Dragon Age

[Purkake]

I just find it annoying when people complain about some obscure details that barely affect the overall experience.

 

I must have taken a blow to the head, since I suddenly find myself agreeing with everything Purkake says.

 

I'll be talking to miniature giant space hamsters next, ffs.

 

As I said to the last person who said that, if it lasts for more than a day, go see a doctor.

 

 

Or maybe I'm the voice of sanity in this crazy pre-release backlash

 

Edited October 21, 2009 by Purkake

[Amentep]

I just find it annoying when people complain about some obscure details that barely affect the overall experience.

 

I'm not complaining though.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Lots of small things add up to big things. Having to put up with a NPC management system you might hate for 80 hours is like water torture. The drip-drip-drip of witty NPC banter, the splosh-splosh-splosh of wordy, self-important cutscenes...

 

Hey, the rest of the game might be so cool that these things are barely noticeable. I just doubt it.

 

Mee, I'm gonna find the least obtrusive, underwritten NPCs and just crack on because the scenery, quests and combat look just up my street.

 

Cheers

MC

[Purkake]

^How about you play the game and then decide? It's just around the corner now, no need for endless speculation.

 

@Amentep: I wasn't accusing you specifically.

[Oner]

MC-s post made me think about NPC interactions and I think if anyone insults my dog (Morrigan, Leliana, Alistair maybe), it'll be a good reason to off them. ^^

[Maria Caliban]

Several developers have said that the Dog is smarter than Alistair anyway.

[Slowtrain]

The drip-drip-drip of witty NPC banter, the splosh-splosh-splosh of wordy, self-important cutscenes...

 

 

I wanted to drop that flying elf chick in BG2 off a bridge. Didn't really hurt the game though.

 

edit: As far as intra-party banter goes I prefer party members refrain from ever speaking unless I speak to them first, which I never will. By all accounts I am an extreme minority in this area.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Slowtrain

[vault_overseer]

I must have taken a blow to the head

 

The attack crushes the temple. Good night, Gracie.

[alanschu]

If the player is stupid, he should be handicapped. Just like killing everone in town (stupid) will handicap you. There is no actual "consequence" in your "choice" if you can just replace NPC's via a camp that you carry with you.

 

 

This isn't about the player being stupid. It's about a specific result from the choices they make in the game. This is the player making a choice in the game, and then having the game be virtually impossible to complete if you wish to make that choice, simply because you decided you'd rather quest with some different party members.

 

Unless you're saying that this player should be forced to reload the game, and make a different choice that he wants to make, simply because he was "stupid" and was playing with different party members that would get upset at the choices that he wanted to make at this particular point of the game. Especially in a game that is as long to complete as this one.

 

 

Heck, even Baldur's Gate had NPCs scale their level close to yours the first time you encounter them.

 

 

 

Tell me, how exactly could a person lose this game. Is it even possible to lose? If you cant die and it doesnt matter who you kill its just god mode.

 

Party wipes. Which are actually quite common in my experience with the game.

 

 

If the worst possible "consequence" of killing your entire party and replacing them with fully leveled NPC's is that you dont like their personality, I dont consider that much of a consequence.

 

A lot of people do. Suddenly that character no longer exists and contributes to the overall story of the game. Skills and abilites that you allocated to that character are no longer available (unless you're the weird type and spec all of your builds exactly the same... but again you were off calling people stupid here).

 

 

This isn't about people being stupid and deciding randomly to kill off their party members.

 

 

 

But alanschu has already stated the urn thing happens very late in to game, but point taken.

 

The Urn thing does NOT have to happen late in the game.

Edited October 21, 2009 by alanschu

[Volourn]

Just as important, I doubt it's the only event that may effect how party members react either.

[213374U]

Is the game worthless if you can't lose?

Yes. If you can't lose, you can't very well "win". Uncertainty in the outcome is one of the necessary conditions for something to be a "game". If you remove that, you no longer have a game, it's something else.

 

I don't know why but lately I'm getting this weird idea that game devs in some genres are attempting to minimize the chances of losing as much as possible, while keeping the illusion of challenge -- "excessive" losing can result, as alan points out, in the player giving up on the game, and devs don't want that. Of course, what constitutes "excessive" is up for debate; however if you keep lowering challenge standards, then we'll eventually reach the point where a game without a win button will be deemed "too challenging" by some people that aren't interested in actually playing... they simply want plots and characters spoonfed to them.

 

Why have we seen huge advances in graphics but innovative AI and gameplay design are, for all intents and purposes, stuck?

 

Nah, couldn't be. Better tell my shrink.

 

 

I'm playing games for the experience, not for a virtual pat on the back because I beat it.

That's your problem. I play games for GAMEPLAY (who woulda thunk it?)

 

If you are looking for "experiences" in that vein, books are the way to go.

 

 

Or weed.

 

[alanschu]

however if you keep lowering challenge standards, then we'll eventually reach the point where a game without a win button will be deemed "too challenging" by some people that aren't interested in actually playing... they simply want plots and characters spoonfed to them.

 

I don't think that that is that much of a concern in gaming in general. However, I think people have the idea that RPGs are supposed to be these tyte rules mechanics type of games, that are very tactical in their combat. They CAN be, but I don't think the need to be.

 

Some of the best RPG experiences I have are games that are decidedly watered down and/or simplistic in its combat. Examples off the top of my head are Ultima VII, Planescape: Torment, Bloodlines, Fallout, and Final Fantasy 3/6.

 

I have always considered story to be the most important thing in an RPG, and my favourite RPGs are the ones that have good stories. Some of them have decent combat, others have weak combat. I like the idea of combat being challenging in the respect of "Should I fight these slavers? There's a lot of them and they could kick my ass." However, when I am going through a dungeon grind part of an RPG, like Bloodlines, I don't particularly care if it is challenging or easy, but I'd prefer it to be too easy instead of too challenging, because too challenging means I get stuck and frustrated. It's a lot easier for me to tolerate some mild boredom of combat (which I rarely find even if it's easy. I'm usually roleplaying my character and not worrying about whether or not something is particularly challenging) and continue on with the story than get frustrated and stuck.

 

 

That's your problem. I play games for GAMEPLAY (who woulda thunk it?)

 

If you are looking for "experiences" in that vein, books are the way to go.

 

I go for both. I definitely prefer to spend my time playing games than reading a book. I can appreciate the tactical combat of a Baldur's Gate, but Baldur's Gate 2 is my favourite of that series because I enjoyed that story the most.

Edited October 21, 2009 by alanschu

[213374U]

Yeah, but you have also conquered the world by 1947, so you're cool.

[alanschu]

I usually have most of it conquered before then. America is a bit pesky but once I get a foothold it's not so bad. Lots of amphibious landings needed.

 

And apparently Russia is huge.

[Purkake]

Is the game worthless if you can't lose?

Yes. If you can't lose, you can't very well "win". Uncertainty in the outcome is one of the necessary conditions for something to be a "game". If you remove that, you no longer have a game, it's something else.

 

I don't know why but lately I'm getting this weird idea that game devs in some genres are attempting to minimize the chances of losing as much as possible, while keeping the illusion of challenge -- "excessive" losing can result, as alan points out, in the player giving up on the game, and devs don't want that. Of course, what constitutes "excessive" is up for debate; however if you keep lowering challenge standards, then we'll eventually reach the point where a game without a win button will be deemed "too challenging" by some people that aren't interested in actually playing... they simply want plots and characters spoonfed to them.

 

Why have we seen huge advances in graphics but innovative AI and gameplay design are, for all intents and purposes, stuck?

 

Nah, couldn't be. Better tell my shrink.

You're deductive skills are excellent indeed. Have you or Gifter or MC played the new Prince of Persia by any chance? What did you think of it?

I'm playing games for the experience, not for a virtual pat on the back because I beat it.

That's your problem. I play games for GAMEPLAY (who woulda thunk it?)

 

If you are looking for "experiences" in that vein, books are the way to go.

 

 

Or weed.

 

Hey, I read books as well! Well, sometimes I do...

 

Different games focus on different things. I play Diablo 2 for the awesome gameplay, I didn't play Planescape: Torment for the gameplay.

[Oner]

Several developers have said that the Dog is smarter than Alistair anyway.

See guys, this is how favorite characters are made.

 

I don't know why but lately I'm getting this weird idea that game devs in some genres are attempting to minimize the chances of losing as much as possible, while keeping the illusion of challenge -- "excessive" losing can result, as alan points out, in the player giving up on the game, and devs don't want that. Of course, what constitutes "excessive" is up for debate; however if you keep lowering challenge standards, then we'll eventually reach the point where a game without a win button will be deemed "too challenging" by some people that aren't interested in actually playing... they simply want plots and characters spoonfed to them.

This reminds me of the eternal whining over what a game is supposed to be. Hard, fun, easy, fun, good story, shiny, realistic, a game, thought provoking, mindless fun, etc. If I'd be a game dev, I'd have to ignore every media that has anything to say about my games or go insane, just because people can't A) play something that is more in line with what they want B) judge a game for what it wants to be instead of what they want it to be. Edited October 21, 2009 by Oner

[entrerix]

i played and loved the new prince of persia game. the frequent checkpoints kept me from ever getting too frustrated, it was always, "i'll get it next time" instead of "oh crap i have to do the WHOLE LEVEL AGAIN!?!?!?!?!"

 

it was like a mario game where there was a checkpoint every 15 seconds so you never had to "start all over" (at which point, in a hard level, i would stop playing mario and go play something fun and not frustrating - which was hard to find in the NES days...)

 

"losing" a game is mostly an illusion, you can almost always reload your last save in modern games, and prince of persia essentially had an autosave before every single fight and every single jump-sequence. the load time was replaced with an animation.

 

i DONT like games where when you die there are no consequences, in PoP when you died the boss regained some health for example. bioshock though... all enemies should have recharged their health when you respawned.

Edited October 21, 2009 by entrerix

[Purkake]

Even though the gameplay was pretty repetitive, I really liked the visuals and the story in PoP. I brought it up because it is pretty much a game you can't lose.

[entrerix]

Even though the gameplay was pretty repetitive, I really liked the visuals and the story in PoP. I brought it up because it is pretty much a game you can't lose.

 

 

i agree with your review. the game was short enough the repetition didnt bug me though.

[Pidesco]

You're deductive skills are excellent indeed. Have you or Gifter or MC played the new Prince of Persia by any chance? What did you think of it?

 

I have and its problem wasn't that you didn't die but rather that the difficulty was completely and utterly borked. The windows to press the appropriate buttons were just way too large, making the gameplay so easy, it was all but pointless. Manipulating your words, you experience the game instead of playing it.

 

Different games focus on different things. I play Diablo 2 for the awesome gameplay, I didn't play Planescape: Torment for the gameplay.

 

 

Yes, you did. It's just that the good gameplay in Torment wasn't the combat, it was the quest solving and finding out about your past. The problem is that as for almost everyone gameplay is combat, no one actually noticed they were still playing a game when not fighting.

 

 

In any case, Dragon Age is neither Prince of Persia nor Torment, and it will more than likely be all about the tactical combat. So I imagine its tactical challenge will be the main measure of its quality as a game. I suppose its plot will be the measure of its quality as an "experience," at least if the combat is ignorable like in previous Bioware games. Anyway, Alan tells us the combat isn't ignorable, so hope springs eternal or at least it will spring until I get my hands on the game.

[Purkake]

Well, my point was that a game can still be enjoyable even if the gameplay isn't all that great(Prince of Persia), which some people seem to disagree with.

[Oner]

I found PoP's QTE time frames horribly small. And randomized. And bosses spammed 3-4 QTE sequences (1 sequence 3 QTEs) at a time.

Anyway, having to push only one button for acrobatics was surprisingly boring (though relaxing somewhat). The no death was a tad unsatisfying for me, (game play wise you die, but story wise..) but it didn't detract much from the experience. BTW, death wouldn't be a problem if our time wasn't wasted with unskippable game over screens/cutscenes/you suck speeches.

[Purkake]

Did you at least see the awesome ending?

Edited October 21, 2009 by Purkake

[Oner]

What part of it was awesome?

[Pidesco]

The part where you

go around undoing everything you did during the game.