Great, we're getting more Dragon Age threads than cliffracers. Did we really need this one or is there some sort of crusade I missed?

 

The game does have flaws; a better 'shout' system would have been nice (but of course it is something most FPS or RPG haven't been able to get right in the last ten years); damage ratings of spells, etc should be more transparent; rogues and archers should be better balanced (and it seems they will be); but those things are auxiliary problems and to denounce the entire system, which is tactically challenging in most cases rather than 'bluntly' so, is an argument that bears no value whatsoever.

 

I do love how so many people talk about 'old times' and 'new times' and invoke discourses of linear progression on arguments of style and fashion, completely unaware that they can only appreciate design decisions that come from a singular attitude (whatever that may be 'of the day').

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.

 

 

If you didn't have critical hits like that though, late game characters would never take any damage. It kept a threat level in the game; you always felt vulnerable, no matter how powerful you were. Which is pretty important for a combat game, I think.

 

Maybe gamers don't like that these days. I recognize that some gamers always want to kick ass right from the start and never take a point of damage, but I don't think devs should cater to that mindset. If gamers are really bent on being gods they can just cheat through in god mode or something.

I think the criticism is fair, though it takes a special person to be as bothered by it as the reviewer. DA's combat is unabashedly old-school, and in some ways legitimately better at it than its inspiration (class and attribute balance stomps BG, IMO). In other ways not, but I never expected a game that surpassed BG2 in every aspect.

 

Also, IMO, there are plenty of excuses for a RPG to not be completely balanced in this day and age. The primary one is that's it's hard to accomplish.

Also, IMO, there are plenty of excuses for a RPG to not be completely balanced in this day and age. The primary one is that's it's hard to accomplish.

 

 

Also, Fallout 3 and Oblivion are hardly what I would call "balanced" anyway. Don't know about Mass Effect.

I don't know if I would say mass effect was "balanced" haha. I just didn't find it hard in general

Nonsense. You posted it because it agrees with you.

 

You are calling me a liar. Nothing more needs to be said then.

Edited November 12, 200916 yr by TheHarlequin

The game does have flaws; a better 'shout' system would have been nice (but of course it is something most FPS or RPG haven't been able to get right in the last ten years)

Shout?

DA reviews here.