FiringSquad DA review

[TheHarlequin]

Considering all the delays this game has gone through over the years, especially the delays to produce the console version, you'd think that BioWare and EA might have had some time to play-test it. You know, just start a character, play through the game, and see how it goes. But you'd be wrong.

 

Here is a typical scenario. You are running along a corridor, and set off a trap. Every monster in nearby rooms rushes in and proceeds to kill you. You re-load. You deal with the trap one way or another (pity the fool who doesn't have a rogue in his party), and then proceed to clear the enemies out one room at a time. You then reach a larger room with a lot of enemies, who kill you. As always, since you've been quick-saving every 15 seconds, you reload, send a character into the room, pull some enemies, run back, and kill only those who followed. Meanwhile, their buddies just calmly walk back to their places and await their turn to die. After all, they can't see you, so you're not there. Never mind the fact that their comrades just ran behind that same wall and their screams of agony can be heard throughout the castle. No, they'll just get back to playing dice until you're good and ready to dismember them. There are tactical battles, and there is outright exploiting of poor AI. Abusing the AI became so commonplace in my time with the game - often out of necessity (either to survive or at least preserve health poultices for the inevitable ReallyToughFight), that it almost seems as if BioWare balanced around the bad AI, rather than addressing the core issue.

 

The stats/combat system is prehistoric and yet at the same time indecipherable. Why in the world would anyone base an RPG around D&D style combat nowadays? Well, to appeal to D&D geeks, of course. To create an old-fashioned dungeon crawl RPG with lots of fights and tactical battles. D&D, like Dragon Age, is chock full of weak classes and feat builds. The difference is that the experienced gamer knows those classes and builds and simply doesn't build them. In Dragon Age, there's no way to tell. There is no manual worth mentioning and the tooltips are misleading at best, and utterly uninformative in most situations. How does armor work? I don't know. How is damage calculated? Beats me! Why does the really good weapon only do 3 more damage than the really average weapon, and does this mean anything? Couldn't tell you! And neither could the game. If you're going to build a tactical RPG around an old-school combat system, it is not enough to simply build it. The system must be explained. It is the details of it, how it works, and how to power-game it, that appeal to people who like knock-down, drag-out, tooth-and-nail dungeon crawls.

 

We're no longer in the 90s, there's no excuse to have poorly balanced skills and classes. Every class in the game is playable, but odds are your archers really just won't get the same play time that your mages will. The burst damage and utility of the mages far outweigh the (in)consistent damage of the archers, who are so dependent on positioning (and not having an axe in their face).

 

The BG games (and Icewind Dale) were famous for their tactical battles. Dragon Age won't be. Part of it is that we've gone past the "do this at X time to win" style of play. Mostly, however, it's because many of the difficult battles are poorly done. Say you're walking along a certain road and the 4 of you get ambushed by 20 archers. The tried and true tactic to beating this battle is to turn the difficulty to easy and continue. Clearly, it's how the developers did it. How do I know? Because the fight is so disproportionately difficult compared to everything before, that there's no way they did it in Normal difficulty and thought to themselves "yeah, that fits." It's not even a boss fight; it's just randomly and infuriatingly hard for no apparent reason. It is beatable in Normal, but it is not balanced for Normal.

 

There are good things about the game, very good in fact, but those are not redeeming features. The excellent as always BioWare character development and interaction system is not a reason to buy Dragon Age. Putting big shiny wheels on a broken car does not make that car a good ride. The setting is marvelously well-developed and feels mature, like it's been around as long as the various realms of AD&D. More's the pity then, that the same level of polish didn't go into balancing and AI.

 

That's not to say people won't enjoy the game. Some will - perhaps a great many. I'm on the verge of liking it, but I've had my fill of frustration. Some of those will also post here about how they've played hardcore RPGs since before the SSI Gold Box games and how it's about time that a game hard enough came along, one that respects the traditions of the genre. And of these people, some will even be telling the truth. The rest will just be measuring e-peen. I played Pools of Radiance. I played Curse of the Azure Bonds. I played the Krynn games, and Eye of the Beholder and Baldur's Gate. Trust me, at the very least wait for a few patches, if not for the game to hit the bargain bin. It is disgraceful that a title so long in development is so unpolished and is full of unbalanced encounters.

 

PS

Props to EA for finally allowing people to skip their annoying opening logo cinematic.

 

PPS

Thumbs down to EA for including an immersion-breaking DLC hook in the game. Yes, I would like to log into the EA servers so I can tell you I'll never pay for DLC.

 

-------

 

Wow. Makes my review of the battle system/issues seem like a 9 out of 10 review LOL

 

On a serious note, he does make some valid points about the poor party AI.

[Oner]

So the game is bad 'cause he sucks at playing. I see. Dammit, I have Leliana in my party, no tank and no DPS mage and still have a 0 injury count. No one has the right to complain about difficulty.

[HoonDing]

Never heard of this FiringSquad before.

 

It's funny how he complains how the system needs to be explained. Games like Morrowind & fallout 3 don't explain how armor works or how damage/accuracy is calculated... and nobody gives a hoot about that.

Edited November 11, 2009 by virumor

[Oner]

How does armor work? I don't know. How is damage calculated? Beats me! Why does the really good weapon only do 3 more damage than the really average weapon, and does this mean anything? Couldn't tell you! And neither could the game.

I wonder about his l337 reading skillz or his IQ if he really doesn't know the answer to these.

[Volourn]

Yup. He hates the game because it is hard. DA has more taticalness in its pinky finger than BG or IUWD have in their entire games. the character systemn is better. And, while the spells and talents don't literally spell out the exact damage they inflict, they very clearly stat what they do. Do people actually read the manual? Do they actually read the character screens? Press x on any ability and stat, and item and it gives you more details. The AI, if you actually take a bit of time to elarn it, is depper, more complex, and more fun than any other RPG. Again, the AI is fantatsic if you learn how to manipulate properly. Which takes time.

 

It's called a learning curve, people. I'm about 20 hours into the game, I'm still leanring new tricks.

 

 

 

"How does armor work? I don't know. How is damage calculated? Beats me! Why does the really good weapon only do 3 more damage than the really average weapon, and does this mean anything? Couldn't tell you! And neither could the game. If you're going to build a tactical RPG around an old-school combat system, it is not enough to simply build it. The system must be explained. It is the details of it, how it works, and how to power-game it, that appeal to people who like knock-down, drag-out, tooth-and-nail dungeon crawls. "

 

This, and the rest of the rveiew just proves the writer's ignorance. He expects to be held by his hand. In essence, he wanted a dumbed down BG. DA is so much more than that. DS combat is vastly sueprior than the IE games. Anmd, i say that being stuck on console. I bet the combat is 100x better on PC with the iso view.

 

The classes, and skills are way more balanced than BG was. Are people really claim that an IE rogue was an equal to an IE mage? Get the heck out of here!

 

For years, certain peopel cried that BIO games were easy. Now a game of theirs comes along where most everyone says it is hard (there are some who claim the game is easy but *shrug*) there's people crying it's too ahrd. WAAAA!

 

And, yeah, some encounters can be blatantly unfiar. Guess what. This is true in the IE games. I mean, BG2 had an enemy that basically an insta death spell that couldn't be reissted barring 1 or 2 ways with no way of knowing how to do it first time you meet him.

 

Sorry, guys, buckle up, stop whining, learn how to read and follow instructions, don't expect hand holding, and learn the system. Or play a different game.

 

Or better yet, keep crying, and maybe BIO will lesson and lower the difficulty some more (like they alreay did like wussies) so the game can be easy as your wussified FOs, BGs, NWNs, GBG, etc.

 

 

"It's funny how he complains how the system needs to be explained. Games like Morrowind & fallout 3 don't explain how armor works or how damage/accuracy is calculated... and nobody gives a hoot about that. "

 

Those games are easy, hold your hand, and very little thinking involved.

 

Plus, people don't get it. You aren't supposed to have the AI do EVERYTHING in DA. It's supposed to be play like the IE games where the PLAYER controls the characters. The AI is supposed to be be a little push in the right direction. A helping hand. Not a replacement. Even though, if you use the AI stuff right, the companions' AI in DA are some of the best ever.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Volourn

[entrerix]

sounds like a crybaby whining more than a review. game too hard? play on easy then and stop complaining. i play fallout 1 on easy and i love the game.

 

and heaven help this guy if he tried to solo his way through diablo 2 without using pull and aggro tactics and using tons of potions running into a room filled with enemies

Edited November 11, 2009 by entrerix

[Purkake]

 

Deja Vu?

[entrerix]

you've won again sir!

[Oner]

 

Deja Vu?

What?

[Purkake]

It's like when you have the feeling that something has already happened.

 

 

Like this thread

 

 

[Oner]

The internet does not know innovation.

[Purkake]

It does know funny gifs, though!

[Oner]

(Tropes too.)

And so Harmony is achieved.

[Purkake]

All power to the internets!

[Majek]

A new thread for every bull**** that comes up?o.o??

[Purkake]

TheHarlequin is unyielding if nothing else.

[Syraxis]

Props to EA for finally allowing people to skip their annoying opening logo cinematic.

 

For XP: C:\Documents and Settings\Consule\My Documents\BioWare\Dragon Age\Settings\Dragonage.ini

DisableIntroMovies=1

 

You can do that for other EA games also

Edited November 11, 2009 by Syraxis

[entrerix]

Props to EA for finally allowing people to skip their annoying opening logo cinematic.

 

For XP: C:\Documents and Settings\Consule\My Documents\BioWare\Dragon Age\Settings\Dragonage.ini

DisableIntroMovies=1

 

You can do that for other EA games also

 

 

clearly that review was written by a very un-savvy gamer

[J.E. Sawyer]

sounds like a crybaby whining more than a review. game too hard? play on easy then and stop complaining. i play fallout 1 on easy and i love the game.

 

and heaven help this guy if he tried to solo his way through diablo 2 without using pull and aggro tactics and using tons of potions running into a room filled with enemies

I think it really depends on the nature of the difficulty. There's difficulty that people find challenging/satisfying and difficulty that people haphazard/frustrating. Fallout 1 is a pretty easy game, but when you die in the late game, it's usually because of x3 damage armor-piercing critical hits. They are haphazard, cannot be planned for (outside of simply avoiding being hit), and are frustrating.

[alanschu]

<snip>

 

How come you're not posting links to reviews that are contrary to your opinion?

 

Or is this just a "see see I told you so" thread?

[entrerix]

I think it really depends on the nature of the difficulty. There's difficulty that people find challenging/satisfying and difficulty that people haphazard/frustrating. Fallout 1 is a pretty easy game, but when you die in the late game, it's usually because of x3 damage armor-piercing critical hits. They are haphazard, cannot be planned for (outside of simply avoiding being hit), and are frustrating.

 

 

you're right about the nature of difficulty being cause for frustration, i find street fighter 4 frustrating because i can't consistently land 1frame links and the reversal window is too large allowing cheesy shoryuken spam

 

fallout 1 i dont find too frustrating because you can save midfight, so ever 5 minutes or so i save again just in case a rogue eyeshot knocks me into heaven. it's not a huge deal, but it would be nice if the crits werent so insanely damaging and random in nature, but it never seriously bothered me (i just like playing on easy so i never have to worry about combat in that game since i play more for the dialogue than the pewpew)

[TheHarlequin]

TheHarlequin is unyielding if nothing else.

 

I found it entertaining. Sadly ppl like Vol *cough*andperhapsyou*cough* need to lighten up and stop being so defensive. It has flaws, dumb party AI does not equate to 'tactical'. Did he go over board in the review however? Sure. But take away the fluff and get to the meat of his points, several (not all) of them are valid.

 

But in the end I found him going so overboard negativity wise it made me chuckle. I THOUGHT others here would find it the same (hence the tone of the post). Sorry to see folks can't grasp that and need to go into geek-rage/defense over views inconsistant with their own and blow right past the humor of it all.

 

*shrugs*

[entrerix]

i dont think purkake is doing anything like what vol does. purkake just likes poking fun at stuff, vol on the other hand is vehemently defensive about certain topics

 

 

nwn...

[Purkake]

The game is far from perfect, but arguing over whether the game is truly "tactical" or not is pretty much missing the point. If the game is too hard for you, lower the difficulty, I don't have any problems with the tactics system. Reading your posts it seems that you want it to do something that it was never meant to do. There's nothing stopping you from disabling the AI and handling all fight manually like in BG2.

 

What you're arguing about here is pretty much a non-issue which might be the reason why people are defensive and/or confused.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Purkake

[Volourn]

"I found it entertaining. Sadly ppl like Vol *cough*andperhapsyou*cough* need to lighten up and stop being so defensive. It has flaws, dumb party AI does not equate to 'tactical'. Did he go over board in the review however? Sure. But take away the fluff and get to the meat of his points, several (not all) of them are valid.

 

But in the end I found him going so overboard negativity wise it made me chuckle. I THOUGHT others here would find it the same (hence the tone of the post). Sorry to see folks can't grasp that and need to go into geek-rage/defense over views inconsistant with their own and blow right past the humor of it all."

 

Nonsense. You posted it because it agrees with you. The AI is awesome, if you lknow what youa re doing. But, some people are used to having games babysit for them. DA' has some of the best AI ever. And, yeah, the game has flaws, but you and others are attacking things that aren't flaws.

 

 

"vol on the other hand is vehemently defensive about certain topics "

 

Nah. Not defensive. Offensive. Defensive would imply the need to have otehrs enjoy what i enjoy as if it would effect me.

 

Again, DA has some major things I dislike. AI is not one fo them as its awesome. And, the difficulty is fantastic. Not my fault people wnat to have their hand held. But, hey, if they prefer the shallowness of BG, more power to 'em.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Volourn