Dragon age discussion

[alanschu]

That's fair.

 

Though by expansion you definitely don't mean something like Tales of the Sword Coast then, right?

[entrerix]

i'd buy the dlc if they were cheaper. If wardens keep AND this new dlc were sold together for ~6 dollars it would seem like a good enough deal to interest me provided i were starting from the beginning of the game.

 

Maybe when there are three pieces they will release a "triple pack" that sells all 3 for 10 dollars. That would probably entice me. It's just a value for money thing for me really. i talked this to death already so i'll spare you all again

 

I DO agree with monte though about where the dlc fits into your game. if i've beaten the game already i'd MUCH rather see content for after the game is over, or a whole new sidestory with substantial gameplay (i'd say tales of the sword coast or point lookout were significant enough to be a decent example)

 

im certainly not going to load an old save to explore a battleground for 40 minutes, especially if it costs me money to do so.

Edited November 19, 2009 by entrerix

[alanschu]

Doesn't Tales of the Sword Coast require you to not have finished Baldur's Gate though? (I only played the game with the expansion)

[~Di]

Probably not a big deal to most, but I was wondering if I can change the order of my party by doing something with their portraits? For some reason my tank is at the bottom, which means that my mage and healer are right behind me into battle, and the tank is bringing up the rear. I kinda think that the order you choose them in camp is the order they wind up in the party, so I'm screwed for now. But I thought I'd ask the experts who know the game better than I do. Thanks!

I've noticed that, if I select one of my party members (by pressing the corresponding F# key or clicking on them), and then press = to select the entire group, the character that was selected prior to me pressing = will move to the "leader" position of the party formation.

 

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but as far as I've seen it's the only way to influence the formation.

 

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try.

[~Di]

Okay, so Shale definitely doesn't work.

 

-> Logged in in-game, put in code, installed Shale.

-> Logged out, played game. Shale is in Journal, says Enabled, but doesn't work.

-> Logged in, played game. Shale is Enabled but unauthorised, can't load game.

 

Groar. and if the implication is that I need to/should have logged in all the time, screw you Bioware.

 

You log in while in the game, and then you stay logged in as you play the game. It took me forever to figure out how to do this, since the manual had absolutely no information about it. Once you manage to log in, it will have your email address in the corner of the game menu. You have to make an accout in the Bio social place too. A real annoying facet of the game for me, 30 minutes to install and 4 hours trying to figure out how to get the downloads and play.

[Gromnir]

Doesn't Tales of the Sword Coast require you to not have finished Baldur's Gate though? (I only played the game with the expansion)

 

nope. your final bg auto-save, right before entering the undercity temple, would has you whisked away to the totsc portion. alternatively, if you were current playing bg, you could access new materials at any time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gromnir

[Oner]

Don't you kill the Archdemon at the end? What would be the next challenge? Another one? A same level 5 man party? Andraste's demonified spirit?

 

...

Yeah but the demonified dragon is supposed to be the most powerful being in the DAverse, whereas DnD had multiverses, with far more powerful things than a corrupted dragon.

 

MC: Sure, an after end 'fight the invading orlezians or something' would be a nice idea, but duh, you already killed the worst the setting can throw at you, so they either throw in huge numbers, slightly less huge numbers of level 30 peasants or a single human with unreal stats.

[entrerix]

i like the idea of going after the maker and taking his throne

[alanschu]

I like the idea that the Maker doesn't actually exist.

[HoonDing]

A is the most boring choice

B can be pretty funny, depending who you bring

C is the shorcut way to same end. But thats one hell of a fight!

Regarding C:

Are you supposed to lose that battle or something? The odds against you in that fight are completely insane. That Cauthrein chick does more damage than a dragon. I still kicked her arse... but it took a lot of potions. Even misdirection hex didn't seem to help much.

 

[alanschu]

Regarding Ser Cautherine:

 

 

Losing the fight is not game over, you get arrested. From a plot point of view I have no issues with a mechanic like this, but unfortunately it doesn't account for situations where people reload the game prior to a full party wipe. As a result it's not entirely transparent

 

Edited November 19, 2009 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

"Yeah but the demonified dragon is supposed to be the most powerful being in the DAverse, "

 

says who? bioware? 'cause if is bioware, then they can simply come up with a bigger ubg (ultimate bad guy) if they wish... or they can come up with a more practical ubg if the wish. is silly game reasoning that the toughest villain is the ultimate villain... 'cause you always need some end confrontation/battle in a game that includes a large portion o' combat. Gromnir could beat the snot out of bill gates without much effort... but a bill gates type would makes one heck of a game villain... and far more sinister than some pansy dragonfiend. you can create new challenges that would challenge a da party w/o having to one-up the previous ubg in terms o' sheer power numbers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Don't you kill the Archdemon at the end? What would be the next challenge? Another one? A same level 5 man party? Andraste's demonified spirit?

 

...

Yeah but the demonified dragon is supposed to be the most powerful being in the DAverse, whereas DnD had multiverses, with far more powerful things than a corrupted dragon.

 

MC: Sure, an after end 'fight the invading orlezians or something' would be a nice idea, but duh, you already killed the worst the setting can throw at you, so they either throw in huge numbers, slightly less huge numbers of level 30 peasants or a single human with unreal stats.

 

You killed the dragon with

the help of an army, and it was already crippled by the other Grey Warden. So have a slice of humble pie.

 

[entrerix]

irenicus was a cool villain

[Tigranes]

Well I finally got Shale to work (though it remains to be seen whether it will continue to work) and he is delightful. Nice character to have and I'll take him around for the most of this playthrough.

 

An hour for the new DLC? Well that seems pretty pointless, that's like just buying the Ice Cavern in the Tales of the Sword Coast. How long does Warden's Keep take, is that more subsstantial? I'll probably only end up buying DLCs which are worth the bother.

 

Anyway, the only thing that really worries me about DLCs replacing expansion packs is gameplay improvements and such. Are DLCs now going to introduce gameplay / technical changes, such as to the UI, the AI, etc etc? If so, the required DLCs for fanmade mods are going to get super crazy, isn't it? Or are we rather going to see DLCs simply give new content, and such system changes come in only through patches? In tha case, patches better become a lot more extensive and persistent than in the Xpack-era. I would hate for the new setup to give us lots of content but no system upgrades (for those of you who are wondering what I mean, stuff like new avaialble resolutions in TOB, ruleset changes, etc).

[alanschu]

My impression is that DLC won't be more than content expansions. Probably as a result of the scope, but also because there's concerns about alienating people that don't have the DLC. I also think there might be some barriers due to the consoles, where DLC can only do so much.

 

Having said that, a DLC model could make the type of patching you would require more feasible. Part of the reason why that stuff is done in expansions, is because the costs get recouped in the sale of the expansion.

 

 

Warden's Keep is probably similar in length to the Return to Ostagar one (I haven't played Return to Ostagar, but it took me about an hour or so... I wasn't really paying attention) to complete Warden's Keep.

[Gorth]

Well I finally got Shale to work (though it remains to be seen whether it will continue to work) and he is delightful. Nice character to have and I'll take him around for the most of this playthrough.

I don't have proof yet, but I suspect Shale (formerly known by me as "complimentary golem guy") is actually female. But go through some of the dialogue and judge for yourself

[skuld1]

Anyway, the only thing that really worries me about DLCs replacing expansion packs is gameplay improvements and such. Are DLCs now going to introduce gameplay / technical changes, such as to the UI, the AI, etc etc?

 

Isn't this what Paradox has been doing for years now, what they basically did with Hearts of Iron II (and I believe many of there other games... don't have firsthand knowledge of those though)?

[entrerix]

if dragon age had cost 5$ per hour it would have cost me at least 300$

 

makes it pretty hard to justify buying the new dlc...

[Oner]

Finished the game. Questions:

 

Why is Alistair dead for no reason? He didn't even get an epilogue.

 

 

I read a human noble can get hirself crowned as king/queen. The best I got with a woman was "Alistair becomes king and I will rule beside him." Only men can get themselves crowned, or did I mess somewhere up?

 

 

Where's my dog? >

 

 

Small rants:

The mage tower and was tight-lipped.

They rebuilt themselves. THE END.

 

I know Bio will probably expand on this in the sequel (or not),

but Morrigan's end could've been more specific.

 

 

Fergus (your bro in the noble origin)

shows up out of ****ing nowhere.

 

Two things that really bugged me:

Lack of choice at the end. The first is Loghain.

Kill Loghain

(even after what he did, I didn't want to do that), or

have him join the Wardens and Alistair leaves

(which I did not want).

So I killed Loghain, and as a bonus, Anora says Alistair died.

I'm happy. Not.

The second is the

crowning

. As mentioned above, I wanted to try

crowning myself,

but instead had to choose instead between

I-don't-wanna-be king Al and deserves-a-bullet-in-the-head Anora (I chose her and only her)

. Bonus points for the game sometimes not knowing what I picked and

briefly mentioned the two of them planning to marry. (This happened somewhere between the Landsmeet and the siege.)

 

 

 

As for the Archdemon, I scraped off 1/4th of it's hp before reinforcements arrived, so I could've taken it down alone. Hell, it looked easier than the one guarding you-know-what.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Oner

[Tigranes]

My impression is that DLC won't be more than content expansions. Probably as a result of the scope, but also because there's concerns about alienating people that don't have the DLC. I also think there might be some barriers due to the consoles, where DLC can only do so much.

 

Having said that, a DLC model could make the type of patching you would require more feasible. Part of the reason why that stuff is done in expansions, is because the costs get recouped in the sale of the expansion.

 

 

Warden's Keep is probably similar in length to the Return to Ostagar one (I haven't played Return to Ostagar, but it took me about an hour or so... I wasn't really paying attention) to complete Warden's Keep.

 

Exactly - I wouldn't mind at all if this 'gradual optional content' model came with 'gradual system updates', i.e. super-patches. Since someone mentioned Paradox, look at the changes implemented by their upcoming third expansion pack to EU3, Heir to the Throne. Large features in the game, such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Curia, etc., are changed completely, along with interface facelift and coding to make everything work. Will a DLC do something like that? Highly unlikely. I mean, in addition to the things we already talked about, having DLCs that make big changes to the game as a whole will wreak havoc with compatibility. THe problems I and others have just enabling an isolated DLC such as Shale is nothing compared to what might happen if you have a gameplay-changing DLC and its clashing with several other DLCs and it being enabled and disabled and whatnot. That's why patches have to stand up to the task; if not, the whole model is worse off than the old one IMO, since gameplay improvements and system improvements are just as important as new content.

 

The game seems to have a lot of trouble keeping track of the whole Alistair/Anora business.

[alanschu]

Anyway, the only thing that really worries me about DLCs replacing expansion packs is gameplay improvements and such. Are DLCs now going to introduce gameplay / technical changes, such as to the UI, the AI, etc etc?

 

Isn't this what Paradox has been doing for years now, what they basically did with Hearts of Iron II (and I believe many of there other games... don't have firsthand knowledge of those though)?

 

 

Paradox Plaza released a stand alone expansion called Doomsday, as well as a DLC called Armageddon, for Hearts of Iron 2. I can't remember if Armageddon actually changed aspects of the game though. It may have.

[alanschu]

The game seems to have a lot of trouble keeping track of the whole Alistair/Anora business.

 

There are issues with the end game epilogues in general.

 

IIRC they are being addressed in an upcoming patch.

[alanschu]

Note to self... avoid BioBoards at home....

[Gorth]

Note to self... avoid BioBoards at home....

is there a story worth telling there?

 

Note to self. Don't open bottles without labels...