Cl_Flushentityhero

I think the criticism is fair, though it takes a special person to be as bothered by it as the reviewer. DA's combat is unabashedly old-school, and in some ways legitimately better at it than its inspiration (class and attribute balance stomps BG, IMO). In other ways not, but I never expected a game that surpassed BG2 in every aspect. Also, IMO, there are plenty of excuses for a RPG to not be completely balanced in this day and age. The primary one is that's it's hard to accomplish.

While I agree with train in theory, I'm not sure I personally have ever been really flummoxed because a game was too easy. I've had games where some of the features/abilities were unnecessary to beat them, but that was just one point against the game and didn't ruin my overall enjoyment. On the other hand, some of my favorite games have famously high difficulty. It's not the difficulty that makes them fun though, it's because the gameplay was designed around certain things that wouldn't be necessary if it was easier. If Devil May Cry allowed you to simply wade in and button mash like God of War, I probably never would've figured out what was particularly interesting about the game beyond the stylish aesthetics. So yes, difficulty can contribute to the game, but only if the core mechanics are deep and balanced enough to make it worth the effort. This is even harder for WRPGs because they are usually expected to offer a variety of approaches and balance them all, at least in fun if not in pure difficulty. If you ask me, particularly in a spy game, the guns-blazing approach should if anything be the most difficult, but gratifying to pull off. Subtlety, by contrast, should be the path of least resistance. Usually WRPG conventions dictate that "fighter" is the easiest way to play a game, and I think that's bollocks. I happen to know a few "fighters" from various walks of life, and a common sentiment is that a lot of situations either were or could've been much easier using a non-combat approach. That's kind of off-topic though. Ideally yes, not only should there be multiple difficulties, but an actual slider that allows you to select the exact sweet spot for your preferences. Heck, give players control over a variety of difficulty-related settings so they can craft their own experience. The countless complaints about Far Cry 2's low weapon damage wouldn't have happened if players could scale it to their liking.

I thought the exact complaint was that the quasi-tutorial was too difficult. If I'm correct in that, then you're probably worrying for nothing.

I was about to nerdrage if they were no longer playable, but as it is I'm not too bothered.

Assuming that every game's micromanagement plays exactly the same, yes.

Huh, interesting. Even so, it doesn't link the levels of enemy soldiers to your IMP, so significant skill discrepancies either way are possible. I consider being able to stack the skill gradient in your favor a plus, as it's yet another thing to consider (or not consider). You're outnumbered and outgunned, fair play is a no-no. I don't think it's under dispute that video game AI is ultimately dumb, my issue is more the tools in place to deal with it. There's really only so much you can get out of DA's micro; obviously some people care for it more than others. If you read my critique of the system and thought "oh, that's what makes it so awesome because it's like Baldur's Gate," then you're probably the former. Personally, I think the amount of combat blunts the game's finer qualities. I felt that way about the BG games as well. The game is still fun, I just choose to play it on normal difficulty and try to keep things progressing smoothly. I don't want to hit a wall with difficulty because I don't see what is cool or fun or balanced about the party micro itself. Also, if I felt an inexplicable urge to jump in, I could do so practically whenever I wanted since I seem to spend most of the game fighting or looting regardless of how efficient I am at it. As such, I can sympathize with the original poster even if I don't exactly share his pain.

As I thought about it, I realized you pretty much described Jagged Alliance 2, XCOM, and a lot of other "tactical combat games." Scaling enemy levels and all. JA2 combat is far from a screen saver, and enemies don't really scale, so that's an unusual choice of quote to make your point. The closer you get to Meduna, the more dangerous the enemies, it has nothing to do with the status or levels of your team itself (which, by the way, are not magically locked together with each other or the enemies). Yes. A world exists in a certain state, and as the game progresses I want to become increasingly powerful within that world. The only reasons enemies should become more competent are those handled within the story itself. Would certainly make some of the larger dungeons less tedious. Well, that's their preference. I never finished BG or BG2 because I got bored of the combat. Additionally, at least in the BG series you could block enemies to prevent them from simply running through your lines and vice versa. The rules governing what makes a character effective in combat are pretty interesting to me. I built my characters carefully so that they would excel at doing certain things. Then when the **** hits the fan, I expect them to do those things. Ability spam and healing micro are not interesting to me, and with use of the game's "tactic" system I seldom had to bother with them. Additionally, I am not sure by what criteria you define "min/maxer," where I come from that's a dirty word referring to ****ty RPers. I made plenty of RP decisions that significantly increased combat difficulty, including axing my only spellcaster right before the end-game. I also played a front-liner rogue with no lockpick, traps, pickpocket, or stealth; which is not exactly the ZOMGpwnstick of Dragon Age. IMO, playing an interesting character and interacting with the world from his viewpoint is much more mentally engaging than DA's party combat system. So yeah, I had plenty of fun with those two areas. Actually managing the party in combat seemed pretty shallow to me though, and I was glad to keep it to a relative minimum. Apparently not, since I stopped playing it in the middle of a dungeon due to ennui. I am assuming you mean in actually controlling combat, and not the character-building fashion I mentioned earlier. I consider JA2 with the 1.13 and HAM mods applied to be pretty much the gold standard for party RPGish combat. A lot of the stuff that was exploitable, broken, or unbalanced in vanilla . . . isn't. Additionally, real-world tactics apply much more readily, and some players consider them essential for the harder difficulties. At any given moment there's a fair amount to think about on whether to do this or that, whereas with DA in combat most of the stuff I wanted done could be (and was, via the automated controls) reduced to robotic if-then commands. Other notables include Men of War, Company of Heroes, Uncharted 2, Battlefield 2 & 2142, Operation Darkness, Valkyria Chronicles, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, OFP: Dragon Rising, God Hand, Kane & Lynch, the Devil May Cry series, and Mount & Blade. All the above reward tactical flexibility and/or real-world tactics to varying extents. I'm not saying they're all particularly cerebral, but there is an engaging core on which to riff at least. And yes, many of them are not WRPGs or even squad management games. Not fair? Tough luck Dragon Age, trying to be "tactical" by hurling hordes of equal-level enemies at the player inevitably results in comparison to other games that, IMHO, handle it better.

I agree that the combat's "tactical" aspect is overrated. It seems deep at first glance, until you realize the downright silly approaches that can be extremely effective. First of all, once I surmounted the difficulty curve, most battles became a screen saver (on normal) anyway despite the annoying enemy level scaling. It wasn't a matter of me changing how I played, I just got powerful items and abilities to combat large numbers of enemies. Those battles that weren't auto-won were generally solved by adding item buffs and being more careful to heal anybody who was low. I was using three front-liners and a support mage most of the time, so it's not like my party was all that balanced. Second, having a tank sustain damage while everybody else attacks and the mage auto-heals isn't all that involved a process. Microing a character pretty much amounts to spamming offensive abilities until you run out of stamina or need defensive abilities. In most cases, simply luring part of an enemy force would allow pretty much any party to succeed. Any battle that I lost rushing in was usually solved in this amazingly unrealistic manner. There are also people who have supposedly dominated the game with a party of mages in a way a balanced party couldn't hope to achieve. There's relatively little significance of terrain or environment, with the AI magically slipping past you if you attempt to block a chokepoint and most battlefields amounting to large open areas anyway. Enemy traps are seldom your doom, and most pre-battle preparation is impossible in the toughest fights, which tend to be foisted upon you via cutscene. Combat movement is goofy. Aside from the aforementioned inability to block, it's also impossible for melee characters (friend or foe) to catch up to a running enemy, and unlikely that they will stop them in their tracks. In most cases, I could just run up to an enemy caster and kill him, which was necessary since they're usually the most dangerous enemies by far. In the endgame, entire squads of enemies just ran past my tanks and I had to chase them until they reached their scripted destination. Could be circumvented with ranged stun abilties, but that would be to limit annoyance rather than gain a combat advantage. Characters are also sometimes indecisive about actually attacking. Basically, repeating certain simple tactics rote is usually more effective than being balanced and adaptable, which in my book fails the definition of a good tactical combat experience. IMO, the view that the game provides a deep tactical challenge can only really come from three things: 1) A fairly modest expectation of tactical depth in RPGs. 2) The discovery of one of various simple exploits that make the combat easy and repetitive, recycled in most battles and followed by forum assertions of "you have to use good tactics" to surmount the difficulty. 3) Coming up with sophisticated tactics that don't fall under 2 yet still make the combat manageable. These people are in essence creating their own challenge, which is fine for them but it doesn't make the game deep. Just because elaborate plans can work doesn't mean they are necessary or the best solution.

Oh, okay. That said, My experience with CRPGs (not counting scheduled NWN campaigns) is that combat tends to dominate the gameplay mechanics. As such, attempts to include a combat-light class usually fall pretty flat and just end up being crappy fighters for all intents and purposes. I appreciate DA for somewhat acknowledging that focus and at least attempting to balance accordingly. In a well-run PnP-style campaign though, I could potentially see the use for non-combat classes. At the same time, they are usually about adventure and danger, so it's not like I believe we should have clerk and weaver classes.

And traps, poison, stealing, and herbalism. All of the above are "skills" in DA, thus available to every class. Heck, you could give a zerker pickpocket if you wanted. Really, the only actual abilities unique to the rogue in DA are stealth and lockpicking. Stealth is only really useful in DA if you can kick ass once you're done sneaking into position (while not getting your ass kicked), and lockpick is something you can easily live without. You also have the class specialties. Assassin is designed to kill people from flanking angles. Duelist is designed to kill people toe-to-toe. Ranger is designed to summon pets that kill people. Bard is designed to let you buff the party so that they can more effectively kill people. Starting to come into focus why rogues should be able to hold their own in combat?

It's weapon-based, not a rogue ability. If you wanted to be a badass knife fighter, you could.

I'm not surprised that you did more damage in the early game then. The feat at level 8 swaps your STR damage bonus with cunning (if higher), so if the difference isn't very pronounced the feat is pretty insignificant. If say, you're rolling with 12 STR like I was, it tends to amount to a whole lot of suck until level 8. Also, Maria pointed out that the dex damage bonus I mentioned earlier (it supposedly applies to *anybody* using piercing weapons, not just rogues) isn't working properly. That might explain a lot. After they patch it, I'll definitely re-evaluate my position. Then I'm not really sure we're disagreeing, I just choose to say it in a much stronger way.

I pose that we have different ideas of what constitutes pretty sweet damage. Also, there's nothing that quantifies "growing pains," it all has to do with how much failure you are willing to accept. I dropped Alistair like a bad habit, so I can't vouch for his effectiveness beyond the prologue. Sten, Morrigan, and Dog ASAP; with Shale and Oghren eventually replacing Sten and Dog. Point of interest, using anything other than a dagger robs you of your dex damage bonus, which as a high dex character is not insubstantial. Again, I think we may have different standards for what is effective. Even in my character's new and improved state, he's lucky to keep up with my damage dealers. Oghren can do 80 damage per (slow) hit from the front, even with a good flank and poison it would take a few criticals for my rogue to match that in the same timeframe (this is using momentum and dueling, and with expensive items). Shale can rock out around 40 damage per punch and keeps a pretty good attack rate going. Those are the two that immediately come to mind. I've certainly used the skill a number of other times, but seldom did I feel it made my life a whole lot easier. . Most of the time, it seemed like it either got me out of fights I probably could've won anyway or simply added color to the dialogue without significantly truncating the quest structure or increasing my reward. Suffice to say I've had plenty of difficulties where combat deficiency screwed my party over and virtually no situations in which lack of persuasion would've screwed my party over. It's kind of inherent in the party-based design: unless the persuade-avoidable battles are the toughest in the game, then the easiest way to surmount the game's most difficult parts is to be a badass combatant. Re the other stuff, that's kind of my point. If a character puts all his feats and skills into combat at the expense of other skills, he ought to be good at it throughout the game, not after patching up certain class deficiencies like adding cunning to damage at level 8, evasion at level 12, or the Duelist's defensive mode at level 16. At the end of the day you can make a rogue work, but IMO it's a labor of love. If you aren't personally invested in how cool the class concept is, then you're taking on an unnecessary mechanical difficulty.

Haven't explored archery yet, I tend to be a melee guy.

So, I've gone to level 11 and dabbled in a lot of the quest areas with my combat-centric dex rogue (duelist with TWF), and tentatively I'm inclined to say my concerns about rogue combat balance were at least somewhat justified. The early levels were tough. I swear there was a point in the game where my character would've lost a 1v1 with a standard Genlock. Frequent misses, mediocre damage even with backstab, almost nonexistent dodge/parry chance, and fragility associated with light armor were the order of the day. This may be somewhat alleviated by playing a strength-heavy rogue, which I'll experiment with later. They definitely improve with level though. The feat letting you add cunning to damage at level 8 represented a turning point in the combat effectiveness of my character, and the combat-centric specializations have some promising abilities at higher levels. Additionally, over time you can cheese your main character with more powerful items than the rest of the party. Combine those and my character can finally deal out some death and avoid getting owned instantly when enemies attack him. Also, even the most basic poison can also make a significant difference in the outcome of a fight. That said, a lot of these cool abilities seem like basic functionality that the class should've had out of the gate. For example, poison is great, but it's a skill + item hunt + limited use buff that helps to bring rogues closer to the abilities warriors have all day. The ability to inflict damage and avoid death is pretty fundamental in such a combat-heavy game, not a nice bonus. Leveling is an experience of "oh, now I've filled another gaping hole in my character's abilities," whereas warriors get basic functionality pretty much out of the gate and simply improve with time. It's not like my character is getting much mileage out of his rogue abilities either. Without putting feats into lockpicking or many points into cunning, I can probably count the chests my character was able to unlock on one hand. Social skills are occasionally useful, but usually you'll end up fighting the guy later with more reinforcements anyway. All this is to say I'm not terribly surprised. This is also somewhat separate from my opinion of the game itself, which I've been quite enjoying thus far. Predictably it can be a bit of a slog to advance the plot via room after room of large battles, but there's just enough actual story to keep me engaged. It also seems like the best writing in a Bio game thus far to me, with the NPCs by and large being fairly entertaining. I will say that I find myself wishing it did something new with the WRPG formula beyond "kick down door, slay monster, get better at kicking down doors and slaying monsters, repeat." I'd say it's pretty clear Bio wasn't trying to innovate with gameplay though. As such, it's hard to call that a legitimate point against it.

Heh, I'm pretty sure the codex is destined never to consider anything the equal of BG2.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to raining on DA's parade for legitimate reasons, but the Eurogamer review is just . . . . spiteful.

Alan, how did the rogue class hold up in combat for you?

Heh, doubt it. Too bad I missed out, that would've been interesting.

Eh, it looks more visceral than the first ME, but I wouldn't call it vastly improved. All the stuff pop mentioned seemed superficial to me. Then again, I didn't have a problem with the first game's combat either.

Whatever you do, don't try to go it on veteran unless you have something to prove. I thought "yeah, I'm good at FPS," and then veteran difficulty crushed me. There were a few parts that I had to retry dozens of times. On any difficulty, the sheer number of enemies is pretty hard to keep up with attention-wise.

It's a worthwhile experience. The SP is short but good and the MP community is active.

Good stuff.

Well, they've got stones (in case the price bump didn't convince you). I don't know whether they're making a particularly deep statement with it, but it's something new.

Interesting.