RPGmasterBoo

Pretty. WTF? And on top... (don't ask how I got there) All your artifacts are belong to us.

Out of curiosity I have to ask, if 4 players is the norm: how the hell do 4 players handle an encounter with a Dragon or any other uber monster from the Manual?

Irenicus dungeon and Suldanessellar are 3-4 hours playing time in a 100+ hour game. How much grind was there in the Underdark, Spellhold, Underwater city etc? Especially compared to other non-combat content. But okay *shrugs* Some of the characters had drama but it never dominated your interactions with them. You didn't spend hours waiting for them to reveal their sad life story, and you could get it over with quickly if you wanted. Personally I don't know anything about Cernd or Viconia for example because I never had them in my party. Or Keldorn for that matter. Thus I can say that BGII allowed me to choose a party I can enjoy leading. DA offers less choice in that regard, and no particularily memorable characters. Six characters means more interaction with them and means ability to include more difficult encounters and juggle more tactical options. Even if you dont enjoy the latter, the advantages of the former are obvious. PS: Not that it matters but the Jaheira romance was better than any subsequent romance in any RPG. *As for which is better in post BGII - I never found the differences expressed above to be huge. Its all the same to me. I'm just not impressed by DA any more than I was by KOTOR, JE, NWN, ME/ME2 etc. - all are equally forgettable to me. They are good games marred by lack of ambition. The Bhaalspawn tale was more ambitious than anything that followed it. Why they chose to go with "save the world" afterwards is beyond me. Not holding it against Bioware though for wanting to stay in business, but it wouldn't hurt to try something new.

On characters (as in joinable NPCs): I don't recall anyone saying that BGII characters were better developed. Of course they weren't, they were archetypes with a few comic relief characters. They had the benefit of not taking themselves too seriously (something Bioware's subsequent characters are quilty as hell of), of being around for a very long time - some of them through all three titles (which endeared them to the player) and having a clear identity (benefit of the portraits and writing). They did not grow, but they didn't need to, many of them were fun to have around just the way they were. Except Anomen. Jan and Minsc in particular are characters everyone remembers, which says a lot about them. DA's characters have well thought out storylines and reactions. Apart from Lelianna who's contradicted on so many levels its not worth discussing. Yet even though they are developed, this is done along well treaded paths in ways seen a hundred times before. Why, when you have so many resources and writers working on these characters do you have to end up with such cliche's? Why make them so boring? For all the work put into them none of them hold any surprises or any particular quirks you're likely to remember once the game's through. Characters in BGII werent good because they were deep, they were good because they were fun to have around and adventure with. And because there were enough of them for anyone to assemble a party he/she liked. Unless you're doing a Planescape Torment, what you need is the Seven Samurai gang, not drama queens. On grind: It wasnt argued that DA is much grindier than BGII. I said that the main quest forced more grind upon players than BGII's did because of the linear structure of DA's hubs. You simply have to blast your way through all the look alike cultists, werewolves, demons etc. There are grindy areas in BGII, but for the most part they're optional. As for whether DA is the best Bioware game since BGII: I'm not sure about that. It has stuff done well and stuff done badly. It is superior in many ways to other Bio games, but other titles have their advantages. Jade Empire probably has better writing, ME2 better pacing, KOTOR a better thought out hub structure etc. etc. I say that such as it is, it falls under the same level of quality as everything else Bioware has done post BGII. I'm enjoying it more than others, but that's because I like this gameplay style more than the action RPG stuff and that doesn't make it automatically better.

So essentially they're not making a WoT game?

*sigh* Yeah, you're right. @Starwars: You talk about choices in those areas and how they affect the game. I was talking about the design of the areas themselves and what appeared to be flaws in the way they were made. Those are two different things. While its obvious that DA has a lot of choices that have substantial impact on the game world, you might have noticed (I mentioned several times) that choices of this sort are not important to me in RPG's if the plot doesn't hook me in. In RPG's things that matter to me are, in order of priority: 1. story, characters and atmoshpere 2. gameplay (combat, quests etc) 3. choices Obviously if choices are the reason you play RPG's - DA is superior to BGII. The BG series had only one real choice an that was at the end of ToB. However that was the point of the entire plot and the only choice I genuinely cared about. You might ask why since it only affects the ending cinematic and certain epilogues, but since the whole plot is built around it (a plot I liked) it simply - mattered. Note: I'm playing it just now and writing my thoughts as I progress through the game. Volo keeps forcing me to go into detail I usually wouldn't but my opinion of the game is postive. If I were to review it, it would get a good grade, because it is good for the general populace. My complaints stem from having played everything else (and thus being affected by flaws others dont care about) and being tired of certain unnecessary Bioware cliches that they keep on pushing for no reason.

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.

Call of Pripyat. The game oozes atmosphere. Loving it so far.

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

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. 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

Already done, by Mel Gibson

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I don't think its an issue over whether Bioware can make a good RPG's. I find all their games to be good considering their high polish and a complete lack of competition from any other company. Only Obsidian and CDProjekt even bother making this type of game, and CDProjekt is still in its infancy. Obsidian's obligation to continue everyone else's work is dragging its creative potential down somewhat. Overall I don't think anything they made after BGII is bad. Its a "flat line" of good titles achieved through taking their original Infinity engine formula, repeating it - and in general playing safe with everything else (stories, characters and settings). Each title they release in this manner makes me more convinced that they aren't going to go beyond "good" and attempt exceptional. I don't know if Dragon Age 2 can be that improvement. For one it was obviously not planned as a trilogy with an overarching plot. And even if it was, DA isn't the greatest start. I just cant play another Jedi, Spectre, Grey Warden and save the world for the umpteenth time. If they ditch the entire Gray Warden deal, which practically forces the player to be a medieval cop and just do something else in the setting, (which by itself isn't bad) then perhaps. Their saving grace I think is that they might be trapped by the rabid fan base on the Bio forums that applauds everything they make like a retarded child, and gets torches and pitchforks out if you suggest that "something is rotten...". Plus development costs have risen a lot since those days, and some unfortunate conventions (like voices for everyone, or pushing graphical limits) just keep adding to it. Plus they've got EA looking over their shoulder and you know how that finishes in the long run *cough* Westwood *cough*. So yes, they do have to play safe to a certain extent. I just dont know how much is necessity and how much is stale company policy. On Vizima: Volo did.

None of it is particularly new but whatever. I haven't finished Dragon Age yet, but what I've seen so far is disappointing. I've played most of the better RPG's multiple times. I'm hungry for new stuff. But that doesn't mean that I'll let obvious and unnecessary flaws slide. Besides I don't dislike all new games as is obvious from my sig. Compared to the newer games Torment is boring and tedious. If you have the IQ of a potted plant, yes.

Lol. Now that you mention it. Though the story of GoW is crap anyway.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what? How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much. Dont be a wanker. Ethically wrong, but necessary in the work of Intelligence agencies.

No, it's definitely not. Yes, it definitely was. Actually, they were. R00fles! Did Volo hack your account? Anything for a more favorable outcome huh?

But it feels nice to hear them talk instead of reading through faceless lines of dialog. Besides games need VO otherwise Claudia Black wouldn't have a job. It does feel nice sometimes but I'm under the impression that it costs a huge amount of money. Money that can be spent on other, more interesting content. Dialog is faceless if its badly written. Torment had almost nothing voiced, but every line was worth reading more than the voiced stuff in almost every other RPG is worth listening to.

No. They had plenty of time, money and experience. Why should a new game be compared to their first and oldest game instead of their best? Curiously DA is probably the worst paced game Bioware has ever made, and that was never previously a problem. Even the empty areas of BG1 weren't as tedious as non stop combat in DA.

From someone who rates BG2 as the most fun RPG ever and replayed it over a dozen times, it's the best and closest thing to BG2 since the advent of 3D. So worth getting. I am in complete disagreement. Though that depends on what ramza actually liked about BGII. The combat can be challenging and fun enough, but its terribly paced, and becomes tedious. I'd rarely condemn a game before playing it through, but Dragon Age is not as seems to be more apparent by the minute - a spiritual sequel to BGII. In fact its a spiritual sequel in the exact same way Neverwinter Nights 2 was. It takes the gameplay, refines some concepts of it, wraps it up in a thoroughly generic LotR type story throws in more grind and tedium in quests than is healthy... and thats it. Really, Dragon Age is Neverwinter Nights 3 particularly in the way your Avatar is little more than a blank slate adventurer, not woven into the plot very much and out to stop the *yawn* ancient evil. In retrospect, gameplay issues aside, I think the only way to deliver a BGII experience is for the plot to be personal.

The "everything must be voice acted" deal is such a waste of resources. Not to mention how hard it is to keep the quality consistent.

Torture is just a tool, and of limited use. If the manual I've got anything to go by, its one of the less important ways of getting information. Creating and maintaining a web of informants is the most important activity. Torture falls under "purposeful acting on individual" (hard to translate), among such stuff as blackmail, manipulation etc. Whether or not the information gained by torture is valid is left up to the agent to decide, much like every other piece of information. As for whether its wrong. Yes it is. But that doesn't make it any less neccessary. Its one of those things that depends entirely on which side of the stick you're on.

About the Dune remake: they said officially and I quote "it will be more focused on action" (than Lynch's one was) That says all you need to know about it.

Judging by the content I have a suspicion this project was put on hold at some point. There's too little to see for 6 years of work.

Damn you Virumor I was saving that Vizima comparison for later. Yes, Dragon Age if you remember the promises that were made about it supposedly being dark and gritty - is neither. Its not darker than any other game Bioware has made, its only has more gore and more people die in the plot. Themes explored in it are as steeped in conventional morality as any other Bio game and the visual design evokes the same thing every other Bio game does - a high fantasy world. None of this is a flaw, it just doesn't match the promises that were made. As it is - its completely standard fantasy fare, setting wise, thematically and visually. I agree about the combat. I'm tired of killing the same enemies over and over again, and to make it worse most are seen only in their respective hubs intensifying the repetition even more. Variation is the key. In locations, monsters, spells, items etc.

Ahh Remedy... burn in hell.