Dragon Age discussion

[Gorth]

Start of old thread

End of old thread

 

Speaking of expansion packs and DLC, continuting where the old thread ended

 

So I bit the bullet and got Return to Ostagar. And played it. Here are my thoughts on it:

 

(some spoilerish things, but vague enough to not warrant tags I think)

 

There is a lot of combat. It's basically only combat. And some codes entries that give some clues as to what Cailan was thinking. And some loot. Cailan's armor (which is so, so, there are definitely better high tier armors in the game), and a couple of nice weapons (3 or 4 depending on where you are in the game I guess).

 

The premise for going back is a bit stupid. But I guess it works.

 

Then there was fighting. Lots of fighting. Unfortunately, most of it grindy fighting. There are a few yellows here and there, but nothing really difficult. And the archers didn't seem to have scattershot (the stunning one). So while there are many archers, they aren't really scary (this is for a level 23 character).

 

Some fights are staged in an interesting way, but most are just bumrushes.

 

There is a stretch at the end where you get the kind of cannon fodder that is in the endgame of the original campaign. It's fairly short though, so I not that annoying (although I didn't mind it that much in the original campaign, where the fodder made a little more sense thematically).

 

Then there is the end fight vs an orange monster. Which was laughably easy.

 

Most of the scenery is reused, of course. There are a couple of new areas, but they aren't long. As far as playtime is concerned, I think it was a little longer than Warden's Keep, but nowhere near as nicely designed. Other than at the start of the quest and the very end, there is no dialogue. None. Although there is some amusing banter between Alistair and Wynne if you bring both.

 

For a level 23 character, the DLC has about 4,000 and change worth of XP for those who care). Enough to push me over to level 24 (at least with some donations to my troops).

 

If you like the battles of DAO, Return to Ostagar could be worth getting. It's not terribly expensive and has a few interesting moments. But it's a little borderline, to be honest. I think it's probably more interesting to have if you go there a lot earlier in the game. maybe around level 15 or so. I didn't think it was a waste of money but that is because I love the game and the combat in it. If you don't like the combat, stay away.

 

Haven't bought any DLC's, only used the ones the game "shipped" with. Wonder whether the expansion, The Awakening will be an awakening?

[Volourn]

"To tell the truth, I am also tired of games where you just click on a target, watch your characters fight for 2 minutes until they kill their enemy and then repeat the process."

 

Good. Because that was the BG series anutshell. Thankfully,. DA doesn't work that way. You'll liekly die quick if you just sit, and watch your party fight as you greatly benefit from using s[pecial abilties. BG series is so ioutdated it's not even funny. they were fun - a decade ago. They just don't measure up to BIO's newer games.

 

The writings, the characters, the atmosphere, the graphics, the role-playing, the character/combat systems (barring ME2 being dumbed down compared to ME1) are simply superior in every meaningful way now.

 

All BG1 had was empty areas to go around killing things. That's it. BG2 improved on this, and is actually a solid rpg in its own right; but C&C wise no match for the newer games. The fact that ME2 has decisions you make throughout the game effect the eventual outcome absolutely,a nd completely crushes BG2. DA with its origins does the same. The fact that DA fighters can do more than click on enemy and watch rest of the battle absolutely buries BG2. No conjtest.

 

DEATH TO BG2 LONG LIVE DA!

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"To tell the truth, I am also tired of games where you just click on a target, watch your characters fight for 2 minutes until they kill their enemy and then repeat the process."

 

Good. Because that was the BG series anutshell. Thankfully,. DA doesn't work that way. You'll liekly die quick if you just sit, and watch your party fight as you greatly benefit from using s[pecial abilties. BG series is so ioutdated it's not even funny. they were fun - a decade ago. They just don't measure up to BIO's newer games.

 

The writings, the characters, the atmosphere, the graphics, the role-playing, the character/combat systems (barring ME2 being dumbed down compared to ME1) are simply superior in every meaningful way now.

 

All BG1 had was empty areas to go around killing things. That's it. BG2 improved on this, and is actually a solid rpg in its own right; but C&C wise no match for the newer games. The fact that ME2 has decisions you make throughout the game effect the eventual outcome absolutely,a nd completely crushes BG2. DA with its origins does the same. The fact that DA fighters can do more than click on enemy and watch rest of the battle absolutely buries BG2. No conjtest.

 

DEATH TO BG2 LONG LIVE DA!

Ugh, grow up.

[Volourn]

I did which isn why BG2 is so passe. the people who hold onto it like it's still the best ever are the ones who need to grow up and let the past be the past.

[Oner]

Because BG 1 is grindier I guess?

 

Anything for a more favorable outcome huh?

Nope. BG 2 (as far as I got anyway) had context for the fights. BG 1 was about randomly exploringkilling everything in the wilderness.

[Tigranes]

Ugh, grow up.

 

Volourn will never grow up, he's like the Black Peter Pan, here to tell you that it might be great to always be a child, but everybody around is gonna hate it.

 

The RTO feedback seems to confirm what these DLCs are about - more combat. I guess more power to those who want more of it. I'm just glad the DLCs aren't anything I want, because I won't be tempted to deal with the buggy DLC downloader thing.

[Maria Caliban]

If it matters, the writers for Awakening are

[Guest Slinky]

Am I the only one who thinks that complete change of the writing team at Bio could have a very positive effect on their games? They are okay writers, but they really could use some fresh ideas in my opinion.

[Maria Caliban]

Dragon Age had only one writer that had worked on a previous BioWare game.

[Gorgon]

Volourn is black ?

[Guest Slinky]

Dragon Age had only one writer that had worked on a previous BioWare game.

Huh? I could have sworn that they have had the same team atleast the last 7 years. Then the one who keeps his finger on repeat is someone else in there.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Slinky

[Maria Caliban]

Dragon Age had only one writer that had worked on a previous BioWare game.

Huh? I could have sworn that they have had the same team atleast the last 7 years. Then the one who keeps his finger on repeat is someone else in there.

 

As far as I know, Dragon Age was developed in about 6-5 years. They had a max of four writers working on it at one time. David, Mary, and Sheryl were there all the time. Jennifer, Ferret, and Fernando were cycled through, but they didn

[RPGmasterBoo]

Am I the only one who thinks that complete change of the writing team at Bio could have a very positive effect on their games? They are okay writers, but they really could use some fresh ideas in my opinion.

 

I agree. I'm tired of the deja vu effect in dialog and quest resolutions. Its come to the point where I know what the characters are going to say and the way they're going to say it before they even start speaking.

All BG1 had was empty areas to go around killing things. That's it. BG2 improved on this, and is actually a solid rpg in its own right; but C&C wise no match for the newer games. The fact that ME2 has decisions you make throughout the game effect the eventual outcome absolutely,a nd completely crushes BG2. DA with its origins does the same. The fact that DA fighters can do more than click on enemy and watch rest of the battle absolutely buries BG2. No conjtest.

 

You're such a sad case. You grasp at these "choices" like a drowning man grasps at a straws completely ignoring that they mean nothing if the player doesn't care about the outcome. Just because you can swallow the same save the world tale for the tenth time if they allow you a handful of choices doesn't meant the rest of us can.

 

You also pull out the single advantage that DA has in combat and put it on a pedestal, while completely ignoring that BGII had two more characters in combat, two completely different spellcasting classes and about three times as many spells as DA. Not to mention infinitely better designed dungeons, much greater variation in enemies and better designed combat encounters.

 

I shouldn't even bother - "none are so blind as those who refuse to see" but you're so profoundly irritating in your selective approach to rating a game you practically force me to respond.

 

Face it, just because you hate something, that doesn't make it bad, and wishing for something to be better than what you hate - doesn't make it so either. For pete's sake you don't need to sing praises to BGII but keep the irrational bullsh!t to a minimum. PLEASE

Edited February 13, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Raithe]

I do get the feeling that the future of crpg's is going to lean heavily into the "main hero" and "two companions" style that they seem to be doing lately.... mostly because it's "easier" to set up games like that on consoles. And that seems to be the all important market for games development lately. Much as it sucks for those of us who love our pc's.

 

There seem to be a lot of games developed for the console that will get "ports" onto pc's... and games developed for "console & pc" but which tend to be designed so the consoles can handle it, and thus even the pc version won't be that un-consolified.

 

Mouse and keyboard work great to control larger parties.. but console gamepads.. eh, not so much.

[Maria Caliban]

It's easier to set up games like that on PCs as well. We're never going to see a BioWare RPG where you can use PC + five companions at a time again. PC + three companions + summoned critter is the most you can hope for.

 

There are no romances in Awakening, by the way.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Nothing stopped them from doing it, they had 6 years and a big budget.

[Oner]

There are no romances in Awakening, by the way.

But the "lady" has big boobies!

[HoonDing]

So the expansion is going to feature an Alistair clone & Morrigan clone... me not buy.

[Junai]

The fact that DA fighters can do more than click on enemy and watch rest of the battle absolutely buries BG2.

 

DA is consolish imo.. Click'n kill. Like NWN2.

IN BG/IWD you actually have to use some strategy and brains to succeed.

 

 

Death to teH new s**t, long live IWD1 !

 

 

J.

[Spider]

I use way more strategy in DA than in BG2. In BG2, most encounters can be dealt with with "select entire party, click an enemy, wait until it's dead then repeat on the next one". Cast breach every now and then to remove some invulnerabilities and then that's it. IWD2 is better in this regard, but BG is a lot worse.

 

Overall, I think difficulty level in DA has a lot to do with it. Play it on nightmare without strategy and it will go bad, normal is way more forgiving from what I've heard.

[Volourn]

"Am I the only one who thinks that complete change of the writing team at Bio could have a very positive effect on their games? They are okay writers, but they really could use some fresh ideas in my opinion."

 

No.

 

 

"IN BG/IWD you actually have to use some strategy and brains to succeed."

 

What strategy? Click your warriors to attack and then watch them do so for rest of battle? WOW, man, that's DEEP!

 

 

 

"two more characters in combat,"

 

Don't care.

 

 

" two completely different spellcasting classes"

 

Whose spellsm are coevred by the DA mage. Don't need a 'cleric' when the mage can do the same thing.

 

 

" and about three times as many spells as DA."

 

Dunno about this plus BG2 had way more useless or repetive spells.

 

 

"Not to mention infinitely better designed dungeons,"

 

Sometimes yes soemtimes no.

 

 

" much greater variation in enemies"

 

*shrug*

 

 

" and better designed combat encounters. "

 

No.

 

 

"I shouldn't even bother - "none are so blind as those who refuse to see" but you're so profoundly irritating in your selective approach to rating a game you practically force me to respond. "

 

Take your owna dvice. then again, you think a stinkin' roent is the best npc of all time. Makes your opinion suspect.

 

 

"Face it, just because you hate something, that doesn't make it bad, and wishing for something to be better than what you hate - doesn't make it so either. For pete's sake you don't need to sing praises to BGII but keep the irrational bullsh!t to a minimum. PLEASE"

 

Who says In ahteb BG2? I lvoed BG2. Get over the pain that someone dares criticize your lover. Again, take your own advice.

 

I'll quote you. Face it, just ebcause you hate something, that doesn't make it bad, and wishing something to be better than what you hate - doesn't make it so either. For pete's sake you don't need to sing praises of DA but keep the irrational bull**** to a minimum. PLEASE!

 

 

Works both ways, no?

 

HA! Good fun!

 

 

"I use way more strategy in DA than in BG2. In BG2, most encounters can be dealt with with "select entire party, click an enemy, wait until it's dead then repeat on the next one".

 

Exactly. More than half of BG2's battles are exactly like that. Click and watch. How in the bejeebers is that superiod combat deisgn comapred to a agme that keeps you ACTIVELY involved AT ALL TIMES!?!

Edited February 13, 2010 by Volourn

[RPGmasterBoo]

It keeps you actively involved by spamming endless waves of enemies at you. I think I killed about a hundred cultists in the temple in a thoroughly generic dungeon. The only battle in that entire portion of the game that required strategy and thinking was the dragon. Unless you count gobbling potions and slinging damage spells into groups of 3-5 cultists some sort of strategy.

 

+it wasn't optional.

 

Let me remind you of the main quest areas of BGII.

 

Irenicus dungeon (linear introduction)

Athkatla (free roaming to collect cash, some linear tasks depending on which side you choose)

Spellhold + maze (linear)

Underwater city (optional)

Underdark (much of it optional)

Athkatla (just one linear quest area)

Sulandessesar (linear)

Hell (finale)

 

I wont even go into the Athkatla / Denerim comparison.

 

Now lets compare DA

Origin + grindy forest + the battle (linear intro)

Brescilian forest, or/and (composed of: elvish camp the friendly area, then grind: forest 1, forest 2, ruins 1, ruins 2) (all must be travelled)

Circle of the Magi or/and (composed of: templar area then grind: floor 1, floor 2, floor 3, fade, final floor) (all must be travelled)

Haven Village/Temple (composed of: village - grind: temple, more temple, caverns, dragon, non combat area) (all must be travelled)

 

That's what I've seen so far. The quests are optional, but the linear grind - isn't.

 

Dragon Age forces the worst of its content on you, while allowing it best content to be optional. It results in pure frustration and kills most of the fun.

 

BGII keeps most of its best content for the main quest allowing you to do whatever else you want, when you want.

 

Dragon Age combines main quest areas with most side quests and with grind thus you must do them all at the same time. BGII features almost no grind in main quest areas, concentrating on advancing the story.

 

Why does DA do this? Simple: the game is not as big as it would lead you to believe. If the encounters were in any sort of regular rythm you could plow through the game and all its areas twice as quickly. To artificially lengthen the experience they added at least 30% more combat than necessary. If it allowed you to skip as great a portion of its content as you could in BGII, there would be very little left to play.

 

All this brings us back to what was discussed in the previous topic - this game has too little unique content for 6 years of work.

Edited February 13, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Hurlshort]

Boo, you seem like a feller who can see reason. There is no progress to be made by debating Volourn. In fact it is quite likely that he is just a bot. That would explain his inability after 6 years on this forum to use quotes or spoiler tags.

[Volourn]

"inability after 6 years on this forum to use quotes"

 

Your trolling aside, I use quotes ALL the time. The key is I sue them in the way I was taught in school. With the use of these: "

 

'Nough said. Keep your crying falmesm coming. I know you are still upset that I don't want to be your friend, and rather disucss actual games on a gaming site than sing loves with you; but geez. get over it.

 

P.S. DA > BG2

[Hurlshort]

Uh oh, he's getting angry...