broken spell.

True, but on the other hand, it's a single player game, so "balance" isn't as important as in something with multiplayer.

I'm loving the game, though it's not without it's flaws. I miss utility spells like Knock and such. I wish a character had mass so they COULD block a doorway rather than just have a bunch of people rush by 'em like kids dashing to recess. And of course the DLC guy in camp is rather rude. Still, it's akin to a gaming experience I haven't had for quite some time aside from replays of BG2 and Torment, and it's nice to see that the industry hasn't completely left that style by the wayside. With luck, DA's popularity will lead to more, and hopefully the opportunity to fix what isn't so good.

warty goblin

2009-11-23, 04:27 PM

I hope there isn't too many more like DA:O. Some of the more modern RPGs were getting to the point that I actually enjoyed the gameplay, as opposed to enduring it so I could get to the story.

Myatar_Panwar

2009-11-23, 04:47 PM

I hope there isn't too many more like DA:O. Some of the more modern RPGs were getting to the point that I actually enjoyed the gameplay, as opposed to enduring it so I could get to the story.

Every single game ever will have people complaining about stuff.

I actually really like DA:O's gameplay, and I doubt that I am the minority.

warty goblin

2009-11-23, 05:00 PM

Every single game ever will have people complaining about stuff.

I actually really like DA:O's gameplay, and I doubt that I am the minority.

I honestly have no objection to DA:O, or people enjoying it. Far as I'm concerned, if it floats your boat and doesn't scare the livestock, good for you. I'd just rather the entire genre not devolve ten years because one successful game came out. I have a similar worry about RTSs vis a vis Starcraft 2 actually.

Muz

2009-11-23, 05:04 PM

I hope there isn't too many more like DA:O. Some of the more modern RPGs were getting to the point that I actually enjoyed the gameplay, as opposed to enduring it so I could get to the story.

I'm sorry that you have to suffer, but for my tastes it's nice to have another RPG of a style that I enjoy since BG2. KOTOR 1 & 2 have been pretty much it. If you like the modern RPGs, then good, but there's room enough in the market for things other people like, too.

I'd just rather the entire genre not devolve ten years because one successful game came out.

I take exception to the idea that "evolving" equates to games becoming more the way you want and "devolving" equates to games not to your particular tastes. It's a pendulum shift between styles. Lateral. Some styles appeal to some people, others appeal to other people. *shrug*

warty goblin

2009-11-23, 05:12 PM

I'm sorry that you have to suffer, but for my tastes it's nice to have another RPG of a style that I enjoy since BG2. KOTOR 1 & 2 have been pretty much it. If you like the modern RPGs, then good, but there's room enough in the market for things other people like, too.

It's not a huge worry with me to be honest. The inexplicable popularity of Call of Duty despite its completely degenerate gameplay ranks far higher on my list of 'things I hope don't sweep the genre' than Dragon Age. Besides I start to feel a bit funny whenever I see footage from the Witcher II.

Roland St. Jude

2009-11-23, 05:15 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: It's possible to say something is bad without insulting people who like it. Also, please don't attack, insult, or belittle others or try to moderate others.

Dragor

2009-11-23, 05:23 PM

Alistair's spiky hair,

I wasn't going to talk on this thread until I saw this.

Spiky hair? Does having hair which isn't long and braided make a fantasy game somehow dumbed down for "360 morons"? I really don't understand this complaint.

I do understand the complaint about Morrigan's outfit, but all the same... Morrigan is vain and knows that she's beautiful, as shown in the conversation where you compliment her as "beautiful" if you pick her as a romance option and she remarks that she already knew that and we already know she's manipulative, persuasive and knows what makes men tick.

And besides, everyone knows it's obligatory to have a Barely Clothed Mage Chick. :smalltongue:

Drascin

2009-11-23, 05:27 PM

I actually really like DA:O's gameplay, and I doubt that I am the minority.

Same. It's been a long while since I enjoyed playing a Western RPG, but DAO manages to be it. It's not stellar, but it's pretty good.

Avilan the Grey

2009-11-24, 01:53 AM

EA is also the bigger proponent of DLC. I don't mind DLC especially good stuff that adds to the gameplay, but EA releases DLC the day of launch which is absolutely ridiculous.

Actually, I don't think that was weird.
Would you have liked it better if only we that ordered the DCE got Warden's keep and no one else did?

I'm loving the game, though it's not without it's flaws.

My only real source of frustration is that I won't ever unlock all subclasses, I think. Too much work. It irks me because I will probably never get to play a Reaver, for example.

I wish there was a mod that put manuals for all of them in the game or something.

taltamir

2009-11-24, 02:50 AM

I don't fully understand the criticism in this thread. It seems more of a critique of single player RPGs in general than the actual game. It is akin to someone who doesn't like sports video games complaining about Madden 2010.

1. I love single player RPGs.
2. Dragon age is not an archetypical single player RPG.
3. The complaint is that the gameplay is bad. Because of bad design decisions.

For example, when was the last time a single player RPG:
1. required you to buy the party storage chest in a DLC?
2. Had in game advertising of DLCs?
3. Had completely inadequare descriptions and a lot of "trap" classes? (actually I have seen one, there is an indie RPG called "Eschalon Book 1" which has an equal amount of vagueness by intent (the authors talk likewise on learning to build strong characterS). Same process of scouring the forums and replaying the game to learn what works and optimize to it.
4. Had random encounters of 20 wolves each stronger then a dragon you recently faced because of level scaling (oblivion... but it was terrible then as well)
5. said to require strategy, where the official example given be developers is "pulling"... which is just exploiting AI inadequacy, not an actual strategy.
6. Full of MMO trappings (I can think of several, like hell gate london... Single player MMOs are always a failure, nooone likes them)
7. A tiny TINY areas where quests triggers spawns over the exact same location (example, lothering, you go out and kill some bandits literally 30 feet from each other... then you go back and turn in the quest, go to the same spot and encounter some wolves over a woman's corpse... then you go back, turn in the quest, and encounter some bears at the same spot, bah).
8. Aggro (mmo, yes... single player RPG? unheard of).
9. etc etc etc.

The unbeleiveable plot, voice acting, and setting are the redeeming factors of found in the interactive movie portion of a terrible and utterly boring "game".

True. This might mainly be because Dragon Age is the most "pure" representative of it's genre we've had in years.
I think the game makers themselves were pretty honest about the fact that Dragon Age is, first and foremost, classic single player fantasy adventuring.

I like it, for one. Sure, it invents almost nothing new, but it really doesn't have to as long as the content is well thought-out and polished.

archery: "dex increases archery damage"
reality: strength actually increases archery damage, the line that says dex does is utterly wrong.

That there is some nice polish.

And well thought out? yes, mages are gods is so well thought out.

I played through the entire game and didn't see the merchant who tells you about Soldier's Peak. Then I bought Warden's Keep (waste of money, by the way :smallannoyed:) and he showed up in my camp.

As for Stone Prisoner: Getting the Stone Prisoner quest requires traveling to an area that's not even available until you download the DLC. Did you honestly get given quests in-game related to DLCs that you had not purchased?

the first is in the only spot on the map that is in GOLD!
the latter appears in your camp even if you didn't buy it... and when you accept the quest he tells you to buy the DLC

WitchSlayer

2009-11-24, 05:27 AM

I actually really like Dragon Age. It makes me think of what NWN3 would be like if the franchise had not been passed over to Atari.

Avilan the Grey

2009-11-24, 05:49 AM

1. I love single player RPGs.
2. Dragon age is not an archetypical single player RPG.
3. The complaint is that the gameplay is bad. Because of bad design decisions.

1. Me too

2. Yes it is. At least if you consider BG1, BG2, PS:T, NWN and NWN2 "archetypical". I do. I am that old.
In fact, I agree with the poster upstream that says DA is back to basics. Too far back for some people, apparently.

3. And I do not agree. Nor does a majority I think. Of course matters of taste cannot be argued, your taste is not worse than mine.

For example, when was the last time a single player RPG:
1. required you to buy the party storage chest in a DLC?
2. Had in game advertising of DLCs?
3. Had completely inadequare descriptions and a lot of "trap" classes? (actually I have seen one, there is an indie RPG called "Eschalon Book 1" which has an equal amount of vagueness by intent (the authors talk likewise on learning to build strong characterS). Same process of scouring the forums and replaying the game to learn what works and optimize to it.
4. Had random encounters of 20 wolves each stronger then a dragon you recently faced because of level scaling (oblivion... but it was terrible then as well)
5. said to require strategy, where the official example given be developers is "pulling"... which is just exploiting AI inadequacy, not an actual strategy.
6. Full of MMO trappings (I can think of several, like hell gate london... Single player MMOs are always a failure, nooone likes them)
7. A tiny TINY areas where quests triggers spawns over the exact same location (example, lothering, you go out and kill some bandits literally 30 feet from each other... then you go back and turn in the quest, go to the same spot and encounter some wolves over a woman's corpse... then you go back, turn in the quest, and encounter some bears at the same spot, bah).
8. Aggro (mmo, yes... single player RPG? unheard of).
9. etc etc etc.

1. Doesn't bother me. I am not used to having storage chests anyway (I am too greedy to not sell anything I am not using).

2. This is a bad decision. It does not effect my enjoyment of the game or my liking of the overall good design.

3a. Define "trap" classes?
3b. What is inadequate?

4. I am not that far into the game yet. The little level scaling I have noticed so far (lvl 11) does not bother me at all.

5. Pulling is a valid strategy. I have used it in BG1, BG2, PS:T, FO1, FO2, FO3, Oblivion...

6. Please list them. I have heard this complaint a few times and I don't get it. The Hotbar / Quickbar? BG1 had it. The color coded enemies? Why not, it doesn't bother me, I like it. Anything else?
Note that I have never played a MMO.

7. Doesn't bother me at all

8. Why is it unheard of? Why is it a bad thing?

9. And so on and so forth.

The unbeleiveable plot, voice acting, and setting are the redeeming factors of found in the interactive movie portion of a terrible and utterly boring "game".

Taste differs. Although even if I didn't like it, I would not put the "" around game. I consider Postal to be a game, even if I loathe it.

archery: "dex increases archery damage"
reality: strength actually increases archery damage, the line that says dex does is utterly wrong.

Yes, that's a bug. Those happens.

And well thought out? yes, mages are gods is so well thought out.

...Unlike what games? Please list RPGs where the mages are not the most powerful class in the endgame?

Comet

2009-11-24, 05:56 AM

Fiendish_Dire_Moose

2009-11-24, 02:17 PM

The part about Dragon Age being like a MMO confuses me a bit.

I used to be a big MMO player. I've played six or so different MMOs, putting dozens of hours into each one. This has led me to become completely, utterly bored with any MMO. I just can't stand them anymore.

Yet I enjoy Dragon Age a great deal. Confusing, no? I'm just not seeing the MMO elements in it.

I'm guessing the MMO complaint comes from having a tank who pulls aggro away from mages and rogues.
A bit of the same strategy from MMos, but MMOs certainly didn't invent them.

Anteros

2009-11-24, 05:45 PM

No one is forcing you to play the game.

Other people like it.

Muz

2009-11-24, 05:46 PM

No one is forcing you to play the game.

...yet. *yanks open a set of shackles* :smallbiggrin:

Talya

2009-11-24, 06:08 PM

I can't wait to play this game.

It will wait until I have a PC capable of playing it. I am not interested in playing it on my PS3.

Bioware made my favorite game of all time. (KotOR). While I liked Jade Empire and Mass Effect, i didn't care much for the combat gameplay. I don't care for action RPGs so much...if I wanted a shooter I'd play Unreal Tournament, not Mass Effect. If I wanted a fighting game, I'd go get DOA-whatever for X-Box, i don't want it in my RPG. (I don't mind having RPG elements in a primarily action game, on the other hand. My favorite shooter of all time was NOLF2, which had a fair number of RPG elements, but was still primarily a shooter.)

The interactive storyline is the main and most important thing, which is why I enjoyed JE and ME regardless of the combat, but it's a detractor for me. DA:O goes back to the BG/NWN/KOTOR model of having the RPG be an RPG and not having to worry about twitch reflexes or combos or button mashing. I can't wait to play it.

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-24, 06:23 PM

No one is forcing you to play the game.

Other people like it.
67 bucks I paid for it with no way to return it or get my money back is. I doubt I'll get any more gameplay out of it than playing the campaign once. Twice at most, just to see an alternate start. Bad gameplay kills any enjoyment for me - I would rather play a fun game with no plot than a game with great plot that isn't fun to play.

Spiky hair? Does having hair which isn't long and braided make a fantasy game somehow dumbed down for "360 morons"? I really don't understand this complaint.

I do understand the complaint about Morrigan's outfit, but all the same... Morrigan is vain and knows that she's beautiful, as shown in the conversation where you compliment her as "beautiful" if you pick her as a romance option and she remarks that she already knew that and we already know she's manipulative, persuasive and knows what makes men tick.
There is no way you can get your hair to stick like that without using a very liberal amount of hair gel every morning. Something that you 1. probably won't find in an army camp or in the woods, 2. something a warrior that doesn't even bathe probably won't do and 3. something that didn't exactly exist in the middle ages. It just makes him look like a 14 year old "cool kid" instead of a badass Templar. It also makes him too much of a pretty boy for no real reason in a "saving the world" style RPG.

Morrigan - same story. If you're going to go for stripperific, at least make it stripperific, no-one will accuse you of that, it's a staple in the genre. But if you're trying not to make her look stripperific while at the same time showing that much cleavage... And the outfit doesn't make her look sexy either. It just makes her look like a stripper that's been mauled by a bear. Although the latter part could be true, so I could be wrong in this.

Both cater to a teenage audience instead of, you know, serving as part of a plot.

1. Doesn't bother me. I am not used to having storage chests anyway (I am too greedy to not sell anything I am not using).
It bothers me, for example. Either not have a chest at all or put it in the game. Having one gives you an in-game advantage in a game that you paid for already. It's exactly the same as a suit of uber-armor that you have to pay for.

2. This is a bad decision. It does not effect my enjoyment of the game or my liking of the overall good design.
It's not a bad decision. It's a car salesman tactic called "foot in the door." Instead of separately selling you a DLC (like in NWN 1), they're letting you play a tiny portion of a DLC and getting you interested in it. Making you more likely to buy it, especially since you can buy it straight in the game, potentially leading to an impulse purchase even if you didn't want it at all.

3a. Define "trap" classes?
3b. What is inadequate?
3a. Archery. Two-handed fighting. Both suck compared to dual wield or sword + shield but there's no way to judge it without actually leveling a character as an archer or a dopplesoldner.

5. Pulling is a valid strategy. I have used it in BG1, BG2, PS:T, FO1, FO2, FO3, Oblivion...
It's a valid strategy in video games, sure, but in real life it would, in fact, either have the entire mob to run after you or just warn them you're there. Hell, in real life you go into a house/temple/castle populated by bad guys, start fighting them in one room and bad guys from the entire castle will be there within two minutes. It only works for gameplay reasons - killing an entire castle's worth of monsters would mean you will either get mopped on the floor or the monsters will be so easy it'll make you wonder why the villagers need your help in the first place. It's not using an actual strategy.

6. Please list them. I have heard this complaint a few times and I don't get it. The Hotbar / Quickbar? BG1 had it. The color coded enemies? Why not, it doesn't bother me, I like it. Anything else?

I haven't played any either, but the aggro system... The skill system... The vague skill descriptions... The stat system... Hell, skill cooldown.. It makes you feel like you're playing WoW without actually playing WoW.

(on aggro)
8. Why is it unheard of? Why is it a bad thing?
It makes mobs feel stupider than they really are. Seriously, I can maybe understand a zombie attacking the first target they see. But humans, elves, dragons or other smart creatures running past squishy super dangerous mages peppering them with spells to attack a warrior in fullplate that isn't even attacking them doesn't make much for a believable or logical gameplay experience. In MMO it's there so you can use party tactics, e.g. tank actually tanking, mage casting debuffs, cleric casting buffs and heals, etc. In single player there's absolutely no reason for it to be there.

Orzel

2009-11-24, 06:28 PM

I never got the trap arguement

Every class and spec class are good. Some are awesome but none are so broken no to use.
Every spell 'cept the anti-magic ones are good. All have a use.
I even hate CoC. I can't use it 50% of the time without freezing allies or manually moving them.

As for the whole MMO thing. You don't have to pull and tank. I stealth in, chuck flasks, backstab the enemy mage, die, then the other 3 guys slay the near-dead leftovers.

It's beter then the old days when enemies attack people randomly and you lose if they choose the healer randomly too often.

warty goblin

2009-11-24, 06:34 PM

Don Julio Anejo

2009-11-24, 06:48 PM

The campaign is supposed to last at least what, 40 hours? That's hardly a bad deal. And let's face it, there's never been any bones made about how the game plays- the game's only been marketed as a spiritual sucessor to Baldor's Gate for a couple of years now, with plenty of gameplay movies available online. There certainly are games that are hard to get a sense of before buying, but I really doubt this is one of them.
Oblivion, Fallout 2/3, BGII, Neverwinter Nights, all the Total War titles - I got much more gameplay out of and I actually enjoy playing them. This one I'm only going to finish to see how it plays out and that's probably it. I don't buy FPS titles and just read the plot summary on Wikipedia for precisely the reason you mentioned. 50 bucks for 10 hours of single player and most of the time bad, cliche, deathmatch multiplayer that I won't play anyway isn't worth it.

And if you paid $67 for it, that's either the collector's edition or a console version. If the former, I suggest doing more research before springing for the ultra plus expensive version of a game, and if the later returning it is almost certainly an option. The resale value won't be as good, because of the bundled DLC, but you should be able to get something for it.
Canadian money + Canadian sales tax. With the current exchange rate that makes it around $63 US for a regular edition.

In fact, this will probably be the first game I've sold. 20 bucks is better than nothing.

taltamir

2009-11-24, 06:55 PM

if you enjoy the game, more power to you. I am happy you enjoy the game.

It makes mobs feel stupider than they really are. Seriously, I can maybe understand a zombie attacking the first target they see. But humans, elves, dragons or other smart creatures running past squishy super dangerous mages peppering them with spells to attack a warrior in fullplate that isn't even attacking them doesn't make much for a believable or logical gameplay experience. In MMO it's there so you can use party tactics, e.g. tank actually tanking, mage casting debuffs, cleric casting buffs and heals, etc. In single player there's absolutely no reason for it to be there.

It is more than that, warriors literally have "pull aggro" skills, and one "lose aggo" skill. They activate it and now the elf, dragon, whatever decides to attack whatever the warrior wants it to.

This is compounded by pass through guys... that is, lets say you used tactics and your fighters block the one and only door to a room. The enemies will run THROUGH your fighters to get to the guys in the back... unless your fighters have effective "aggro" skills / equipment.

I am sorry, but that is just not strategy.

warty goblin

2009-11-24, 07:04 PM

Oblivion, Fallout 2/3, BGII, Neverwinter Nights, all the Total War titles - I got much more gameplay out of and I actually enjoy playing them. This one I'm only going to finish to see how it plays out and that's probably it. I don't buy FPS titles and just read the plot summary on Wikipedia for precisely the reason you mentioned. 50 bucks for 10 hours of single player and most of the time bad, cliche, deathmatch multiplayer that I won't play anyway isn't worth it.

So you like other games better, I don't see how that's a counter argument to my point. There was absolute gobs of information available about what sort of game Dragon Age is even before it released. Waiting a week or so would have netted you most reviews, loads more gameplay videos, and I'll bet fairly complete walkthrough information. In this day and age for all but a very obscure title, the only reason I can think of for a person to end up blindsided by what sort of game a title was before purchase was if they didn't do the research. In that case, my sympathy is unfortunately rather limited, as this information is readily available.

Also, you complain about the AI behaving stupidly, yet you like the Total War games?

As for FPS games, those should almost never be played for plot, as that's not the point. The point is, well, shooting, and the well made ones are amazingly replayable due to open level design and sufficiently skilled AI. I bet I've played a couple levels of Crysis ten times now, and I still play Enemy Territory: Quake Wars pretty regularly, even though it's only got twelve maps, at least three of which I don't like.

Canadian money + Canadian sales tax. With the current exchange rate that makes it around $63 US for a regular edition. Ah, now I see.

Orzel

2009-11-24, 07:10 PM

Archery and 2 handers are good.

Archers are elite and bosss killers. They deal loads of damage as long and the enemy is buy kicking some someone else's but in melee. I bring ililliana for boss fights only. Bard/ranger archers, for lack a better word, "own" bosses. It's just that many areas are too small to leave an archer on the AI.

2 handers are the opposite. They cut through normal enemies like butter in a few swings but can't survive hits back do to horrible defense.

Dual-weild are loved so much because they are good at damge and surviving.... if you control them.

For the most part anything left to the AI loses tons of effeciency except for tanks and healers since those are very basictactics.

I find many of the dislikes I hear about DAO's combat are about the lack of info (which I argee) and hate for common group tactics (which doesn't make sense to me).

taltamir

2009-11-24, 07:40 PM

Canadian money + Canadian sales tax. With the current exchange rate that makes it around $63 US for a regular edition.

What about the DLCs? did you buy those?

Blaine.Bush

2009-11-24, 07:52 PM

archery: "dex increases archery damage"
reality: strength actually increases archery damage, the line that says dex does is utterly wrong.

Ugh, stop saying this. You are utterly wrong. Right in the manual, under Strength: "Greater strength increases the base damage from all weapons except crossbows and mages' staves." And under Dexterity: "Greater dexterity also increases the damage inflicted by piercing weapons like daggers and arrows."

The mechanics support this. In-game, damage with a bow is determined using half of your strength modifier and half of your dexterity modifier.

SmartAlec

2009-11-24, 10:43 PM

There is no way you can get your hair to stick like that without using a very liberal amount of hair gel every morning.

Not so sure of this. Go without washing your hair every morning for a few days, and sleep face down. Either your hair will droop down your brow, or it'll stick up. In fact, my hair looks like that now, and that's with frequent washing.

Both cater to a teenage audience instead of, you know, serving as part of a plot.

Does any costume choice serve part of a plot? What a strange thing to say.

It makes mobs feel stupider than they really are. Seriously, I can maybe understand a zombie attacking the first target they see. But humans, elves, dragons or other smart creatures running past squishy super dangerous mages peppering them with spells to attack a warrior in fullplate that isn't even attacking them doesn't make much for a believable or logical gameplay experience.

You may be overestimating the ease of simply ignoring a big guy with a sword in the midst of a melee, especially as even tanking warriors in this game seem pretty efficient at killing things when they need to be - precision striking, perfect striking, overpower, assault. That'll hurt.

Avilan the Grey

2009-11-25, 02:26 AM

67 bucks I paid for it with no way to return it or get my money back is. I doubt I'll get any more gameplay out of it than playing the campaign once. Twice at most, just to see an alternate start. Bad gameplay kills any enjoyment for me - I would rather play a fun game with no plot than a game with great plot that isn't fun to play.

Again, I can't argue against taste. However the core audience for these games, of which I am a proud member, will play it... forever. I went through BG1 20+ times. I went through BG2 30+ times. I forsee going through this game at least once with every race and every class, probably more. Not including DLCs and pure expansions.

There is no way you can get your hair to stick like that without using a very liberal amount of hair gel every morning. Something that you 1. probably won't find in an army camp or in the woods, 2. something a warrior that doesn't even bathe probably won't do and 3. something that didn't exactly exist in the middle ages. It just makes him look like a 14 year old "cool kid" instead of a badass Templar. It also makes him too much of a pretty boy for no real reason in a "saving the world" style RPG.

...Never bathe? We don't see them going to the loo either. Or shave. His haircut doesn't require more daily care than say the raiders punk hairdos in FO3, or for that matter having a perfectly bald head in this game.
Besides, you are applying too much IRL history to this. This is a fantasy game, which means that not only can farmers use hair gel, they have perfect teeth and live until they are 80+.
(Besides, IRL both Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had "hair gel", mainly differet forms or wax).

Morrigan - same story. If you're going to go for stripperific, at least make it stripperific, no-one will accuse you of that, it's a staple in the genre. But if you're trying not to make her look stripperific while at the same time showing that much cleavage... And the outfit doesn't make her look sexy either. It just makes her look like a stripper that's been mauled by a bear. Although the latter part could be true, so I could be wrong in this.
Both cater to a teenage audience instead of, you know, serving as part of a plot.

Morrigan is kind of troubled. She is a very vain woman who is stuck with a mother that strongly disapproves of any such thing. Part of it is that her outfit is a way for her to eat the cake and still keep it. She does the best with what she has.
Plus, of course, YMMV. I find her sexy, but that is mostly the voice acting and body language (something they have really done well, and is not mentioned much; just the bit where your mother runs into the larder in the human origin is superb).

Oh and ...? Since when does the character clothes have to "follow the plot"?

It bothers me, for example. Either not have a chest at all or put it in the game. Having one gives you an in-game advantage in a game that you paid for already. It's exactly the same as a suit of uber-armor that you have to pay for.

Imagine that. You get benefits if you buy an expansion to the game.
Let me ask you this: Would you have been happier if there was no loot in the DLCs?

It's not a bad decision. It's a car salesman tactic called "foot in the door."

It is a bad decision because it pisses a certain percentage of even the core audience off.

3a. Archery. Two-handed fighting. Both suck compared to dual wield or sword + shield but there's no way to judge it without actually leveling a character as an archer or a dopplesoldner.

Wrong. And Wrong.
You have to realize you play different characters differently. If you are an archer, you stay back and let the others do the hacking and slashing. That's why the basic warrior is shield and weapon, because it is the easiest character for a noob (not calling you one!) to play. You have to accept, with archery for example, that your main character will not be responsible for the kills; he is a support guy.

It's a valid strategy in video games, sure, but in real life it would, in fact, either have the entire mob to run after you or just warn them you're there. Hell, in real life you go into a house/temple/castle populated by bad guys, start fighting them in one room and bad guys from the entire castle will be there within two minutes. It only works for gameplay reasons - killing an entire castle's worth of monsters would mean you will either get mopped on the floor or the monsters will be so easy it'll make you wonder why the villagers need your help in the first place. It's not using an actual strategy.

But I thought this was a video game?
This is Erfworld. Everyone in the game knows the rules, and follow them. Yes it can make a fun comic (like the first 100 strips of OOTS, where it was mostly rule-jokes).
You can't do IRL battlefield tactics in chess, but it doesn't stop it from being a very tactical and strategic game.

I haven't played any either, but the aggro system... The skill system... The vague skill descriptions... The stat system... Hell, skill cooldown.. It makes you feel like you're playing WoW without actually playing WoW.

It makes mobs feel stupider than they really are. Seriously, I can maybe understand a zombie attacking the first target they see. But humans, elves, dragons or other smart creatures running past squishy super dangerous mages peppering them with spells to attack a warrior in fullplate that isn't even attacking them doesn't make much for a believable or logical gameplay experience. In MMO it's there so you can use party tactics, e.g. tank actually tanking, mage casting debuffs, cleric casting buffs and heals, etc. In single player there's absolutely no reason for it to be there.

If you have never played an MMO, how can you say it feels like WoW?
As for party tactics... This is a game where you control up to 4 characters. A party. So I don't understand the second part of this argument at all, since I assume you are not trying to Solo the game?

endoperez

2009-11-25, 05:44 AM

This is compounded by pass through guys... that is, lets say you used tactics and your fighters block the one and only door to a room. The enemies will run THROUGH your fighters to get to the guys in the back... unless your fighters have effective "aggro" skills / equipment.

I am sorry, but that is just not strategy.

Wrong term. It's not logical, and it might not be a good mechanic, but strategically, one of your resources is the ability to stop your enemies from reaching your vulnerable allies. In this game, a doorway isn't enough, you need to invest in a skill instead. This might be illogical and lessen your enjoyment and the amount of choices you can make, but the game still requires tactics and/or strategy.

In Baldur's Gate 1 (started playing it yesterday, and this is really annoying in it), this is done by running circles around enemies who are too stupid and too slow to pose a threat unless you make a mistake. Pathfinding AI has improved a lot in 10 years.

Oblivion, Fallout 2/3, BGII, Neverwinter Nights, all the Total War titles - I got much more gameplay out of and I actually enjoy playing them. This one I'm only going to finish to see how it plays out and that's probably it.

Those games are often considered very good. Being worse than them doesn't automatically make the game bad.

That said, the NWN campaign sucked and when I just dropped it pretty early, Morrowind was such a disappointment even heavily modded that I'm not interested in Oblivion, and the Jade Empire early plot and quests were so cliched (and your dialogue choices were even worse) I still don't feel like continuing after playing through 2/3rds of Tien's Landing, the first real area. I won't be buying Dragon Age until I've seen some gameplay myself, or preferably tried it myself if a demo comes out.

Deepblue706

2010-01-05, 02:22 PM

Dragon age is a terrible game mixed with an excellent "interactive movie". The story is well written, the setting is well crafted, the graphics are cool, the voice acting is amazing, and so on.

Although I completely agree with all of your arguments against the gameplay, I have to disagree with the story being good. While I think the setting could potentially have a neato-riffic story, I was really disappointed. I would sooner say it's a mediocre "experience" that happened to have some cool parts.

I found the ideas of the Darkspawn, the Blight, the Grey Wardens, and just about every other major aspect to silly, contrived and boring. The bad guys are all either complete monsters or just completely insane - which may as well be interchangeable for the sake of this game, because you have to kill just about all of them regardless (eventually they'll just attack and force you to defend yourself). The overall plot can basically be summed up by "Oh Crap! Get Friends, And Kill Evil! Oh Wait, That Other Guy Is A Douche, Too."

The only aspects that I was interested in were only included for small bits of the game. Learning about the Orlesian occupation, the Tevinter Imperium, entering the Fade (and that awesome shapeshifting bit), I found myself wondering why these parts were just things that filled in the gaps in the background, rather than making a significant chunk of actual story.

I won't go as far to say Dragon Age was bad, but I thought it was very far from good. Somewhere, I think someone involved with the development of the game made it policy not to trust the audience to be as mature as the gratuitous violence and sex generally requires by law.

FoE

2010-01-05, 03:20 PM

I've liked both the story and the mechanics, though the latter take some getting used to.

H. Zee

2010-01-05, 04:29 PM

Although I completely agree with all of your arguments against the gameplay, I have to disagree with the story being good. While I think the setting could potentially have a neato-riffic story, I was really disappointed. I would sooner say it's a mediocre "experience" that happened to have some cool parts.

I found the ideas of the Darkspawn, the Blight, the Grey Wardens, and just about every other major aspect to silly, contrived and boring. The bad guys are all either complete monsters or just completely insane - which may as well be interchangeable for the sake of this game, because you have to kill just about all of them regardless (eventually they'll just attack and force you to defend yourself). The overall plot can basically be summed up by "Oh Crap! Get Friends, And Kill Evil! Oh Wait, That Other Guy Is A Douche, Too."

Huh, what? Sure, the Darkspawn are one-dimensional bad guys, but how does that make them different from the evil mooks in almost any game, ever? And I think you're seriously overlooking Loghain here. Loghain is basically a reflection of the main character - a man with the best interests of Ferelden at heart and some very legitimate concerns, namely his King being an idiot who gets bored by talking strategy and who has decided to let back in the army he can remember only recently having to drive out at massive cost. Throw in the fact that he simply doesn't believe in this Warden mumbo-jumbo, which is fair enough since the last Blight was so long ago, and suddenly he becomes a good man whose actions are only evil because he doesn't have full possession of the facts. He's very flawed, but he is neither a complete monster, nor wholly insane. Indeed, he can even join your party and seek redemption, if you desire.

The only aspects that I was interested in were only included for small bits of the game. Learning about the Orlesian occupation, the Tevinter Imperium, entering the Fade (and that awesome shapeshifting bit), I found myself wondering why these parts were just things that filled in the gaps in the background, rather than making a significant chunk of actual story.

I won't go as far to say Dragon Age was bad, but I thought it was very far from good. Somewhere, I think someone involved with the development of the game made it policy not to trust the audience to be as mature as the gratuitous violence and sex generally requires by law

As opposed to the oh-so-mature gameplay and storyline of, for instance, the Grand Theft Auto series? Many of your concerns seem to be with the gaming industry as a whole, and placing the blame entirely at the feet of DA:O seems a little unfair. Moreover, I disagree with you on your first point here - these bits were awesome in small doses, but in particular I can see the shapeshifting bit getting very boring if overused.

Drakyn

2010-01-05, 05:22 PM

As sort of a sideline, I actually think the darkspawn were interesting in that they got around the whole thorny issue of "But how can a sentient being always be horribly evil and messed up?" by not really acting like what we'd call individual sentient beings. They're like humanoid termites. Cancer-spreading humanoid termites. In a strange way, that's much better than how most stock fantasy approaches it, which is "they're just all jerks, okay?"

Tawmis

2010-01-05, 06:19 PM

3. The complaint is that the gameplay is bad. Because of bad design decisions.

Scoff. Couldn't disagree more. I absolutely love it. Have it for PC and X360. Got a number of others into the game.

For example, when was the last time a single player RPG:
1. required you to buy the party storage chest in a DLC?

Scoff again. I have it for the X360 (which is where I bought the game first). I don't have the DLC for the storage on the PC and am doing more than fine without it. And this time, I am playing a Rogue on the PC - so I am picking up everything under the sun. (On the PC I played a Warrior - and typically had Moriggan, Wynne and Alistair in the party - so I skipped on a lock of locked things with the Warrior which is where I have the DLC storage!)

So this is HARDLY even remotely required.

2. Had in game advertising of DLCs?

First, it's for a few things. The storage one - the guy is in your camp. It's not like he pesters you. Just don't talk to him. Problem solved. Second, I believe what you're looking at is the future. Things like D&D Online now do this. A browser free MMO called FREE REALMS does this. I am pretty sure Guild Wars does this (though not entirely certain).

3. Had completely inadequare descriptions and a lot of "trap" classes? (actually I have seen one, there is an indie RPG called "Eschalon Book 1" which has an equal amount of vagueness by intent (the authors talk likewise on learning to build strong characterS). Same process of scouring the forums and replaying the game to learn what works and optimize to it.

Again, disagree. In the X360 version (with my Warrior) - I took NO poison making, Herbalism, etc - because I didn't want to try to find vials, plants, etc. With the PC version and the Rogue, I have the Rogue with Poison Making & Trap Making, Alistair with Herbalism... Granted I hardly ever use traps, as there seems to be little use for them to really put them to use (except in The Mage's Circle). But over all, I have had NO problems with the traps and/or their descriptions. The game has ENOUGH text and speech - I don't need a dictionary sized description for each of the traps, feats, skills, etc.

4. Had random encounters of 20 wolves each stronger then a dragon you recently faced because of level scaling (oblivion... but it was terrible then as well)

WHAT? Take your disk out and make sure you're playing Dragon Age. So - the random encounter wolves (with the sign about wolves and traps) - is difficult. But it's because of sheer number and enclosed space. There's a lot of wolves, and not a lot of room to move, and a lot of traps lying around to capture the wolves - makes the combat a little difficult. More difficult - or even remotely close to difficult as any of the dragons? (And I don't mean the High Dragon or the "other" one - don't want to spoil it - OR even the dragons you fight in the tower, or on the way up to the High Dragon - there's NO WAY any of these wolves should be giving you a fraction of the fight!) There's. No. Way.

5. said to require strategy, where the official example given be developers is "pulling"... which is just exploiting AI inadequacy, not an actual strategy.

I don't think this is right either. Could you point me where the developers even stated pulling is a "required strategy." There have been times I have had to run from a fight and come back to them - and pick them off.

6. Full of MMO trappings (I can think of several, like hell gate london... Single player MMOs are always a failure, nooone likes them)

Single player MMO? Is that not - by nature - an oxymoron?
And how - if you could explain - is it like an MMO?

7. A tiny TINY areas where quests triggers spawns over the exact same location (example, lothering, you go out and kill some bandits literally 30 feet from each other... then you go back and turn in the quest, go to the same spot and encounter some wolves over a woman's corpse... then you go back, turn in the quest, and encounter some bears at the same spot, bah).

That happens in Lothering - and not sure where else? I think Lothering is the ONLY place it happens? And I believe since it's the beginning of the game - it's more of a "here's how it works - get quests, go find it, and come back" - more of a training thing for new players. Because other than there - I am not sure where it repeats in the same area? And again - I am pretty sure it's because it's the starting area of the game to get players used to it. Because while there - you have only the Chanter's Board. But as you go out to other cities, there's the Mage People who offer quests, in every city, along with several others that are available in every city.

8. Aggro (mmo, yes... single player RPG? unheard of).

So - you dislike the game because the AI is more... intelligent? "I am going to fight this warrior! Wait - that mage over there is hitting me with spells that are damaging me more than the warrior!" Or "Wait, that healer keeps healing the party members! She needs to die!" Lord forbid, the AI be intelligent and offer some challenge! Or else, you may complain it was entirely too easy! Computer AI for mobs is the future. Otherwise, go back and play WIZARDRY III, where the monsters just RANDOMLY select who they're going to hit.

And well thought out? yes, mages are gods is so well thought out.

This is a foreign concept to you? Mages are always weak in the beginning - by D&D's very own rules, way back in the day - but as they increase in power - you're talking about someone wielding amazing powers - not just a steel sword.

warty goblin

2010-01-05, 07:23 PM

So - you dislike the game because the AI is more... intelligent? "I am going to fight this warrior! Wait - that mage over there is hitting me with spells that are damaging me more than the warrior!" Or "Wait, that healer keeps healing the party members! She needs to die!" Lord forbid, the AI be intelligent and offer some challenge! Or else, you may complain it was entirely too easy! Computer AI for mobs is the future. Otherwise, go back and play WIZARDRY III, where the monsters just RANDOMLY select who they're going to hit.

I think the problem people have with aggro, or at least my problem with the system, is that it feels very gamey, and not in a good way. Having the AI want to kill off the highest damage dealers makes good sense, the bit where aggro feels artificial and a bit daft is that it basically gives you a button that turns off the AI's brains.

I understand the need to use the melee combatents to protect the squishy wizards, but there are better, more intelligent solutions. Actually allowing warriors to physically block movement is a good start. Allowing warriors multiple highly damaging attacks against enemies trying to move past them is even better. Charging past Mr. McKnightly isn't tactically smart if he's got a pretty good chance of taking your leg off at the knee-which he should. Of course multiple enemies should be able to force a defender back through combined attacks if there's enough of them. It's hard enough to stand your ground against one enemy when on the defensive, against more than one it's asking for a gravebound ride on the Spear Express.

With a system like that, the AI should take down the melee fighters in front because it actually is tactically smart, and not the result of somebody deciding the AI should now be stupid. It also introduces interesting new concerns for the player, such as keeping their front lines from being swamped and bodily overrun, or how to break through a group of AI units to hit their spellcasters. Of course a game like this would require really good AI, but that's plenty possible if the developers actually care about it.

This is a foreign concept to you? Mages are always weak in the beginning - by D&D's very own rules, way back in the day - but as they increase in power - you're talking about someone wielding amazing powers - not just a steel sword.
Do you have any idea the sort of physical destruction a skilled person can wreck upon flesh with 'just' a steel sword?

Deepblue706

2010-01-05, 07:25 PM

Huh, what? Sure, the Darkspawn are one-dimensional bad guys, but how does that make them different from the evil mooks in almost any game, ever? And I think you're seriously overlooking Loghain here. Loghain is basically a reflection of the main character - a man with the best interests of Ferelden at heart and some very legitimate concerns, namely his King being an idiot who gets bored by talking strategy and who has decided to let back in the army he can remember only recently having to drive out at massive cost. Throw in the fact that he simply doesn't believe in this Warden mumbo-jumbo, which is fair enough since the last Blight was so long ago, and suddenly he becomes a good man whose actions are only evil because he doesn't have full possession of the facts. He's very flawed, but he is neither a complete monster, nor wholly insane. Indeed, he can even join your party and seek redemption, if you desire.

You can have "evil mooks" in a game without them being the focus. Also, not every game has evil mooks, but people. I think it'd have been far more intriguing if the game was about kicking out the Orlesians, because then we're fighting, you know, people.

Loghain is one prick out of a million that happens to marginally less insane than the rest. I was actually rather glad at least one other character thought the whole Grey Wardens thing was absolutely retarded (I honestly felt the same way until you find out You (or your buddy) Must Be The Hero), but it didn't change what the guy did. And yes, he was insane. If he was so easily persuaded that I was "serious" simply because I kicked his ass, just after he was framing me and sending assassins, etc, then I don't think he was very sane at all. Total prick throughout. The only reason the audience has any reason to believe he was ever a "good man" is because there are characters that keep insisting it to be so. But, narratively speaking, it's poor form to just announce things to be true.

As opposed to the oh-so-mature gameplay and storyline of, for instance, the Grand Theft Auto series? Many of your concerns seem to be with the gaming industry as a whole, and placing the blame entirely at the feet of DA:O seems a little unfair. Moreover, I disagree with you on your first point here - these bits were awesome in small doses, but in particular I can see the shapeshifting bit getting very boring if overused.

Maybe like Deus Ex, or something. I don't know. I expected at least the slightest bit of ambiguity. Maybe a little more depth. More emphasis on being a darker hero. This wasn't a "dark" fantasy as much as "dirty", as in, everything was dirty. As in, physically containing filth, like on the maps. It was rather standard as far as your dark/light ratio goes.

Yes, I hate the state of the gaming industry. But, because many bad games exists does not justify this game also being a flop. I don't think I should have to settle because everyone else just sets lower standards. That's bull.

I was moreso giving a shoutout about a part I liked. I didn't want Shapeshifting per se to be a major aspect of gameplay; but I think the Fade sections of the game were far more creative than many others.

taltamir

2010-01-05, 08:30 PM

I was moreso giving a shoutout about a part I liked. I didn't want Shapeshifting per se to be a major aspect of gameplay; but I think the Fade sections of the game were far more creative than many others.

I loves the fade sections, they were orders of magnitude better then the rest of the game. If the rest of the game is 3 stars the fade sections were 5 stars.

Tawmis

2010-01-06, 12:58 AM

I think the problem people have with aggro, or at least my problem with the system, is that it feels very gamey, and not in a good way. Having the AI want to kill off the highest damage dealers makes good sense, the bit where aggro feels artificial and a bit daft is that it basically gives you a button that turns off the AI's brains.

I understand the need to use the melee combatents to protect the squishy wizards

Okay - if you mean the TAUNT function that Warriors have - someone tell me what I am doing wrong here. So with my X360 game, where I play a Warrior - it's not a huge deal. However, on the PC I am playing a Rogue. Now while I am not as squishy as say a Mage, Rogues aren't stacked up in health (or mine isn't, as I put most points in Dexterity and Cunning). So on the PC I keep the TAUNT function on with Alistair and Shale. However, that said - even though I am attacking the same targets that Alistair and/or Shale are - I have drawn "aggro" from them. Especially if I switch to controlling Moriggan - and start hitting them with spells (like hexes, curses, the like). Next thing I know, they're breaking away from Alistair/Shale and going after Moriggan - then I am frantically switching to Wynne to spam heal Moriggan.

but there are better, more intelligent solutions. Actually allowing warriors to physically block movement is a good start. Allowing warriors multiple highly damaging attacks against enemies trying to move past them is even better. Charging past Mr. McKnightly isn't tactically smart if he's got a pretty good chance of taking your leg off at the knee-which he should. Of course multiple enemies should be able to force a defender back through combined attacks if there's enough of them. It's hard enough to stand your ground against one enemy when on the defensive, against more than one it's asking for a gravebound ride on the Spear Express.

With a system like that, the AI should take down the melee fighters in front because it actually is tactically smart, and not the result of somebody deciding the AI should now be stupid. It also introduces interesting new concerns for the player, such as keeping their front lines from being swamped and bodily overrun, or how to break through a group of AI units to hit their spellcasters. Of course a game like this would require really good AI, but that's plenty possible if the developers actually care about it.

I see your point - if the combat is in closed areas. Other than the Deep Roads and the occasional random encounters on the road - most of the combat takes place in an open area. Giving enemies to move freely around. Granted, an enemy breaking away from combat should have the standard D&D type ruling of "free shot at your back since you just broke combat from me."

Is the game PERFECT? No. Is it close to perfect - for me, it really was. Balder's Gate was amazing. Neverwinter Nights was a step above that. Knights of the Old Republic was down right incredible. Mass Effect was utterly mind blowing. Dragon Age Origins was nearly flawless. I see improvement by LEAPS AND BOUNDS with each of Bioware's games. Mass Effect 2 will undoubtedly play a lot like Dragon Age Origins. But the next series of games (Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, for example) are probably going to be utterly mind blowing.

Do you have any idea the sort of physical destruction a skilled person can wreck upon flesh with 'just' a steel sword?

Aye. But if we're talking fantasy here - I have always seen Mages are far more powerful in their later years. A prime example of that is Raistlin from Dragonlance. While I would not want to face Caramon with a sword, I know that I at least might be able to hit Caramon before I die. Raistlin would kill me before I could even take a breath or step towards him by the end of Dragonlance. As it should be. :)

Tawmis

2010-01-06, 01:00 AM

I loves the fade sections, they were orders of magnitude better then the rest of the game. If the rest of the game is 3 stars the fade sections were 5 stars.

LOL - why does this not surprise me? I love the concept of the Fade. But dear Lord in Heaven, this part almost drove me insane from the Mage's tower...

warty goblin

2010-01-06, 02:09 AM

Okay - if you mean the TAUNT function that Warriors have - someone tell me what I am doing wrong here. So with my X360 game, where I play a Warrior - it's not a huge deal. However, on the PC I am playing a Rogue. Now while I am not as squishy as say a Mage, Rogues aren't stacked up in health (or mine isn't, as I put most points in Dexterity and Cunning). So on the PC I keep the TAUNT function on with Alistair and Shale. However, that said - even though I am attacking the same targets that Alistair and/or Shale are - I have drawn "aggro" from them. Especially if I switch to controlling Moriggan - and start hitting them with spells (like hexes, curses, the like). Next thing I know, they're breaking away from Alistair/Shale and going after Moriggan - then I am frantically switching to Wynne to spam heal Moriggan.

Can't help, haven't played the game.

I see your point - if the combat is in closed areas. Other than the Deep Roads and the occasional random encounters on the road - most of the combat takes place in an open area. Giving enemies to move freely around. Granted, an enemy breaking away from combat should have the standard D&D type ruling of "free shot at your back since you just broke combat from me."
Closed areas really shouldn't be neccessary if things are done right. Sure a simultanious ambush from all sides will present problems without an aggro-esque system that allows the warriors to pull everybody on to them, but I'd argue an ambush from all sides should be a major problem. If it isn't, than the game has some quite degenerate tactics.

But short of that, trying to move past a trained swordsman should be hard. Clearly for the sake of gameplay you'd need a health/damage system a bit less lethal than reality, but I think a more deadly system could lead to better, more interesting tactics. Attacks of opportunity for example could be a whole lot more effective than most games make them-instead of risking one hit out of the twenty or more it might take to drop a character, what if they stood to take a major chunk of your healthbar and stop you in your tracks, if not drop you prone? Or make mages' environmental spells neccessary to block off avenues of approach, not just put some minor debuff on some people.

Aye. But if we're talking fantasy here - I have always seen Mages are far more powerful in their later years. A prime example of that is Raistlin from Dragonlance. While I would not want to face Caramon with a sword, I know that I at least might be able to hit Caramon before I die. Raistlin would kill me before I could even take a breath or step towards him by the end of Dragonlance. As it should be. :)
This is generally the case yes, but I don't think it's writ in the heavens that it must be so. Mages could still contribute plenty to combat without completely outstripping warriors at later levels. Hell, they could even stay just about as powerful, all you'd need to do is to buff the melee dudes from, let's face it, fairly uninspiring at higher levels to something a bit more potent. I'm thinking Achilles here basically. If a wizard can set ten people on fire in a round, why can't a warrior kill those same ten with a sword?

scsimodem

2010-01-06, 02:29 AM

I love this game. I love the plot. I love the world it's set in. I'm glad the world seems larger than the game (I hate games, and fiction in general, where the purpose of the world is to drive the plot and nothing exists in the world except to give the plot meaning). I think the gameplay is both simple and fun, yet the tactical depth is challenging and interesting. The only things I find annoying are the in game advertising of DLC (put it on the title page, like Empire: Total War) and a few creative disagreements I have with some of the abilities and tactics of enemies. All that being said.

Programmer's hat on

The idea of this being ''MMO-like" strikes me as an actual, valid assessment, though not a concern. It is always more desirable to have characters with less ability to take a hit be in a position to take less damage. In the old Final Fantasy games, this was accomplished with the 'back row' where melee damage was halved. In more tactical 'grid' games, you could actually use physical obstacles. However, using small numbers of forces, especially with real-time, analog (gridless) combat, presents quite a challenge.

The nuances of movement required to actually physically block characters coming at the 'squishies' would quickly overwhelm the control scheme and the programming of the engine. It would play more like a football engine, with linemen blocking for the quarterback. It also fails to account for melee squishies. The aggro system of most MMOs seems to help this. Rather than spend piles of cash and so much time as to make the game's release somewhere near eternity making a complicated engine to realistically model the myriad of ways a fighter can protect his friends, they instead make a system of ticks a fighter can use to reasonably simulate the ways in which he can keep the hurt off his friends.

This is the ultimate game trade-off. Some amount of realism must be sacrificed for playability. If you wanted to truly be realistic, the first time Alistair had a critical hit go through his armor, it would take off an arm, making him useless...assuming he didn't die of infection. It's the same way in D&D. Even an amateur can get off more than one swing in six seconds, but an attack roll simulates a series of attacks that culminate in an attempt to strike the target.

I expect this to be a new trend, as it adds a layer of tactical strategy to the game without bogging it down with so much complicated simulation as to scare off anybody not tweaked.

warty goblin

2010-01-06, 03:20 AM

The nuances of movement required to actually physically block characters coming at the 'squishies' would quickly overwhelm the control scheme and the programming of the engine. It would play more like a football engine, with linemen blocking for the quarterback. It also fails to account for melee squishies. The aggro system of most MMOs seems to help this. Rather than spend piles of cash and so much time as to make the game's release somewhere near eternity making a complicated engine to realistically model the myriad of ways a fighter can protect his friends, they instead make a system of ticks a fighter can use to reasonably simulate the ways in which he can keep the hurt off his friends.

Consider Men of War. That game accounts for units blocking each other, as well as individual physics for every projectile, destructable buildings, deformable terrain, armor penetration physics for the vehicles, as well as lines of sight and hearing range for stealth. I've played battles that put over two hundred soldiers in action at a time, and battles that give you control of just four or five, and they all work. I tend to make mistakes in the former, because there's a hell of a lot going on, and the later requires a lot of precision, but they both work.

Now of course Men of War abstracts some things. Soldiers don't bleed out, it doesn't account for bullets hitting vital organs, units occupy set areas, and so on, but these are abstractions that allow it to simulate other things that are more interesting from a gameplay perspective.

This is the ultimate game trade-off. Some amount of realism must be sacrificed for playability. If you wanted to truly be realistic, the first time Alistair had a critical hit go through his armor, it would take off an arm, making him useless...assuming he didn't die of infection. It's the same way in D&D. Even an amateur can get off more than one swing in six seconds, but an attack roll simulates a series of attacks that culminate in an attempt to strike the target.
Your two examples are of completely different things. The first is of ignoring reality completely- neither abstracting or simulating it. The second is of abstracting reality into a simpler form for greater playability. These are both neccessary for (most) games to be playable, but are in no way the same thing.

I expect this to be a new trend, as it adds a layer of tactical strategy to the game without bogging it down with so much complicated simulation as to scare off anybody not tweaked.
Please tell me my eyes are lying and you didn't say tactical strategy.

Tawmis

2010-01-06, 03:52 AM

Can't help, haven't played the game.

Wait, you have never played? LOL

Closed areas really shouldn't be neccessary if things are done right.

What game do you play that is 100% open ended area wise? LOL

Sure a simultanious ambush from all sides will present problems without an aggro-esque system that allows the warriors to pull everybody on to them, but I'd argue an ambush from all sides should be a major problem. If it isn't, than the game has some quite degenerate tactics.

Doesn't it depend on what you're fighting, though?
An ambush from wolves, should be an easy matter.
An ambush from ogres, is another matter entirely.

This is generally the case yes, but I don't think it's writ in the heavens that it must be so. Mages could still contribute plenty to combat without completely outstripping warriors at later levels. Hell, they could even stay just about as powerful, all you'd need to do is to buff the melee dudes from, let's face it, fairly uninspiring at higher levels to something a bit more potent. I'm thinking Achilles here basically. If a wizard can set ten people on fire in a round, why can't a warrior kill those same ten with a sword?

But you have to think of the reverse? Why in the beginning - should a swordsman be able to go toe to toe with several foes, while a mage has to cower in the corner after casting his "Affect Normal Fires" spell?

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-06, 04:49 AM

What game do you play that is 100% open ended area wise? LOL

Oh, let's see... Gothic III (haven't played I and II but from what I gather it's the same) and it's successor The Fallen have a COMPLETELY open ended world. If you're in a castle, there is an actual full size castle there. If you go into a shack, there's a full size shack with a door. Or maybe even no door if it's some random bum's camp in the middle of a swamp. Basically, all of it is one big area. Morrowind and Oblivion come close - there are locations, but they are quite logical and for all intents and purposes they are locations in the real world. If you're in a house, you're in a house. The only thing you can't do is shoot from the windows.. But the outside (including the cities if you want to run a mod) are completely open.

Compare that to Dragon Age, where the entire Denerim can fit inside a single Oblivion dungeon.

There's also the fact that 90% of NPCs in DA are not even Cs. They're just background decoration. You can't even click on most of them to hear a single line like in RPG's from 10 years ago. Or merchants that stand five feet away from shady characters because there's no space. Or taverns with all of two people in them, if you can even enter them (because the entire Denerim has all of one tavern and one brothel). A trend that started with NWN2 and continued on because let's face it, making Alistair sexy is more important for sales than anything else. I mean he's a great character and everything, but seriously, Bioware spends more and more resources on henchmen at the expense of balance, gameplay, interesting quests and ironically, graphics. I personally don't care about graphics (hell, I still play HoMM 3 and NWN 1 from time to time), but if you're advertising your game to be virtual reality 50 years early and it looks worse than games from 3 years ago (hello Oblivion), it tells you they care more about hype than a great game.

Doesn't it depend on what you're fighting, though?
An ambush from wolves, should be an easy matter.
An ambush from ogres, is another matter entirely.

See, here's the problem. I'd rather face five ogres than five mook archers. Even after the patch. Seriously, chain scattershot much?

But you have to think of the reverse? Why in the beginning - should a swordsman be able to go toe to toe with several foes, while a mage has to cower in the corner after casting his "Affect Normal Fires" spell?
See, here's another problem. In the beginning a mage has cone of cold. He also has... Well, doesn't matter, he has cone of cold and that's enough to take out 95% of early game enemies on any difficulty.

Near the middle a mage has... storm of the century (spell might + blizzard + tempest). That's 80 or so damage to enemies every 2 or so seconds in a ginormous radius easily bigger than half the locations in the game. Also doesn't need line of sight to be cast.

There's also mana clash to take out several enemy casters in one(!) hit.

A fighter has... Two swords that do at best 80-90 damage a hit when buffed by Leliana and of all things a mage. Some of that gets taken off by enemy DR and he can only really hit one enemy at a time. He's also vulnerable to taking damage since he has no crowd control or a way of taking out spellcasters short of hitting them on the head a dozen times (by which time he's usually dead).

Oh, and ironically, a mage isn't exactly what I call squishable. Rock armor gives you +17 or so armor. There's a +12 robe. You can get another something like 10 from items. That's 35+ armor for a mage... For comparison, best I could do with Alistair was around 45ish with Shield Expertise and with Legion Armor (I think you could get maybe a few more with a different suit but still not enough to make a difference).

There's another way you can go: +12 defense slippers, +12 robe, +12 hat, +6 amulet, +3 belt, +2 ring (+2 to all stats which gives +2 defense from dex) and +15 or so Arcane Shield. There may or may not be a staff that gives a bonus too. +62 defense just from items... Pump 10-15 points into dexterity and you're basically untouchable on the order of a rogue with 120+ defense, with only thing missing being evasion, but with the ability to take out casters in one hit and smoke everyone else with 70 damage every two seconds. Sure, you lose some spellcasting ability, but with the amount of mana potions you can make, you can leave your willpower at 15 if you so desire.

Now tell me the game is balanced. Tell me how a fighter can top that at any level range. And let's not even bring up an archer, these do half the damage of a fighter with only a single trick up their sleeve to get which you need to take a bunch of sustained abilities which you'll probably never use.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 05:22 AM

See, here's another problem. In the beginning a mage has cone of cold.

Cone of Cold is the third tier spell of the cold spells, and requires 20+ something Magic. You get only two spells at the beginning. There is no way in hell you can get Cone of Cold at game start.

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-06, 05:32 AM

Cone of Cold is the third tier spell of the cold spells, and requires 20+ something Magic. You get only two spells at the beginning. There is no way in hell you can get Cone of Cold at game start.
You can get it around level 2 or 3 which is damn near the beginning of the game, you hit level 3 by the time you finish your origin story.

SDF

2010-01-06, 05:42 AM

Fallout 3 is completely open ended world wise, and still one of my favorite games ever.

I'm not really sure what people were expecting DA to be. It's a Bioware game, and as such is pretty much what I was expecting. I loved the KOTOR games, wanted a similar experience, and got one. Also, one of the few game types my dad enjoys and can do any good at. :smalltongue: so that's a bonus.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 05:56 AM

You can get it around level 2 or 3 which is damn near the beginning of the game, you hit level 3 by the time you finish your origin story.

The annoying part is that everything and its mother is in fact immune to cold damage, as I discovered when Enchanter's Staff Wynne is wielding failed to do any damage through the game.

Seriously. What the hell?

Also, it is weird that things freeze even though they are immune to cold damage, though I'm hardly complaining (damn you revenants!).

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-06, 06:03 AM

Well, I was led to believe I would be getting a successor to Baldur's Gate II. Apparently, I got something that I can't quite pin, but either something for girly girl gamers (Which is the people who play this game in Russia, where, at least for RPG's, there's probably more female gamers than male ones. They're all getting crazy over Alistair. Some are even complaining that there aren't enough pretty dresses. If you follow this line of thinking, might as well throw out the whole Blight thing, add dresses, the ability to romance Sten and you're all set making a medieval Sims) or KotOR for 13-year old XBOX gamers who have never played anything more complicated than Halo (which is a great game and has a cool story but not exactly something an RPG should aspire to be, just as a pickup truck is not a Mazeratti, no matter how many spoilers you put on it, and a Mazeratti is not a buldozer).

As for the aggro system... Seriously, making physical obstacles is easy. Add a few forcefield spells (like temporary wall forcefields) or something along these lines, a spell or two that can seriously slow down enemies and give fighters an automatic critical hit on an attack of opportunity and you're set. Not only don't you need aggro anymore but now everything is better and more logical.

PS: revenants are about the only thing you need a fighter for and can't solo with a mage. :smile: Mostly because they're immune to cold damage and staffs don't damage them much. Even that, however, can be fixed with 2 mages, Arcane bolts and mana potions.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-06, 08:46 AM

Dragon Age is decent. Over-hyped, but what isn't? I really do have to agree with Yahtzee's assessment: unoriginal, but compelling. Reminds me of the NWN2 OC. If Dragon Age has an influence on RPGs as a whole, I'll be sad, for that would be a devolution. But chances are it's just going to fade away after providing Bioware with money and consumers with a couple of dozen entertainment hours each. Because if anything tries to "copy" Dragon Age, it's probably going to end up as a polished turd.

taltamir broke free from Dragon Age's pull early. I expect I will do the same, although not quite as early. Still, DA has provided me with more time than the NWN2 OC will, and maybe if Bioware keeps working they'll be able to mesmerize more people for the whole game.

Also, the Bioware Social Network is disgusting. I haven't joined, so I can't say how it works, but changing a forum into a "social network" reeks of corporate stupidity. I have a thought: maybe Bioware copied WotC to be "in" with the RPG crowd? That would be frightening.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 09:17 AM

I'm not really sure what people were expecting DA to be. It's a Bioware game, and as such is pretty much what I was expecting. I loved the KOTOR games, wanted a similar experience, and got one. Also, one of the few game types my dad enjoys and can do any good at. :smalltongue: so that's a bonus.

Exactly. Besides, referring to the "Archaic gameplay". Some of us are of the oppinion that "finally a CRPG that uses the proper gameplay mechanics again".

Well, I was led to believe I would be getting a successor to Baldur's Gate II. Apparently, I got something that I can't quite pin, but either something for girly girl gamers (Which is the people who play this game in Russia, where, at least for RPG's, there's probably more female gamers than male ones. They're all getting crazy over Alistair. Some are even complaining that there aren't enough pretty dresses. If you follow this line of thinking, might as well throw out the whole Blight thing, add dresses, the ability to romance Sten and you're all set making a medieval Sims) or KotOR for 13-year old XBOX gamers who have never played anything more complicated than Halo (which is a great game and has a cool story but not exactly something an RPG should aspire to be, just as a pickup truck is not a Mazeratti, no matter how many spoilers you put on it, and a Mazeratti is not a buldozer).

I don't get these complaints at all. For me, it was just like finally getting to sit down in that old comfy chair again and be back in BGII. I love BGII and this is very much it's successor indeed. That women and girls go all crazy over Alistair has more to do with the fact that this is the first Bioware game where the romance option for female characters is not an offensive joke. Besides... There are too few models in the game (meaning clothes and armor models) we need more unique-looking clothes and armor. Plus they took the lazy way out and made all kids identical, for some reason.

If Dragon Age has an influence on RPGs as a whole, I'll be sad, for that would be a devolution. But chances are it's just going to fade away after providing Bioware with money and consumers with a couple of dozen entertainment hours each. Because if anything tries to "copy" Dragon Age, it's probably going to end up as a polished turd.

Of course that is your personal opinion. I don't mind you being sad, because as I said above I am glad that we have a fantasy CRPG again that works like CRPGs should work. I sincerely doubt it will fade away with a totally devoted fanbase, raving (and deservingly so) reviews and a faschinating new world to play in.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-06, 10:32 AM

I sincerely doubt it will fade away with a totally devoted fanbase, raving (and deservingly so) reviews and a faschinating new world to play in.

Clarification: Dragon Age is not a polished turd. Dragon Age itself is a good game, and I expect that sequels to Dragon Age would be good.

What I meant to say is that I hope nothing tries to "copy" Dragon Age. Copy cats are generally bad, and in this specific case people will copy the polish, and not the "not-turd" part.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 10:36 AM

What I meant to say is that I hope nothing tries to "copy" Dragon Age. Copy cats are generally bad, and in this specific case people will copy the polish, and not the "not-turd" part.

I definitely agree with that.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 10:37 AM

That women and girls go all crazy over Alistair has more to do with the fact that this is the first Bioware game where the romance option for female characters is not an offensive joke.

Hey! I liked that Fighter / Cleric from BG II whose name I completely forgot but started with A.

I think Alistair was based on him, only more whiny and less holier-than-thou.

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 10:39 AM

... That women and girls go all crazy over Alistair has more to do with the fact that this is the first Bioware game where the romance option for female characters is not an offensive joke. ...

At least he doesn't sparkle...

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 10:40 AM

At least he doesn't sparkle...

...Well there is that. More seriously though I know a bunch of women playing games that are still offended because the only female romance option in BGII was Anomen.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 10:43 AM

Anomen! That's his name.

To be honest, the male romance options in BG II weren't particularly great either. Not to mention they were all elves. Why can't I romance a human, or a halfling?

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 10:49 AM

...Well there is that. More seriously though I know a bunch of women playing games that are still offended because the only female romance option in BGII was Anomen.

I have to wonder if it's because he was the only option or if it's because it was Anomen...

Though I remember hearing that Haer'Dalis was supposed to be available as well, but that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Personally the whole romance thing has always been something of a double-edged sword for me anyway. When it's done well, it can add a bit of depth to the overall story, but that still doesn't save it from having numberous moments where I just cringe.

Getting into a lover's quarrell with Leliana because Alistair was too dense to notice that we were an item after pointing it out was not fun...

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 10:52 AM

Getting into a lover's quarrell with Leliana because Alistair was too dense to notice that we were an item after pointing it out was not fun...

It's not Alistair's fault. Leliana is simply that jealous.

It happens with Morrigan, too. Even though I was never in a romance with Morrigan to begin with.

((OK, so I slept with her once to get the ring. I like having +2 to Willpower.))

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 10:55 AM

It's not Alistair's fault. Leliana is simply that jealous.

I should point out that right after that conversation with Leliana I went to "end it" with Alistair and he sprung into that damnable rose conversation.

Nice boy...none too bright.

It happens with Morrigan, too. Even though I was never in a romance with Morrigan to begin with.

((OK, so I slept with her once to get the ring. I like having +2 to Willpower.))

Ugh...her's was worse. I don't think I've ever facepalmed harder than when she said "My tent is cold..." in that false voice...

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for romantic dialogue.

warty goblin

2010-01-06, 10:58 AM

Wait, you have never played? LOL

Nope. Too many interesting games from small studios. Damn things take all my time and money...

What game do you play that is 100% open ended area wise? LOL
I really don't get the point of this argument. I'd expect pretty much any RPG (or game for that matter) to have a mix of close, enclosed areas and more open combat spaces. My point was that it should be quite possible to give the characters sufficient tactical flexibility to deal with both. For maximum tactical depth, the methods used for fighting in the open should be distinct from those used in a corridor crawl.

Doesn't it depend on what you're fighting, though?
An ambush from wolves, should be an easy matter.
An ambush from ogres, is another matter entirely.
Again I'm not sure what this is supposed to demonstrate. Different fights are more or less difficult, and different enemies require differing tactics. That's pretty much as it should be.

But you have to think of the reverse? Why in the beginning - should a swordsman be able to go toe to toe with several foes, while a mage has to cower in the corner after casting his "Affect Normal Fires" spell?
Ideally in the beginning you wouldn't be able to fight a group of enemies that significantly outnumbered your own in straight up battle. Being able to take on two enemy swordsmen is hard, and something that, in a character skill based game, could reasonably be earned through leveling up.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 10:59 AM

Ugh...her's was worse. I don't think I've ever facepalmed harder than when she said "My tent is cold..." in that false voice...

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for romantic dialogue.

Morrigan's romance was a dead ringer for Viconia's, from what I recall. The same tactless attempt at innuendo and the same selfish bitchness.

EDIT: Though that rose exchange has one of the best lines in the game.

"Yes, that's right! Watch as I thrash our enemies with the mighty power of floral arrangements! Feel my thorns, darkspawn! I will overpower you with my rosy scent! "

It's more the delivery than the line itself, but goddamn that was so awesome.

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 11:07 AM

Morrigan's romance was a dead ringer for Viconia's, from what I recall. The same tactless attempt at innuendo and the same selfish bitchness.

Which made it all the more strange when it rubbed me the wrong way. I actually liked Viconia.

EDIT: Though that rose exchange has one of the best lines in the game.

"Yes, that's right! Watch as I thrash our enemies with the mighty power of floral arrangements! Feel my thorns, darkspawn! I will overpower you with my rosy scent! "

It's more the delivery than the line itself, but goddamn that was so awesome.

I credit it more to Steve Valentine's ability than the writing itself. But yes, Alistair probably has the best one-liners in the game. Personally, I liked having him around for the same reason I kept Bastila around in KoTOR: I like teasing them.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 11:11 AM

Morrigan's romance was a dead ringer for Viconia's, from what I recall. The same tactless attempt at innuendo and the same selfish bitchness.

...The point with that exchange is that she is obviously saying it as a joke. She is following the (in her opinion ridiculous) civilized standard and is mocking it. What she really means is "I want to .... you, get your ass over here". To take those lines she says as if she actually tries to play coy in any serious way is a mistake.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 11:13 AM

Which made it all the more strange when it rubbed me the wrong way. I actually liked Viconia.

That's because Viconia had a personality beyond being a selfish bitch. Morrigan? Not so much.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 11:14 AM

That's because Viconia had a personality beyond being a selfish bitch. Morrigan? Not so much.

I disagree completely.

Flickerdart

2010-01-06, 11:15 AM

It's not Alistair's fault. Leliana is simply that jealous.

It happens with Morrigan, too. Even though I was never in a romance with Morrigan to begin with.

((OK, so I slept with her once to get the ring. I like having +2 to Willpower.))
You get a ring from sleeping with Morrigan? I didn't get one. :smallfrown:

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 11:16 AM

That's because Viconia had a personality beyond being a selfish bitch. Morrigan? Not so much.

Yeah...that's probably it. Which is exceptionally unfortunate because it means they wasted Claudia Black's talent on such a 2d character.

But then, they used Steve Blum for a drunken dwarf (and about half the dwarven population it seems), but at least Oghren is funny.

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 11:17 AM

I disagree completely.

With Viconia having a personality beyond being a selfish bitch or with Morrigan not having one? Or both?

I'm cool with either way; disagreements do happen. I just wanna make sure which part.

((Though the completely part kinda assumes both.))

EDIT: Apparently, though, Bioware says that Morrigan may be back in later games or expansions or whatever. So we may get to see a different side of her. If she has one.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 11:25 AM

With Viconia having a personality beyond being a selfish bitch or with Morrigan not having one? Or both?

EDIT: Apparently, though, Bioware says that Morrigan may be back in later games or expansions or whatever. So we may get to see a different side of her. If she has one.

With Morrigan not having a personality (Viconia was my one mandatory NPC in all my BGII sessions). Also, about the sequel: This is what happened to Vic too. Before the expansion, the world was full of Vicionia-haters that said she was nothing but an evil bitch with zero personality. People just tend to forget nowadays that before the expansion there was no way of changing her alignment (which you actually do with Morrigan).

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 11:31 AM

I, uh, didn't play Throne of Bhaal. Ever. I still didn't think she was only a selfish bitch.

So, yeah, I still stand by my opinion.

Not that I don't like Morrigan. Her dialogue is quite fun, especially with Sten. But she does not exhibit a lot of variety throughout the game.

Cristo Meyers

2010-01-06, 11:32 AM

I think it's just part of the danger in having characters like that. Kreia from KoTOR 2 kinda falls into the same category. After a while of listening to them snipe whenever you do something plot related you just really start to not like the character. I know that after taking Morrigan with me through Redcliffe I was about ready to just throw her in the lake and be done with it.

It's only made worse by the fact that Sten does the same thing, by and by large, but you can actually convince him to see the big picture (that, hey, helping these people means I'm one step closer to that army I needed...you know, to fight that Blight thing everyone's going on about...)

The Rose Dragon

2010-01-06, 11:41 AM

Drakyn

2010-01-06, 12:10 PM

Though admittedly, I don't think it is entirely fair to compare Dragon Age's characterization to Baldur's Gate's. Dragon Age is entirely voice-acted, so has comparatively little dialogue. Baldur's Gate had little voice acting and only at key parts, so they could afford to write much deeper dialogue.

Based off of memory, I recall Baldur's Gate (even the second game) having a LOT less potential conversation with your teammates. Possibly because they hadn't yet used the KotOR model of your having a certain amount of group members that stuck around you and could be rotated in and out, instead of a wide pool of potential party joinees. The game itself may have had more dialogue, but I'm pretty sure you ended up being able to talk with specific people a lot less. Of course, this could just be because the timers for party members to occasionally pipe up and chat were set stupidly high and unless you deliberately idled you were unlikely to get a lot out of them.

H. Zee

2010-01-06, 01:26 PM

Well, I was led to believe I would be getting a successor to Baldur's Gate II. Apparently, I got something that I can't quite pin, but either something for girly girl gamers (Which is the people who play this game in Russia, where, at least for RPG's, there's probably more female gamers than male ones. They're all getting crazy over Alistair. Some are even complaining that there aren't enough pretty dresses. If you follow this line of thinking, might as well throw out the whole Blight thing, add dresses, the ability to romance Sten and you're all set making a medieval Sims) or KotOR for 13-year old XBOX gamers who have never played anything more complicated than Halo (which is a great game and has a cool story but not exactly something an RPG should aspire to be, just as a pickup truck is not a Mazeratti, no matter how many spoilers you put on it, and a Mazeratti is not a buldozer).

If you follow this line of thinking, might as well throw out the whole Blight thing, add dresses, the ability to romance Sten and you're all set making a medieval Sims)

...the ability to romance Sten...

Sten: You will need armor, I think. And a helmet. And something to bite down on. How strong are human teeth? Qunari teeth can bite through leather, wood, even metal given time. Which reminds me, I may try to nuzzle.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-06, 02:11 PM

I think it's just part of the danger in having characters like that. Kreia from KoTOR 2 kinda falls into the same category. After a while of listening to them snipe whenever you do something plot related you just really start to not like the character. I know that after taking Morrigan with me through Redcliffe I was about ready to just throw her in the lake and be done with it.

Again, I don't agree. The more she talks, the better I like her.

Sten: You will need armor, I think. And a helmet. And something to bite down on. How strong are human teeth? Qunari teeth can bite through leather, wood, even metal given time. Which reminds me, I may try to nuzzle.

LOL I remember that.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-06, 02:56 PM

Nope. Too many interesting games from small studios. Damn things take all my time and money...

It's understandable to not play dragon age - there are small companies that need supporting, and DA is hardly the most shining example of a good game (see: this thread). But to comment on Dragon Age without playing it strikes me as a bit odd. Since you haven't spoken about DA specifically, just about game design in general, it's fine. But it's just odd to see somebody admit to not playing the game in a thread ostensibly about the game which I lost

zeratul

2010-01-07, 12:00 AM

Can't help, haven't played the game.

If that's the case (and I mean no offense by this) doesn't that basically mean you're arguing just over what you've heard about the game and what you assume the systems are like, thus making the accuracy of your points rather questionable?

For the record I totally love dragon age. The story is awesome, There's some great characters (notably Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan and Zevran), and I actually enjoy the game play greatly.

If you find playing as an archer or a two-hander difficult, turn the difficulty down a notch. I found playing as an archer very difficult but when it became frustrating I would just turn it down to casual, thus enabling me to enjoy it still. Certain elements on casual are still pretty hard, notably high dragons which are still epic and tough to fight on casual. I should also note that after playing it on both, the game seems to be easier on PC than on console simply due to the fact that its much easier to think strategically and tell specific people to attack specific targets instead of just letting their tactics slots determine who they attack.

warty goblin

2010-01-07, 02:16 AM

If that's the case (and I mean no offense by this) doesn't that basically mean you're arguing just over what you've heard about the game and what you assume the systems are like, thus making the accuracy of your points rather questionable?

At least in the most current topic I've debated (aggro) I felt I kept my points fairly general, to avoid precisely that problem.

I was also briefly interested in playing Dragon Age, but the more I've read the more it sounds like (from my point of view) one nearly endless irritation in terms of gameplay. That leaves the story, but quite frankly I can save myself $40 and a good deal of annoyance by buying a book for pretty much the same effect.

It's really too bad because I like fantasy a great deal. I simply find very few fantasy games that appeal to me. Now if only someone would make a fantasy game like Men of War...

Bouregard

2010-01-07, 09:41 AM

At least in the most current topic I've debated (aggro) I felt I kept my points fairly general, to avoid precisely that problem.

I was also briefly interested in playing Dragon Age, but the more I've read the more it sounds like (from my point of view) one nearly endless irritation in terms of gameplay. That leaves the story, but quite frankly I can save myself $40 and a good deal of annoyance by buying a book for pretty much the same effect.

It's really too bad because I like fantasy a great deal. I simply find very few fantasy games that appeal to me. Now if only someone would make a fantasy game like Men of War...

You played The Witcher? Last good RPG I remember. Dragon Age is nifty, but way overhyped. The story is decent, but the rest of the game, while not outright horrible has quite a few itching things.

warty goblin

2010-01-07, 10:54 AM

You played The Witcher? Last good RPG I remember. Dragon Age is nifty, but way overhyped. The story is decent, but the rest of the game, while not outright horrible has quite a few itching things.

I've played some of the Witcher, and really enjoyed what I saw. I was seriously into it for a while last fall. Unfortunately my DVD drive went the way of the Dodo, I couldn't get it replaced for several months, and by the time I did I was playing Far Cry 2. I've tried getting back into it several times, but it's fairly hard to pick up all the threads of Visema Confidential when you haven't played for six months. I really should just restart I suppose.

But yeah, I thought the Witcher had it figured out when it comes to RPGs. Some people were irritated that you had to be Geralt, but I liked playing somebody with an actual personality. I liked having a fully voiced main character, somebody with actual views, quirks, likes and dislikes. Plus there wasn't anything even resembling the good option/bad option/go away dialog of most RPGs, which is absolutely fantastic from my point of view.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-10, 06:05 AM

Huh, what? Sure, the Darkspawn are one-dimensional bad guys, but how does that make them different from the evil mooks in almost any game, ever? And I think you're seriously overlooking Loghain here. Loghain is basically a reflection of the main character - a man with the best interests of Ferelden at heart and some very legitimate concerns, namely his King being an idiot who gets bored by talking strategy and who has decided to let back in the army he can remember only recently having to drive out at massive cost. Throw in the fact that he simply doesn't believe in this Warden mumbo-jumbo, which is fair enough since the last Blight was so long ago, and suddenly he becomes a good man whose actions are only evil because he doesn't have full possession of the facts. He's very flawed, but he is neither a complete monster, nor wholly insane. Indeed, he can even join your party and seek redemption, if you desire.
Actually, I don't get Loghain's full motivations but there's little point trying to say that he wasn't entirely insane or already a monster. Sympathetic or no, he made quite an asshat of himself.

He's a general and a war-hero who ought to have known better than to back out on his king and undermining the cohesion of his forces, whatever his doubts. Then you get the whole selling elves into slavery, torture of political enemies and some slander and the words "power mad" pops up rather quickly.

He seems like a man who is capable of earning fierce loyalty from his followers, so one wonders why he doesn't find it distasteful to doom so many soldiers. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, even if we allow for the notion that he doesn't have the complete picture.

===
My problem with Bioware's use of characters like Morrigan (and let's not compare Kreia because she was the villain in an Obsidian game), is that they really have trouble separating pure mustache-twirling evil from the character's "philosophy." Either that or they include both traits by default. She essentially never leaves Nietzsche-wannabe territory.

And at no point do you ever earn enough respect from her that you get to convince her that maybe killing everybody in the Tower is not a good idea.

Morrigan's motivations are fairly simple though. She's colored entirely by her mother's upbringing, which is deliberately aimed at isolating her from any sort of connection with society or anything remotely empathetic. She was pretty much trained to be unpleasant to people (i.e. kill or be killed) for the amusement and profit of her amoral mother.

You'd think the logical progression would be to convince Morrigan that there are very pragmatic reasons for helping these other people out. That mommy's upbringing wasn't always in her best interest.

It's a shame, because I find her one of the more humorous characters in the game.

Also, it's a wonder that Alistair and Morrigan didn't develop a thing. They play so well off of each other. Alistair is basically a handy punching-bag and Morrigan needs a target. Their banter is amusing. It even has the forbidden fruit angle. (She is an apostate witch and he was a Templar-in-training. Their love will challenge the old feuds and elevate them above the desperate animal drive for survival.)

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-10, 07:39 AM

My problem with Bioware's use of characters like Morrigan (and let's not compare Kreia because she was the villain in an Obsidian game), is that they really have trouble separating pure mustache-twirling evil from the character's "philosophy." Either that or they include both traits by default. She essentially never leaves Nietzsche-wannabe territory.

And at no point do you ever earn enough respect from her that you get to convince her that maybe killing everybody in the Tower is not a good idea.

Morrigan's motivations are fairly simple though. She's colored entirely by her mother's upbringing, which is deliberately aimed at isolating her from any sort of connection with society or anything remotely empathetic. She was pretty much trained to be unpleasant to people (i.e. kill or be killed) for the amusement and profit of her amoral mother.

You'd think the logical progression would be to convince Morrigan that there are very pragmatic reasons for helping these other people out. That mommy's upbringing wasn't always in her best interest.

It's a shame, because I find her one of the more humorous characters in the game.

Also, it's a wonder that Alistair and Morrigan didn't develop a thing. They play so well off of each other. Alistair is basically a handy punching-bag and Morrigan needs a target. Their banter is amusing. It even has the forbidden fruit angle. (She is an apostate witch and he was a Templar-in-training. Their love will challenge the old feuds and elevate them above the desperate animal drive for survival.)

Well you almost get there though. I have a feeling this will be just like with Viconia; you only almost get an alignment change out of her until the expansion.

If you get your friendship- or love level to 100% with her, she stops bitching when you help people, plus she thanks you for teaching her what friendship is, and why it is good (alternative she admits she loves you. In her way, obviously, but it is pretty damn clear that she just can't spit it out).

I admit though that before you get that far, I do miss a dialogue option simply explaining that helping these people makes them owe us.

taltamir

2010-01-10, 01:07 PM

yea, she becomes literally a purring kitten... and then she starts being crazy.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-10, 02:12 PM

yea, she becomes literally a purring kitten... and then she starts being crazy.

Crazy? She merely comes up with the best possible solution...

Dienekes

2010-01-10, 02:34 PM

Crazy? She merely comes up with the best possible solution...

And then runs away to teach this new power being to be just like her and tells everyone to just leave her alone with The Old God. Maker help us.

taltamir

2010-01-10, 02:40 PM

Crazy? She merely comes up with the best possible solution...

I was not referring to that... I was referring to the whole "wear this ring and I will always know where you are" and "this is bad for both of us, you will regret it, let me go, tell me it is over damn you!" and if you say you can't then she replies with "you selfish bastard, you will regret it this, and so will I" etc... Oh, and while she explicitly says she wants an open relationship, as soon as you start romancing lliliana morrigan puts her foot down and tells you to stop it.

you should really take the time to romance her; the dialogue is freaking hillarious.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-10, 03:12 PM

I was not referring to that... I was referring to the whole "wear this ring and I will always know where you are" and "this is bad for both of us, you will regret it, let me go, tell me it is over damn you!" and if you say you can't then she replies with "you selfish bastard, you will regret it this, and so will I" etc... Oh, and while she explicitly says she wants an open relationship, as soon as you start romancing lliliana morrigan puts her foot down and tells you to stop it.

you should really take the time to romance her; the dialogue is freaking hillarious.

...What on earth made you think I hadn't? :smallsmile:
The dialogue is fun, but also very heartwarming, especially when you reach the 100% mark.

taltamir

2010-01-10, 04:51 PM

...What on earth made you think I hadn't? :smallsmile:
The dialogue is fun, but also very heartwarming, especially when you reach the 100% mark.

yea, I know what you mean... she was the most interesting and endearing character there...
I did leave her in the camp though, so I missed out on the stupidity (eg: you should burn down this orphanage because this is survival of the strong" type comments she makes)

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-10, 04:54 PM

Then the other female in your party is Leliana.

The moment she presented the "look at the trees" argument, I lost all respect for her. No matter how hard she tries me to get her to take her seriously, she'd always come across as a Bliss Ninny.

Then there's Alistair. He could give off homoerotic vibes. Especially once you're turned off the women. But he doesn't swing that way.

taltamir

2010-01-10, 05:30 PM

The moment she presented the "look at the trees" argument, I lost all respect for her. No matter how hard she tries me to get her to take her seriously, she'd always come across as a Bliss Ninny.

I don't remember anything about trees... but I do remember her being inane and me losing all respect towards her.
Some of the things she said were just over the top insipid... like her thing for shoes. (I bet female gamers just loved that stereotype /sarcasm).

Then there's Alistair. He could give off homoerotic vibes. Especially once you're turned off the women. But he doesn't swing that way.

Yea, alister and morrigan are straight, zhevran and leliana are bisexual.
And you can get a lot of random sex (even orgies) with random NPCs too (from hookers to a pirate queen) who are generally bi.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-10, 06:08 PM

I don't remember anything about trees... but I do remember her being inane and me losing all respect towards her.
Some of the things she said were just over the top insipid... like her thing for shoes. (I bet female gamers just loved that stereotype /sarcasm).
I'm not being literal. I'm referring to a particular conversation she had with Morrigan at one point that involved Leliana trying to convince Morrigan about a specific point. Morrigan blew her off, needless to say.

I found the shoes thing funny though. Particularly as one of your dialog options is: "I love shoes!"

Yea, alister and morrigan are straight, zhevran and leliana are bisexual.
And you can get a lot of random sex (even orgies) with random NPCs too (from hookers to a pirate queen) who are generally bi.
I generally expect my custom-tailored fantasy settings to look down on that sort of thing.

The fact that it happened in Mass Effect was one thing, but Dragon Age seemed to be about fan wankery. Gay or otherwise.

taltamir

2010-01-10, 09:43 PM

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-10, 09:57 PM

Fa/tg/uy neckbeards might jump at the chance. Unwashed? Ugly? Can't fornicate? All the females you have a chance with are ugly? It's like self-insertion fanfic without as much self-aggrandizement!

taltamir

2010-01-10, 10:02 PM

Fa/tg/uy neckbeards might jump at the chance. Unwashed? Ugly? Can't fornicate? All the females you have a chance with are ugly? It's like self-insertion fanfic without as much self-aggrandizement!

I have no idea what "Fa/tg/uy" means.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-10, 10:05 PM

Oh, sorry. >_<

/tg/ is the Traditional Games board on 4chan. Their members are referred to as fa/tg/uys, elegan/tg/entlemen, etc. The same way members of /b/ are /b/rother or /b/etards.

Link to definition of neckbeard, although you imply you know the meaning. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neckbeard)

SurlySeraph

2010-01-10, 10:07 PM

It refers to people who regularly post here. (http://boards.4chan.org/tg/)

taltamir

2010-01-10, 10:08 PM

neckbeard i know... and /b/ i have heard about...

So tg= traditional gamers (on 4chan)
what does Fa and uy stand for? (I am afraid to visit 4chan)

EDIT:
bah, ill just go there...
/fa/ - Fashion
uy - ? I can't find uy there

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-10, 10:10 PM

"Fa" and "uy" stand for about as much as "rother" and "etard" stand for. They're just filler text placed around the /tg/

taltamir

2010-01-10, 10:15 PM

"Fa" and "uy" stand for about as much as "rother" and "etard" stand for. They're just filler text placed around the /tg/

doh... I get it now...

/tg/ = traditional gamer...
aka Fa/tg/uy aka Fat Guy

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-10, 11:06 PM

the entire concept of fantasy is just that, fantasy. you could say most feudal societies wouldn't allow a woman to run around fighting and instead marry her off at age 10-12. Also women wear such frumpy clothes that you barely see their ankles, and everyone is butt ugly because they don't have showers or toothpaste.

But really, where is the fun in that?

Can you imagine anyone who would want to play a game that says: you can only play a male, homosexuals/bisexuals/educated women (they must be witches) are burned at the stake, premarital sex results in stoning, you are unwashed and ugly, all the "romancable" (you buy them from their father) "women" (age 10-12 and girls; else there were already married off) are unwashed, ungroomed, unshaven, wear puritanical clothes, and have rotten teeth.

ugh, that game will be horrible.
Am I missing any aspect of why medieval life sucked so hard?

BTW, this is worth discussing more on its own I think... made a thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138018
Missing my point.

For a game that toots its own horn as a "Dark Fantasy" it really downplays the interesting bits about human interaction.

The whole gay love thing makes it, by definition, forbidden fruit. I think you're missing a lot of drama potential there and destroying anything that a gay audience might relate to.

My brain melts when pretty much everybody is open about it. Nobody finds it the least bit weird. Or has anything to say about it. Silk Fox, from Jade Empire, by contrast, at least throws out the line that a lesbian relationship flies in the face of tradition.

Dragon Age just tells you, straight out, that nobody really cares if you're gay with a only a few minor exceptions.

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-10, 11:16 PM

Dragon Age just tells you, straight out, that nobody really cares if you're gay with a only a few minor exceptions.
Well, if you look back at history, no-one cared about it much before certain religions made it a sin. Hell, in Greece, it was almost expected at a certain point in time. I don't see what's wrong with the same attitude in DA given that the religion isn't Abrahamic...

taltamir

2010-01-10, 11:39 PM

I see your point now, you literally have the chauntry be a fantatical order that hunts down and kills anyone that they consider deviant (magically), and yet there is absolutely no persecution on that regards...

Ziren

2010-01-10, 11:42 PM

The whole gay love thing makes it, by definition, forbidden fruit. I think you're missing a lot of drama potential there and destroying anything that a gay audience might relate to.

According to my lesbian and bisexual friends and my own experience with videogames in general, it's actually the other way around. Most people don't want to spend their free-time dealing (or more accurate: pretending to deal) with issues they face on a daily basis. And so they appreciate being able to enjoy an idealized version of LGB relationships in the game.

Now the fact that you can effortlessly get in three- and foursomes with them... that is fan-wank, though it still doesn't bother me.

I see your point now, you literally have the chauntry be a fantatical order that hunts down and kills anyone that they consider deviant (magically), and yet there is absolutely no persecution on that regards...

You really can't compare those things. Being able to cast magic actually means that you are armed wherever you go and are considered the ultimatum for demons when it comes to possessions. And the mainstream religion of the game teaches that mages have destroyed heaven and generated the blight.
Whether their suspicion is justified or not - they have a reason to go after the mages. No such reason exists for pursuing same-sex couples (for all we know the chantry might actually have official same-sex marriages).

taltamir

2010-01-10, 11:45 PM

Well, if you look back at history, no-one cared about it much before certain religions made it a sin. Hell, in Greece, it was almost expected at a certain point in time. I don't see what's wrong with the same attitude in DA given that the religion isn't Abrahamic...

I always thought that the whole "pederasty was expected and encouraged in greece" thing was people reading way too much into some very very incomplete records...

Imagine if in the year 3000 they judged our civilization by a few remaining hentai scraps... I can see it now "in the early 20th century american geneticists engineered tentacle monsters which were used for sex. it was a very common practice for the whole family to get together for a tentacle orgy"
I know its a bit of an extreme case, but a few scraps of some poets doesn't necessary mean it was common or pervaded their entire civilization

taltamir

2010-01-10, 11:49 PM

According to my lesbian and bisexual friends and my own experience with videogames in general, it's actually the other way around. Most people don't want to spend their free-time dealing (or more accurate: pretending to deal) with issues they face on a daily basis. And so they appreciate being able to enjoy an idealized version of LGB relationships in the game.

Now the fact that you can effortlessly get in three- and foursomes with them... that is fan-wank, though it still doesn't bother me.

You know what, you make an excellent point. It might not allow them to "relate" but it would certainly be a favorable escape. Realism isn't always "good"

As an example, I am a polyamorist and really enjoyed the multiple partner ending in jade empire... its not fun when games limit you in such a manner in the name of "realism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

BTW, gays can marry in many states in the USA... but marry two wives with the consent of both and you are going to prison... live with them for a few years and you will be in a "common law marriage" automatically.

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-11, 12:20 AM

I always thought that the whole "pederasty was expected and encouraged in greece" thing was people reading way too much into some very very incomplete records...

The Sacred Band of Thebes. Not representative of the general population, obviously, but quite representative of the attitudes in general. Imagine the Navy Seals. Now imagine what they would feel if someone told them to go and bang a dude...

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-11, 12:22 AM

Well, even if we buy the idea that historically, homosexuality isn't always actively persecuted, it doesn't mean that it's always well-tolerated either.

I can understand the notion of an escapist romance, but that doesn't strike me as interesting as a relationship that's either somewhat doomed or facing adversity. The fact that the relationship succeeds or redeems itself in spite of resistance makes it all the more heroic.

I'm not talking merely about "realism" so much as I'm talking about what makes sense dramatically. And frankly, a bit of "realism" is warranted with characters, who ought to be human enough to relate to.

Again, to beat a dead horse, I get why Bioware played it safe. But it's rather at odds with idea of them marketing the game as a piece of "mature" storytelling. It's basically them throwing out fan-wankery because it drew attention when they did it in Mass Effect.

And since I'm talking about it, I rather wish that fantasy RPG's stopped making everything about saving the entire world in the face of Evil. I'd like to play a story-heavy RPG where I'm not out to save the world. Just to mix it up.

Hallavast

2010-01-11, 01:55 AM

BTW, gays can marry in many states in the USA... but marry two wives with the consent of both and you are going to prison... live with them for a few years and you will be in a "common law marriage" automatically.

I'm not sure if legal discussion falls under political discussion.

It is true that polygamy is illegal here in the U.S., but it doesn't mean you'd go to jail. This offence is rarely enforced (usually only if there has been some other major linked offence like child/spousal abuse and such). This is because jailing the sole source of income for a family of dozens of children is not always practical.

Further, common law marriages are only practiced in some states, and I am not aware of any instances of any Three's Company type "marriages", let alone the prosecution of any such ... arrangement. I don't think it is possible to be married to several people at once by common law means. If it is, I wouldn't bet on the prosecution having a chance in hell in pressing those charges.

taltamir

2010-01-11, 02:14 AM

toasty

2010-01-11, 08:18 AM

It didn't even occur to me that such a discussion might be considered political and / or against the rules.
I will play it safe and just drop the issue then.

LurkerInPlayground, I understand what you are saying... that it is not necessarily a "realism" issue so much as "overcoming adversary"... but I am still not sure that would actually be fun for people to play.

Its not yet, but it can quickly become one. So yes, drop it.

I dunno, I enjoyed Dragon age. Yes, the story was cliche, boring and predictable. But I enjoy the Bioware format. There is a reason why cliches exist, after all.

Somebloke

2010-01-11, 08:44 AM

taltamir

2010-01-11, 04:09 PM

Dumb question:

If I set the game to easy, will I miss out on something in the plot, like a hidden ending?

I want to see the story through but as discussed I really don't want to get held up in the fighting.

not a dumb question at all, its common enough that you should bother asking.
AFAIK no there is no difference. But I might be wrong.

Bouregard

2010-01-11, 06:46 PM

I've played some of the Witcher, and really enjoyed what I saw. I was seriously into it for a while last fall. Unfortunately my DVD drive went the way of the Dodo, I couldn't get it replaced for several months, and by the time I did I was playing Far Cry 2. I've tried getting back into it several times, but it's fairly hard to pick up all the threads of Visema Confidential when you haven't played for six months. I really should just restart I suppose.

Restart the game, if you like RPGs especially the Vizima Confidential Quest is worth every single phrase. Hard to explain without spoilers but you should really pay attention to that quest.

Aron Times

2010-01-11, 06:56 PM

People complaining about aggro and pulling are taking the game literally. The warrior's Taunt talent represents him interposing himself between the enemy and the people he is trying to protect and generally getting in their way. Since this is impossible to do due to game engine limitations (enemies can just walk past the warrior), warriors have Taunt to be able to perform their intended function.

I remember a lot of people complaining about the D&D 4e fighter's mark when 4e was announced. Detractors described it as an MMORPG aggro mechanic, which is accurate to some extent, since marking is a gamist implementation of the fighter's role of protecting his party members.

Seriously, stop taking the game literally. Playing Dragon Age, or any RPG for that matter, requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Somebloke

2010-01-11, 07:35 PM

warty goblin

2010-01-11, 09:42 PM

People complaining about aggro and pulling are taking the game literally. The warrior's Taunt talent represents him interposing himself between the enemy and the people he is trying to protect and generally getting in their way. Since this is impossible to do due to game engine limitations (enemies can just walk past the warrior), warriors have Taunt to be able to perform their intended function.

If it's because of engine limitations, get a better engine. There are plenty of them available that allow for this sort of real time physics, and support the AI to go with it. It can't even be that hard to code, because Mount and Blade manages it (except for some funky clipping with horses) and it was coded by about three people.

Starbuck_II

2010-01-11, 09:51 PM

If it's because of engine limitations, get a better engine. There are plenty of them available that allow for this sort of real time physics, and support the AI to go with it. It can't even be that hard to code, because Mount and Blade manages it (except for some funky clipping with horses) and it was coded by about three people.

What? Mount and Blade doesn't at all. I don't know how many times I wish I could pull aggro to protect the squishy NPCs who join you.

Luckily no NPC dies just wounded/injured.

warty goblin

2010-01-11, 09:56 PM

What? Mount and Blade doesn't at all. I don't know how many times I wish I could pull aggro to protect the squishy NPCs who join you.

Luckily no NPC dies just wounded/injured.

You don't pull aggro in M&B to protect people. Instead you get in the way of the people trying to murder them, and then hit them in the face with an axe until such time as they shrug off this mortal coil. Which was the entire point of the post you quoted, namely that such a thing is plenty possible to code into a game.

taltamir

2010-01-11, 10:36 PM

Seriously, stop taking the game literally. Playing Dragon Age, or any RPG for that matter, requires willing suspension of disbelief.

the problem is that the game design is full of things that break suspension of disbelief, instead of fostering it. Every person has a threshold at which suspension of disbelief is broken and the fantasy is ruined... the better your game is designed, the less people will suffer it and the better your game is overall.
This issue is just one of many many things in dragon age that break suspension of disbelief, which is why it is such a terrible game.

Aron Times

2010-01-12, 12:36 AM

warty goblin

2010-01-12, 02:11 AM

I'm guessing this is where our perspectives diverge. I am a fan of the gamist approach to RPGs (you're more of a simulationist), which is why I prefer playing D&D 4e over other games. 4e has a lot of things that are completely unrealistic but make sense when you think of it as a game, and Dragon Age is the same.

I'm going to link to TV Tropes by invoking the MST3K Mantra (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra). "It's just a show game, I should really just relax."

But is aggro a particularly good game mechanic? I at least do not find it to be, in that it does not foster particularly interesting tactics, when compared to a more rigorous ruleset for accounting for positioning and movement. This doesn't have to be realistic to still force thoughtful tactics, as opposed to hammer aggro button, heal with healer, nuke with casters.

Bouregard

2010-01-12, 05:12 AM

But is aggro a particularly good game mechanic? I at least do not find it to be, in that it does not foster particularly interesting tactics, when compared to a more rigorous ruleset for accounting for positioning and movement. This doesn't have to be realistic to still force thoughtful tactics, as opposed to hammer aggro button, heal with healer, nuke with casters.

Yes it's a stupid idea.

In a MMORPG run through others is usefull, because allies can block your way without the option for the player to kill them out of their way. See Warhammer Online for example. In PvP combat it's impossible to walk throught enemies and allies. Tactics like tankwalls on chokepoints and the fiendish knock someone back to our line, surround them so he can't hobble away and then kill him are a part of core gaming.

In a single player RPG it's just stupid. While Dragon Age has done something great with friendly fire AE, the collision detection needs work.

So many cheap games managed to do a decent collision detection...

Don Julio Anejo

2010-01-12, 05:54 AM

So many cheap games managed to do a decent collision detection...
The funny part, even Bioware themselves did it. In a now 8 year old game. Neverwinter Nights I. After a patch, but still.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-12, 07:49 AM

the problem is that the game design is full of things that break suspension of disbelief, instead of fostering it.

Again, I can't disagree more. I can't think of anything specific that breaks the Suspension of Disbelief; it is a standard game (with numbers showing when you hit people, visible heath bars etc) and I do not think that the addition of an "Aggro" system makes thing worse in any way.

But is aggro a particularly good game mechanic?

Yes.

It works just fine; I really don't see a problem with it. I do not feel that this game has been "dumbed down" or "consolefied" in any way.

Besides , if you program your companions good enough, they handle the aggro well enough by themselves anyway.

(If Ally Is Attacked by Melee Weapon then Stone Roar. Etc.)

Anteros

2010-01-12, 07:58 AM

I really, really don't understand the logic behind this thread.

Was this game so incredibly terribly bad, that you not only had to go buy it...but then you were forced to play it all of the way through, and then complain about it on a forum for a month and a half?

Seriously, hordes of people enjoyed this game. Simply because there are aspects to it that you personally do not enjoy, does not make it a bad game.

I understand that you feel that you wasted your money. However, in the future I would suggest spending a little time researching games before you purchase them to avoid this type of situation.

60 dollars doesn't exactly break the bank...but it's more than worth a 5 minute google search to see if it's worth it. You're obviously fairly competent when using the internet, so it should not be difficult for you at all.

Let's have an example. Perhaps I've heard from a few people that DnD is a great game, so I go out and buy all of the books for it, hardly knowing anything about the game. Then, I decide I hate the game because I do not enjoy the dice-rolling aspect. Then, I spend the next two months telling those around me how terrible the game is, and how no future games should ever follow its style again.

I hope that sounds as silly to you as it does to me.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-12, 09:08 AM

4e has a lot of things that are completely unrealistic but make sense when you think of it as a game, and Dragon Age is the same.

Aggro makes sense, yes. It's merely a suboptimal solution. Aggro (and especially the denotations of the term, given its heavy use in MMOs) chips away at suspension of disbelief - not much, but enough to be non-trivial. A battlefield control solution based on, say, collision detection would function just as well in a gamist sense while not damaging suspension of disbelief.

Aggro isn't bad, it's just worse. Same thing with most games and their real-time combat, IMHO, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

warty goblin

2010-01-12, 11:34 AM

Again, I can't disagree more. I can't think of anything specific that breaks the Suspension of Disbelief; it is a standard game (with numbers showing when you hit people, visible heath bars etc) and I do not think that the addition of an "Aggro" system makes thing worse in any way.
There are plenty of titles that don't have visible health bars or damage numbers. Just sayin'

Yes.

It works just fine; I really don't see a problem with it. I do not feel that this game has been "dumbed down" or "consolefied" in any way.
Functionality is proof of adequacy, not being good, or better than an alternative.

My point is that a colision based system would work just as well, and almost certainly actually result in deeper tactics. For a game that claims tactical combat, that seems like a worthy goal.

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-13, 02:44 AM

Functionality is proof of adequacy, not being good, or better than an alternative.

My point is that a colision based system would work just as well, and almost certainly actually result in deeper tactics. For a game that claims tactical combat, that seems like a worthy goal.

Or proof of being worse, either.

Besides, at least on some maps, a collision system would be just as aggravating as it was in the BG games: Not only did the tanks stop X from passing, but they stopped the thief from being able to sneak around and backstab, and if you were really unlucky, you got the squishy wizard stuck up front with no way of retreating. I love those games, but having to constantly move the characters one by one on all narrow maps was very tedious.

Lord of Rapture

2010-01-13, 06:04 AM

Avilan the Grey

2010-01-13, 06:37 AM

You obviously do not understand the mindset of people who need to feel justified in their hatred.

Glittering Gems or otherwise. :smallbiggrin:

Dienekes

2010-01-13, 09:57 AM

warty goblin

2010-01-13, 10:43 AM

Or proof of being worse, either.

Besides, at least on some maps, a collision system would be just as aggravating as it was in the BG games: Not only did the tanks stop X from passing, but they stopped the thief from being able to sneak around and backstab, and if you were really unlucky, you got the squishy wizard stuck up front with no way of retreating. I love those games, but having to constantly move the characters one by one on all narrow maps was very tedious.

Tactics being constrained by terrain is a good thing in my book, not a bad one. I mean that's sort of what they are about- exploiting your resources and opportunities in order to destroy the enemy without suffering unacceptable losses yourself. The landscape should be just about the first thing you attempt to exploit to your advantage, or deny the advantage to your opponent. Take the high ground, make your enemy attack you through water, or without cover so your archer(s) can be maximally effective, put your fighter in a difficult to flank position, or your wizard someplace with a commanding view of the battlefield- these are sound tactics, and I'd like RPGs a lot more if they allowed for them.

LurkerInPlayground

2010-01-16, 07:10 AM

At any rate, my problems with Dragon Age has nothing to do with the complaint that it's like an MMORPG or that it's to much like an interactive novel (which, being an RPG, you should expect anyway).

It has a really terrible aesthetic. It's also too tame in a number of ways.

First off, the game looks like ass in a number of places. A lot of characters don't look that great. Especially the elves. The environment is rather generic looking.

Secondly. It has no vision. This is tightly related to the first. Darkspawn are completely unmemorable villains. The aforementioned problems I've had with romancing also come into it. For a game that sells itself as mature, it's just so much fan-wankery.

The thing is, people are stuck on the idea of fantasy as the whole saving the world bit. With elves. And dwarves. And even dragons. And orcs-by-another-name.

The thing is, J.R.R. Tolkien isn't the be-all-end-all. And I'm tired of people emulating the crap out of him. Swords and sorcery would have the "darker" tone that Bioware is shooting for, since you can mix in Lovecraftian horror themes or Western themes about identity/survival/violence.

A shift in focus is very plausible. A lot of the best parts of the game had nothing to do with you trying to save the world. You could get rid of the Darkspawn as the main antagonists and you would lose pretty much nothing.

Planescape: Torment was about an immortal amnesiac on a quest for his own identity. The Fallout franchise starts you out pursuing your own narrow tribal interests and needs for survival. And although in Fallout, you graduate to saving the world, that can be easily dispensed with by simply making more of a game out of out of whether you have a right to screw over the rest of the world to get a G.E.C.K. or a water chip. Or simply scoring the small victories like deposing a regionally powerful tyrant (I smell Loghain).

Dragon Age has a lot of such small-scale personal stories. A human noble who must avenge the murder of his family. The Dalish Elf origin can be modified to make it so that he's on a quest to cure his curse. A commoner dwarf is expelled from his home due to a crimelord. The mage origin alone is chock-full of story fodder.

None of these are bad enough to kill the game outright, but Dragon Age could have been much better.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-01-16, 04:21 PM

I really, really don't understand the logic behind this thread.
The fact that you spent almost 250 words saying that amuses me.

I'd like RPGs a lot more if they allowed for them.

And this is why we should use turn-based combat a lot more.

warty goblin

2010-01-17, 12:35 AM

At any rate, my problems with Dragon Age has nothing to do with the complaint that it's like an MMORPG or that it's to much like an interactive novel (which, being an RPG, you should expect anyway).

It has a really terrible aesthetic. It's also too tame in a number of ways.

First off, the game looks like ass in a number of places. A lot of characters don't look that great. Especially the elves. The environment is rather generic looking.

Secondly. It has no vision. This is tightly related to the first. Darkspawn are completely unmemorable villains. The aforementioned problems I've had with romancing also come into it. For a game that sells itself as mature, it's just so much fan-wankery.

The thing is, people are stuck on the idea of fantasy as the whole saving the world bit. With elves. And dwarves. And even dragons. And orcs-by-another-name.

The thing is, J.R.R. Tolkien isn't the be-all-end-all. And I'm tired of people emulating the crap out of him. Swords and sorcery would have the "darker" tone that Bioware is shooting for, since you can mix in Lovecraftian horror themes or Western themes about identity/survival/violence.

I wholly support everything in these two paragraphs.

As an additional note, Bioware has repeatedly said they drew inspiration from George RR Martin, but I sort of wonder if they got the wrong stuff. And by wrong stuff, I mean the violence, sex and generally non-cheery status of the world.

All of these are of course important parts of what makes ASoIaF gripping, because they make the world feel alive and believable, not just another journey through Clichania, land of many cliches to defeat Lord Zergaxk the Slaughterer of Kittens. But what makes the series genuinely interesting isn't all vivid descriptions of humpings and stabbings, it's the way when he switches characters- even to one you detested three pages earlier- you suddenly sympathize with and understand them.

That, to me, is the brilliance of the series, and it's that I don't see how a game where you play as a single person throughout can begin to capture. I find this a real pity, because it seems to me that a game could be an excellent medium for tearing your loyalties and thinking about the rammifications of your decisions by actually showing them and their consequences through more than one set of eyes.

This would, naturally, require some seriously creative design and hard thought about how to structure the plot. But this would also be a good thing. I'm really quite disappointed that the gaming press keeps handing out nines and tens to games that, to a remarkably high degree of accuracy, do exactly the same things as their predecessors. Not every title needs to, or should, be a groundbreaking revolutionary thing, but I do not see rewarding games that fail to innovate benefits the industry.