Dragon Age story/plot discussion

[mkreku]

From the Eurogamer review:

 

"...although it's a work of great accomplishment and craftsmanship - and no small amount of ambition - Dragon Age is sorely lacking in the things that make a truly great role-playing game, or any game for that matter: vision, inspiration, soul."

 

8/10. W.T.F.?

[HoonDing]

"Yo BioWare, I'm real happy for you & I'ma let you finish, but Oblivion is the best RPG of ALL TIME!"

[Niten_Ryu]

From the Eurogamer review:

 

"...although it's a work of great accomplishment and craftsmanship - and no small amount of ambition - Dragon Age is sorely lacking in the things that make a truly great role-playing game, or any game for that matter: vision, inspiration, soul."

 

8/10. W.T.F.?

 

What's the problem ?

 

Morrowind and Oblivion suffered from same issues and they are THE CRPGs for the new generation. Dragon Age is calculated product and thus it's only natural that vision, inspiration, innovation and soul are not the highest priorities. 8/10 is fine score for such product.

[Oner]

I like heroic characters though, so champion fit my Alistair quite nicely!

So party members can get specialized twice too?

 

Is there another way to unlock champion besides

Loghain

? Yes or no is enough.

 

Dragon Age is sorely lacking in the things that make a truly great role-playing game, or any game for that matter: vision, inspiration, soul."

[mkreku]

What's the problem ?

The problem is that the review reads like a 6 (with that quote trying to exemplify the fact) and the game scores an 8.

 

Read the review. It doesn't sound very appealing. Heavy handed dialogue, slow pace, bloated, loading times everywhere (which is only bad if a game is trying to be non-linear), clich

[Niten_Ryu]

Read the review. It doesn't sound very appealing. Heavy handed dialogue, slow pace, bloated, loading times everywhere (which is only bad if a game is trying to be non-linear), clich

[Majek]

That review is bad. Good to see he tried to point out bad things but it also looks like he expected a Bethesda game ( like someone pointed out in the comments below it) and didn't get it.

[Purkake]

What's the problem ?

The problem is that the review reads like a 6 (with that quote trying to exemplify the fact) and the game scores an 8.

 

Read the review. It doesn't sound very appealing. Heavy handed dialogue, slow pace, bloated, loading times everywhere (which is only bad if a game is trying to be non-linear), clich

[Tigranes]

*shrug* all I want is a highly polished, big romp with tons of loot and a party-based, RTwP D&D knockoff combat that doesn't babysit you. All accounts to point to Dragon Age being that. I don't think anyone expected the other bits to be anything other than a game that takes itself too seriously, has entirely too much blood and sex for its own good, etc.

 

I probably won't game the game for a few days at least - how's the combat compare to, say, NWN2 or BG2?

[Purkake]

Ah yes the inevitable period just before/after release when expectations drop like stones and people will be like "it's not THAT bad". Happened with Bioshock as well. (not directed at you, Tigranes, just people in general)

 

It's better to keep you expectations under control from the beginning.

[deganawida]

deganawida:

 

1) Is DW as powerful in the actual game as it is in Journeys? In Journeys, the absolute best path to pick for the warrior is DW; SnB is good for defense only, and TH has one good attack that you can get. I'd hate to play another game where DW is the be-all and end-all of combat.

 

 

For a warrior, I find the best damage dealing is the Two-handed weapon tree. Your attacks are a bit slower, but you'll not suffer as much for mitigation, and you get some handy CC and armor penetration type abilities too. To be honest though, I didn't dual wield much with the warrior. But I think that dual-wielding is better suited for rogues, as the abilities tend to require dexterity. The consensus around the office was that two-handed warriors were solid damage dealers though.

 

 

2) What type of advanced classes are there for warriors? Which do you think is most interesting or powerful?

 

 

Admittedly I am only familiar with two of the specialty classes for warriors. Templar and Champion. I think Champion is very powerful, with some good buffs for the whole party to boot. Templar seemed okay, but it didn't really catch my eye. Reaver seemed quite interesting. By the time I learned how to get it (a spoiler for a different question) though, I was long past the point. Most of the specializations have a book form that you can find if you miss the "story" way of learning it, but I either didn't find it, or was too broke to buy it. I like heroic characters though, so champion fit my Alistair quite nicely!

 

 

3) Is it better to have a well-balanced character, or a specialized character?

 

 

Typically "specialized" is better. Though when I say specialized, I mean within a particular tree, and it's pretty obvious. I mean, if you're dual wielding, you'll pick the Dual Wield abilities and whatnot. As a mage though, I don't think specialization in a tree is necessary. The most powerful spells are typically at the end of the 4-part trees, so with some exceptions check out the ones you like. A variety of damage/CC/heal will make the caster very versatile. I found focusing exclusively on damage though, was typically a poor build for mages. CC is pretty useful I find.

 

Thanks! A couple of follow-ups:

 

~1) How does two-handed compare with sword'n'board, both damage-wise and tanking-wise? Basically, can one tank as either build?

 

~3) Is it better to specialize your attributes, as well? Basically, should a warrior always go strength and constitution?

 

Sorry that my questions are less about actual spoilers, and more about gameplay. It's a new rule system, so I want to know what I'm getting into

[HoonDing]

It seems dexterity, cunning & willpower are pretty important for a tank too. Dexterity improves chances to hit, cunning improves armor piercing (?) & willpower gives more stamina for special skills.

[Enoch]

That review is bad. Good to see he tried to point out bad things but it also looks like he expected a Bethesda game ( like someone pointed out in the comments below it) and didn't get it.

Heh. I found this line entertaining:

you never feel like you can escape the gravitational pull of the game's design the way you can in, for example, Bethesda's RPGs.

Isn't even wanting to "escape ... the game's design" a better indicator of poor design than is the degree to which said escape is possible?

 

 

I'm sure I'll play this game at some point, but I haven't ordered it yet. I am looking forward to reading the impressions around here.

[alanschu]

Thanks! A couple of follow-ups:

 

~1) How does two-handed compare with sword'n'board, both damage-wise and tanking-wise? Basically, can one tank as either build?

 

~3) Is it better to specialize your attributes, as well? Basically, should a warrior always go strength and constitution?

 

Sorry that my questions are less about actual spoilers, and more about gameplay. It's a new rule system, so I want to know what I'm getting into

 

 

Taking Monte Carlo's post into perspective, I'll quickly answer these sans spoiler tags for this stuff. If people prefer otherwise just let me know!

 

 

1) I have heard it's possible to tank with both, from a threat management perspective. I always went sword'n'board though, because I preferred the damage mitigation. High damage, as well as the general warrior skills can keep threat, but the sword and shield skills have talents that can really help the tank soak damage. This is in addition to the shield of course.

 

2) Some of the min/maxers really prefer specialization with attributes. With my warriors, my main attributes were strength, constitution, and willpower (for additional stamina), as well as some dexterity (some really good shield talents required dexterity). Once I had the attributes for the talents I wanted though, I went 2:1 ratio of constitution:willpower.

 

I don't think I put points into cunning though. Would be interesting and probably not a waste of a point though.

 

 

 

Oner: Yes to both of your questions.

Edited November 3, 2009 by alanschu

[kirottu]

Heh. I found this line entertaining:

you never feel like you can escape the gravitational pull of the game's design the way you can in, for example, Bethesda's RPGs.

Isn't even wanting to "escape ... the game's design" a better indicator of poor design than is the degree to which said escape is possible?

 

This and what the Sony guy said about Alpha Protocol is starting give me the feeling that free roaming in rpg is more important than actual rpg aspects like choice and consequence for some people.

 

I just can

[Oner]

Oner: Yes to both of your questions.

Thanks.

[kirottu]

Now that I actually have read the review I must disagree with my previous post(although it

[Purkake]

Speaking of reviews, I think that GameBanshee is the only place left that writes decent and comprehensive WRPG reviews. They're like NMA for WRPGs in general, but without the elitism

[Kaftan Barlast]

Now that I actually have read the review I must disagree with my previous post(although it

[Morgoth]

Dragon Age should keep me busy for the whole November. Now I only need the actual game.

 

And are people seriously reading these "professional" reviews? Eurogamer pissing and moaning around? Who gives a flying ****?

[Raithe]

What's always struck me with crazy reviewers.. at least about games.. is that they can really only give you a review on the technical aspects of a game.. Mood, atmosphere, the question of story and soul, all those really come down to the point of view of whoevers playing it, and what they actually enjoy.

Unless you can find a reviewer that has exactly your tastes, all they can really tell you is game breaking bugs, the graphics and engine related matter.. So I've always found it worthy to take all reviews with a healthy dose of salt.

 

ALthough after suffering the soul-destroying thing known as Oblivion.. I'd probably take any review that says that a game is not at all like Oblivion as a plus..

[kirottu]

And are people seriously reading these "professional" reviews? Eurogamer pissing and moaning around? Who gives a flying ****?

 

Yes, it was a total shocker for me too. People actually read reviews and then comment them on the internets.

[Maria Caliban]

Fry's in Las Vegas has 60 copies of the Collector's Edition and 30 of the regular edition. Rather, they have 59 copies of the CE now.

 

It would only let me install to C:/Program Files. I find that irritating.

[Monte Carlo]

I think the problem with modern-day games reviewers is that they think they're too cool to actually, uh, like games.

 

Although the comment about not being able to escape the orbit of the games design resonates with me in a big way and is my biggest beef with Bioware. They used to be able to mask that orbit, now it's shot into your face like you're **** Cheney's hunting partner. We'll see when I game it at the weekend.

 

The best review so far has been the Game Banshee one, y'know written by a regular guy who likes games. He spoke to me like he was a gamer and interested in the stuff I'm interested in.

 

Cheers

MC

[Raithe]

Fry's in Las Vegas has 60 copies of the Collector's Edition and 30 of the regular edition. Rather, they have 59 copies of the CE now.

 

It would only let me install to C:/Program Files. I find that irritating.

 

Ah, so the crazy lady going "60 copies!" wasn't actually crazy?

 

Vhat.. no custom install settings??