My Dragon Age mini-rewiew

[TheHarlequin]

"You really should know your facts before you go into your default 'bioware can do no wrong' mode. You really sound totally ignorant when you say something like this.

Call me timeline challenged but... I am pretty sure when Ron Moore wrote in depth how the klingon society works for ST:TNG in the early 90s that predates DA by almost 20 years. Just saying. Read the ST lore of klingons then read the DA dwarfs... pretty much a carbon copy minus the race hight and starships."

 

And, DA's dwarves (and klingons) ar e'rip offs of other races includingversions of fantasy dwarves. there is NOTHJING original about klingons 9I still love them, thoguh). to claim that DA dwarves are ripped off from klingons is nonsense. If anything DA dwarves are basically your typical fantasy dwarf with harsh politics. Not original, and not based off klingons.

 

And, the one with tunnel vision here is you since your way is the 'right' way.

 

 

"Bioware in effect, by design, FORCES players to micromanage. Thats the issue and point of contention. Some of us use want to macro manage the party, not micro. "

 

Tough. DA is supposed to be 'spirtual successor' to BG2 which was all about micromanaging your party. And, just like DA, it gave a limited way of aiding the AI but ultimiately micromanaging is always the better option. And, it always will be.

 

I'd love to hear where/who Ron Moore 'ripped off' klingons from? Please post specifics.

 

And in BG2 I didn't have to micromanage my party as I do in DA I could macromanage it and be fine.

Edited November 8, 2009 by TheHarlequin

[aries101]

This game, DA: Origins, is supposed the be played on a real time with pause basis - just like BG1 and BG2. This is Bioware's nod to the (old-school?) rogs of the golden years of RPG (videogames).

 

And yes, real time with pause can feel like a cross breed between true turnbased (Fallout 1) and realtime combat (Halo, COD4:MW).

(I think there is an auto-pause function? you can use to make the combatmore true turn-based?) However, this is a tactical RPG, just like GRAW is a tactical shooter. You need to tell people where to go; pause the game, and the watch things unfold.

 

Let's remember that there is no shame in turning the difficulty to easy, if you find the game too hard; likewise trying it out on hard, should be an option for those that think normal is too easy for them. If you put points into tactics, you'll get more tactics slots.

 

I'm unfortunately in a tight spot right now economics wise; I don't have the game as of yet; I get that it plays more like the old BG1 and BG2 games combat-wise than say Oblivion, Mass Effect or Fallout 3. To me, this is great news - and yes I've had to slide that slider to easy in both games - to win.

(a sequende in combat that is).

[Monte Carlo]

Seriously, even I, lover of BG and TB games, had forgotten the patience required for this type of thing. I've been Neverwintered into letting my party get on with it.

 

It feels good to be back the way I like it.

 

[Volourn]

"And in BG2 I didn't have to micromanage my party as I do in DA I could macromanage it and be fine. "

 

I don't believe you. And, since you are making stuff up now, I cna't take your posts seriously anymore.

 

 

"I'd love to hear where/who Ron Moore 'ripped off' klingons from? Please post specifics."

 

No. YOU be speciifc. All you claimed that DA dwarves are ripped off from klingons even thoguh, they are more likely to be 'ripped off' from other stuff like D&D dwarves, D&D drow (though not neccessarily as evil), or heck any race/culture/group ever created that has heavy cutthroat level of politics. Heck, that's any thing dealing with politics INCLUDING HUMANS.

 

On top of this, time and time again, klingons are often referred to the SCI FI/STAR TREK version of dwarves - espciially when TNG starting making them more well rounded instead of just villains like they were originally.

 

So, this mythical myth that you spout that DA dwarves are just klingons is absed on nothing - asevidenced by you giving no evidence that they are based off klingons instead of any other war like race with violent politics but with a streak of honour. Heck, that's a stereotypically used racisl trope in both fantasy and sci fi.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

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.

 

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).

 

Though, given the non-linear nature of how you can proceed through open world plots, would you rather the enemies not be scaled to your level?

 

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.

 

Essentially, this would mean that all but one open world area (the first one you go to) would become even easier given that your character would continue to rise in level.

 

Would certainly make some of the larger dungeons less tedious.

 

Unless you would have preferred a more linear approach to the story like in Baldur's Gate. Though your description of the combat most definitely reminds me of Baldur's Gate, which could be why a lot of the people seem to like it.

 

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.

 

Not surprisingly, you found a way to game the system. Despite it taking the fun away from the game for you, you continued to do it, so I would guess you're probably a min/maxer that did it to continue along with the story.

 

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.

 

However, did you not find ways to game the system in Baldur's Gate?

 

Apparently not, since I stopped playing it in the middle of a dungeon due to ennui.

 

What games out there actually give you combat that you enjoy, for reference sake?

 

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.

[Volourn]

"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."

 

Man. What a crappy list of games. L0L

[Slowtrain]

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).

 

 

No, they do in fact scale in difficulty over time. It's true that they get more difficult the further south and east you go at any given time, but they also scale up as game progress increases. If you attack Drassen as the first objective enemies are weak. If you save Drassen to the end, the enemies will be much stronger.

 

So its really a combo system, combining both area-based difficulty with progress scaling

 

 

edit: I would also add that Jag2 TB combat, while decent enough, suffers from the same problems as any other combat game of this sort: Once you understand the game and how the AI "thinks" you can break the difficulty curve since the human player is infinitely more adaptable than computer game AI's.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Slowtrain

[alanschu]

The last 1 hour of combat (AI) was so pathetic, I'm left speechless.

 

 

Are you referring to the end of the game?

[kirottu]

Let's remember that there is no shame in turning the difficulty to easy, if you find the game too hard; likewise trying it out on hard, should be an option for those that think normal is too easy for them.

 

As I mentioned in other DA thread, I came to a battle I couldn

[alanschu]

COuldn't you have just bumped it back to normal afterward?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

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.

[alanschu]

Even so, it doesn't link the levels of enemy soldiers to your IMP

 

Of course it doesn't, since there's no guarantee that you even have an IMP.

 

JA2 has various tiers of progress specified, which relate to how capable the enemies are, what equipment the enemy will use, and weapons you can buy at the various stores. The game's progress is based on income, sector control, and kills.

[TheHarlequin]

> I don't believe you. And, since you are making stuff up now, I cna't take your posts seriously anymore.

 

So you are saying in BG I couldnt touch my party far less then DA NPCs and for the most part took care of themselves pretty decently? That is my recollection of BG2. Did I never pause? Of course not. A couple times in a battle sure. But I never had to hand hold my ENTIRE party for EVERY turn. Some 'hey aerie shoot a fireball now here or a vik drink this potion now' but for 75% of the combat I could let the NPC AI run the charactors while I mainly used my main PC in real time. Again only pausing here and there as I needed when the needs were greater then the NPC AI allowed for a specific situation. Again I macromanaged not micromanaged every turn and touched every char which after awhile is tedius.

 

"I'd love to hear where/who Ron Moore 'ripped off' klingons from? Please post specifics."

 

>No. YOU be speciifc. *snip incoheriant ramblings*

 

You made the implications/accusations Moore ripped the klingons off from somewhere, I asked you to simply make your case for said statement. Clearly you can't as you just try to drown out the signal with a bunch of misdirectional noise. So of those speaking out of their arse in this thread it's not me.

 

Take care.

Edited November 9, 2009 by TheHarlequin

[alanschu]

On a personal level I found DA to be slightly easier than Baldur's Gate 2, and a fair bit easier than Baldur's Gate (because it's very cruel to start the game off...low level D&D).

 

Perhaps the perspective and whatnot made it a bit easier in those games for you?

[TheHarlequin]

However, this is a tactical RPG, just like GRAW is a tactical shooter. You need to tell people where to go; pause the game, and the watch things unfold.

 

Not quite. Pause, issue orders to everyone, 5 sec later rinse and repeat. over and over and over... Thats way to much micromanaging and no there is no auto pause. If there is I couldnt find it. Seems bioware took the cheap route out not giving the NPCs any decent AI and slapping the label 'its tactical' on it. 'Well its designed to have crappy AI so you have to hand hold all 4 characters so that makes it tactical' seems to be the logic in its defense. Sorry I don't buy it.

[Monte Carlo]

^ That's not entirely fair, in fact the tactics slots allow you to tab fairly simple AI models to the NPCs (scrapper, defender etc).

 

I've not really tinkered with the tactics slots yet, only assigned three or four actions but if left to their own devices Morrigan does crowd control, Sten activates his 2H weapon feats in a non-annoying way and Imoen Elf chick (please can another rogue come along soon?) switches naturally between archery and melee when approached.

 

Cheers

MC

[alanschu]

I'm curious. Was part of the problem because you didn't want to "burn" skill points into Combat Tactics?

[CoM_Solaufein]

Anyone playing this one Windows 7 64bit? From what I heard and seen on their forums, it doesn't play well with Win 7 64bit.

[HoonDing]

(please can another rogue come along soon?)

So eager for the triple/quadruple romance shtick? I know I am.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Anyone playing this one Windows 7 64bit? From what I heard and seen on their forums, it doesn't play well with Win 7 64bit.

 

That would be unfortunate as the PC I'm building now will be running Windows 7 x64. I'm starting to think that, despite the advantages,I should have gotten a x86 version as well (while it's on sale for $30).

[Oner]

The last 1 hour of combat (AI) was so pathetic, I'm left speechless.

Are you referring to the end of the game?

No, the last hour of my current playing session. Canceled hold position from my party, they started running past the three enemies I was leading to them to attack someone they didn't even see, archer Leliana was hellbent on using Distraction even though I told her to attack, or she and Wynne just stop attacking when I don't control them actively. The enemies running past the meat shields even though they block the way didn't make me happier either.

At least the dog's useful.

[Raithe]

For the most part, I've been finding that apart from a couple of "boss" battles in the main quests combat hasn't been too difficult... Except for those really annoying "random" encounters when you're travelling between locations on the world map.

I don't know what it is, but I've ended up reloading from thos encounters much more then anything else... which can get a touch annoying at times....

"oh, that boss/werewolves/ogres was easy, but the chance ecnounter with hurlocks killed my entire party within a minute... "

[HoonDing]

Random encounters where one is suddenly surrounded by wolves in a small space stink. I always lose a party member due to their annoying Overwhelm ability.

 

It stinks because you're basically thrown into a huge mess without any chance to prepare beforehand.

Edited November 9, 2009 by virumor

[TheHarlequin]

^ That's not entirely fair, in fact the tactics slots allow you to tab fairly simple AI models to the NPCs (scrapper, defender etc).

 

I've not really tinkered with the tactics slots yet, only assigned three or four actions but if left to their own devices Morrigan does crowd control, Sten activates his 2H weapon feats in a non-annoying way and Imoen Elf chick (please can another rogue come along soon?) switches naturally between archery and melee when approached.

 

Cheers

MC

 

Sure but when your special moves, spells, etc outnumbers your tactical slots that pretty much forces you to hand hold your NPC. Unless you just want special abilities to go to waste during combat. Which generally means your cutting yourself off at the knee in normal or higher difficulty.

 

what they should have done is just given every party member a dozen or 15 slots and done away with the slots based on a skill. Its silly and just forces you to micromanage everyone. A artificial time sink and tedious after a while.

[TheHarlequin]

I'm curious. Was part of the problem because you didn't want to "burn" skill points into Combat Tactics?

 

Yes. its silly I have to buy tactical slots to tell my party to use their own abilities. What am I supposed to do burn all my skill point into that and not beable to make healing pots or pick locks? Skills points are few and far between not like you get one every level. If the default AI would just make them use their natural abilities on their own I wouldn't have a issue. Bioware seems to just give us dumb party AI but unlike other CRPG games labled it as a 'feature' of being 'tactical' and the sheep bought it. Sad really. Where as another CRPG the community would be howling bloody murder. I suppose all CRPGs just need to do that now. Give just mininum party AI, toss in a pause button and call it a 'tactical RPG'. Spending little time on party AI solved.