Dragon Age discussion

[Gromnir]

am still not seeing the grind argument. irenicus dungeon at start were grindy and unavoidable mook combats. suldanessellar were even more extreme. if you wanna try and convince us that everything in between were less grindy we will have to agree to disagree, 'cause we not see that way.

 

as for bg2 characters being great because they were fun or campy cliche plug-ins... am gonna disagree. there were more than a few drama queens in bg2... the difference being that you could ignore their quests or complete quickly and never have to endure their complaints again. as much as we likes keldorn, he were clearly a drama queen... and for some reason he needed Gromnir to fix his marriage problems? what? why? aerie, anomen, cernd, yoshimo, valygar, and viconia all had some serious dramas to deal with, but if you never had cernd or aerie in your party then you never had t deal with such stuff. is that how they is superior? am having a hard time seeing bg2 superiority for joinables... save that minsc made a better dog than the dog, and jan were more amusing than ohgren. perhaps the bg2 romances were superior, but as we never explored such stuff we cannot comment.

 

some folks likes six member parties... have seen boo make references to such before. even so, since d20, we has not even seen d&d pnp rules where more than four is the norm. pathfinder? they use four-person parties. standard for d2/3e balance and 4e game testing were four. boo liked six? fine, but fact that da and bio used four is actually more in line with pnp norm for party size... and given the range o' functions and skills, we cannot see no purpose in having more.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"As for whether DA is the best Bioware game since BGII:

I'm not sure about that. It has stuff done well and stuff done badly. It is superior in many ways to other Bio games, but other titles have their advantages. Jade Empire probably has better writing, ME2 better pacing, KOTOR a better thought out hub structure etc. etc.

I say that such as it is, it falls under the same level of quality as everything else Bioware has done post BGII. I'm enjoying it more than others, but that's because I like this gameplay style more than the action RPG stuff and that doesn't make it automatically better."

 

am maybe gonna disagree with... everything quoted direct above. we were not much impressed by je writing. in point of fact, je is one of the two bio games we never completed... the other being hotu (not because hotu were a bad game, but we were sooooo tired of drow and epic.) in any event, the writing in je were not something we could applaud. better pacing for me2? am knowing you ain't joking, but that has been one o' the most common complaints of me2 compared to me1; all the damned loyalty quests makes the main quest seem almost incidental. as for a better thought out hub structure for kotor... again, this were a frequent complaint o' kotor, and it is handled very similar to da in any event. got an entire galaxy to possibly explore, but much like nwn you is expected to go to four different locations to get some special widget or mcguffin... and lord knows that if you got issues with da linearity then kotor is even worse in this regard.

 

*shrug*

Edited February 13, 2010 by Gromnir

[RPGmasterBoo]

Irenicus dungeon and Suldanessellar are 3-4 hours playing time in a 100+ hour game. How much grind was there in the Underdark, Spellhold, Underwater city etc? Especially compared to other non-combat content. But okay *shrugs*

 

Some of the characters had drama but it never dominated your interactions with them. You didn't spend hours waiting for them to reveal their sad life story, and you could get it over with quickly if you wanted. Personally I don't know anything about Cernd or Viconia for example because I never had them in my party. Or Keldorn for that matter. Thus I can say that BGII allowed me to choose a party I can enjoy leading. DA offers less choice in that regard, and no particularily memorable characters.

 

Six characters means more interaction with them and means ability to include more difficult encounters and juggle more tactical options. Even if you dont enjoy the latter, the advantages of the former are obvious.

 

PS: Not that it matters but the Jaheira romance was better than any subsequent romance in any RPG.

 

*As for which is better in post BGII - I never found the differences expressed above to be huge. Its all the same to me. I'm just not impressed by DA any more than I was by KOTOR, JE, NWN, ME/ME2 etc. - all are equally forgettable to me. They are good games marred by lack of ambition. The Bhaalspawn tale was more ambitious than anything that followed it. Why they chose to go with "save the world" afterwards is beyond me. Not holding it against Bioware though for wanting to stay in business, but it wouldn't hurt to try something new.

Edited February 13, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[RPGmasterBoo]

Out of curiosity I have to ask, if 4 players is the norm: how the hell do 4 players handle an encounter with a Dragon or any other uber monster from the Manual?

[Gromnir]

Out of curiosity I have to ask, if 4 players is the norm: how the hell do 4 players handle an encounter with a Dragon or any other uber monster from the Manual?

 

eh?

 

the CR (challenge ratings) for all d&d (and pathfinder) monsters from 3e to 4e is based on gameplay testing with four member parties... regardless of whether the monsters is goblins, trolls, dragons or demon lords. have played a number of pathfinder modules using their stock four character parties... more than one dragon encounter. cr ratings for dragons typically seems a bit low compared to other monsters, but in any event, the crs is arguably accurate-- 4 can takes on a dragon if cr is appropriate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[RPGmasterBoo]

Weird. I've never played much DnD or any pnp for that matter (too hard to get people together) so I'll take your word for it. I know the books but not much practice hence the noob question.

 

(and thats the reason I was never bored with Forgotten realms, never had a chance to be).

 

Btw have you heard of Nobilis? A diceless pnp, only one book released.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[~Di]

I've noticed that on these forums when a game like DA, ME, and even Fallout 3 comes out, it is well received. People play it and talk about how much they enjoy it. Then a few months pass and suddenly it becomes mediocre or worse. What is that all about?

 

 

I've noticed that as well. I think it's because turning up one's nose at a game and harping upon its flaws and mediocrity make one seem much smarter and knowledgeable about the business than the developers, who obviously have no clue as to how a "good" game is constructed. In some gaming circles, liking a game makes one appear to the hard-core cynics as puppy-like, fanboy, or sheeple behavior. Only those who can articulate how poor a game really is are, like, the "real" gamers.

 

I've been playing DA non-stop for 3 months now. I still enjoy it even though I am acutely aware of every "flaw" and poor "design decision" that I would have done differently.

[~Di]

DAO has some choices, but they don't really affect how the quests play out. No matter what, most of the quest is just a grind, and then you make a choice at the end, the new Bio paradigm. Plus there's nothing particularly great about the choices you make, they didn't really feel very satisfying, it's pretty much be a goody two shoes or a jerk once again.

 

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results.

[RangerSG]

DAO has some choices, but they don't really affect how the quests play out. No matter what, most of the quest is just a grind, and then you make a choice at the end, the new Bio paradigm. Plus there's nothing particularly great about the choices you make, they didn't really feel very satisfying, it's pretty much be a goody two shoes or a jerk once again.

 

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results.

 

I'm with Di on this one. I don't see how they "don't make a difference." Which option you pick to deal with the demon in Redcliffe matters. The quest for the Urn can send half your party up in smoke (Sten en route, Lel and Wynne when you make the choice. Revealing you're a BM can make you the enemy of both the Circle and the Templars and gimp you in the end game. The choices with the Dwarves make a radical difference with what happens to them in the end. And if you "blow through" that quest without talking to people, you may never understand why. The Dalish/Werewolves, as Di noted. And personally I'd say Alistair's reactions at the landsmeet are absolutely in-character...even if they are stupid from a strategic POV.

 

And I also remember how when FO3 everyone here loved on it, but now are much more cool in their analysis. I'd chalk this up to "familiarity breeds contempt." Bottom line, if a game gives you a dollar's worth of entertainment for every one spent, can you really complain about the value you've received...esp compared to say a movie? Or even cable/dish TV? Seeing I enjoyed almost all of the 123hrs I spent on my first DA playthrough, and still enjoy the game 3 months later, I can't complain for value.

 

Is it BG2? Nope. But gromnir said that best. BG2 had multiple iterations to get the engine seamless. All they had to worry about was story. DA was not just a new story, it was a new setting and new ruleset. Comparing it to BG2 is, by definition, an unfair comparison. Compared to the original BG, it stands up much better. And the original BG was very grindy. Aimless wandering was fun, yes. But it was a mechanic to hide the grind.

[Stephen Amber]

This is why Ibashed DA when it comes to people bragging about 100% MR. Having a character completely immune to something is just poor design unless its extremely rare and not gaming breaking. It's the same with BG2 vamps. They coudl deadly but if youa re immune to their level drain they were a completely a joke and you coudl wade into battle by multi clicking your entire party INCLUDING the mage and just gang rape them while you do nothing but watch.

 

It wasn't so simple as that. Drain immunity was available, initially, only in the form of a level 4 cleric spell of short duration which could only be bestowed upon a single party member... the dwarf tank being the most likely candidate. Much later, when assaulting the vamp stronghold you might have an assortment of drain immune gear, but vamps are real threat throught a good portion of the game. Drizzt of course shows to help clean up the vamps and proves to be drain immune as well some how. hah.

 

I chose disintegrate to deal with dragons since I nearly always play as wiz through these games and is natural to do so... don't care what the other party members do.

[Wrath of Dagon]

DAO has some choices, but they don't really affect how the quests play out. No matter what, most of the quest is just a grind, and then you make a choice at the end, the new Bio paradigm. Plus there's nothing particularly great about the choices you make, they didn't really feel very satisfying, it's pretty much be a goody two shoes or a jerk once again.

 

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results.

The Dalish quest affected the game? How?

What I said is choices don't affect how the quest plays out, you still do a long grind and a decision at the end. And they're not great because you can always do the right thing without cost if you want to, nothing new here. As far as being unpredictable, that's why I said they're not very satisfying, for example you have to say something that doesn't make any sense at the end of Alistair sister quest, or else Alistair will act like a boneheaded jerk at the end of the game.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

Who was that guy that used to argue KotOR was the greatest thing in the world while Mass Effect was the worst?

[Volourn]

"They had the benefit of not taking themselves too seriously (something Bioware's subsequent characters are quilty as hell of), of being around for a very long time - some of them through all three titles (which endeared them to the player) and having a clear identity (benefit of the portraits and writing). They did not grow, but they didn't need to, many of them were fun to have around just the way they were. Except Anomen."

 

Kiddin' right? Half the BG2 npcs were dama queens in one or another. Nothjingw rong with that either. It sure beats Minsc who was simply a waste of space. Why would I want a mental handicap being WHO BREAKS THE RULES in my party? Scumbag.

 

 

 

"PS: Not that it matters but the Jaheira romance was better than any subsequent romance in any RPG."

 

I used to agree. I love Jaheria and she's one of my favorite characters and romances ever; but she pales in comaprison to newer ones. Noth Morrigan and Miranda are sueprior. I say that, btw, evenn thoguh I didn't actually romance Miranda just became friends. Why? because these characters actually learn, and grow. Jaheria - even with the death of Khalid - is the same exact chaarcter at the end of TOB as she was when you first met her. Another reason why npcs nowadays are sueprior is becasuse they ahev mkore to say. They will talk about what they see. They're not mute. Do any of the npcs in BG2 ever talk about Firkragg for example? I don't think so, and if they do it's probably minute. And, jaheria is an exmaple of one of the BETTER BG2 npcs. Jan? Only thing 'memorable' thing about him is his silly line about turnips. That's it. he's just as bad a sMinsc. Or that stupid kobold Deekin from SOU/HOTU. Urgh.

 

For m, all of the BIO games have something to offer better than the others except KOTOR which is is absically middle of the road.

 

 

BG2: Sheer size, and epic scope.

 

NWN: Toolset, multiplayer, and HOTU.

 

JE: Far less 'needless' combat than the other, open plan/closed fist, and KARATE! (and transnformations were kewl!)

 

DA: Nice non stolen chaarcter system, tatical combat, solid C&C

 

ME/ME2: Dialogue wheel, C&C, characters, and the movie like atmosphere... and ME2's end sequence + the whole set up is untouchable.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Volourn

[Monte Carlo]

So, after five pages of intriguing BG2 / DA comparisons what we have decided is that I have to wait until Dragon Age 4 --- Awakening of the Origins of MOAR ROMANCE to get the superlative RPG experience. xD This doesn't wash after a SIX year development cycle. Nazi Germany was defeated in five years for chrissakes.

 

I was interested in the "Community Likes it then Hates it" point. I like Dragon Age, and I was a hater during the development cycle. Check out my happy crow-eating posts in my personal reviews. But the flaws do resonate more on each playthrough. I still like it, but it ain't no BG2. OK it wasn't meant to be but for all the obvious reasons comparison is inevitable.

 

One last point - I saw the apocryphal screenie of Firkraag being killed by a monk using quivering palm but could never do it.

[Tigranes]

Firkraag is rather often FOD'd, though. I was always enamoured with getting through a Disintegrate or Flesh to Stone for aesthetic reasons, but I think at least one of them isn't feasible mathematically.

[Maria Caliban]

 

Thus I can say that BGII allowed me to choose a party I can enjoy leading. DA offers less choice in that regard, and no particularily memorable characters.

 

I consider Morrigan, Alistair, and Sten memorable characters. I'm not sure what about Leliana confused you.

 

They had the benefit of not taking themselves too seriously (something Bioware's subsequent characters are quilty as hell of)...

 

Oghran is a serious character? People constantly complain that he's a joke character.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Maria Caliban

[RPGmasterBoo]

What didnt? She's religious fanatic/nun who spent her past life killing people for fun and games and now acts all "neutral good" with Imoen's innocent demanour? Jesus. If she was insane at least....

 

Its as if Thane suddenly became all jolly and obsessed with shoes and started preaching to the PC.

 

As for the others, I don't see what's memorable about them. Particularly about Sten whose the typical stoic warrior type.

 

Oghran is a serious character? People constantly complain that he's a joke character.

Every Bioware game has a comic relief character. He/she/it doesn't count. The others however, have nothing better to do then bring up their sad childhood. The only remotely balanced personality in DA is Wynne and perhaps Zevran (I don't bring him along so I don't know).

Edited February 14, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Maria Caliban]

You can play as your dead Warden in Awakening. Your DEAD Warden. This is after years of telling us that they made the combat system the way they did because in Thedas, death was 'meaningful.'

[RPGmasterBoo]

I've no idea what you just said. I'm still not through with DA so I assume its something about that.

 

Lemme just mention that all this analyzing was prompted by Volourn's obnoxious behavior,

 

my major gripes with DA can be boiled down to two things:

 

1. painfully boring grind against 300 of the same enemies in every main quest hub

2. (and, much worse) completely uninspired and downright derivative LotR type plot

 

I can forgive everything else, but if this story was the best they could come up with after 6 years of work, then my previous comment about Gaider needing a break seems spot on.

Of course Ray and Greg said once that there was nothing wrong with the ancient evil's back storyline (?) so it might not be Gaider's fault.

 

I'd be much more lenient on DA if I saw this storyline was setting up for something greater, but I'm not seeing it so far. It looks like a typical stand alone title, which gets a sequel depending on sales.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Maria Caliban]

What didnt? She's religious fanatic/nun who spent her past life killing people for fun and games and now acts all "neutral good" with Imoen's innocent demanour? Jesus. If she was insane at least....

 

Its as if Thane suddenly became all jolly and obsessed with shoes and started preaching to the PC.

 

Leliana was a bard; being sweet and charming is necessary for the job. Thane killed people by sneaking into their house and stabbing them. Leliana killed people by being invited into their house and stabbing them. The entire point of the bard class is that they entertain and get others to let their guard down. How could Leliana do that if she was the type to sit in the corner brooding about the weakness of the mortal coil?

 

Moreover, while she did kill people, the majority of her work was not killing. It was spying and information gathering.

 

Yes, she

[RPGmasterBoo]

and is under the impression that the Maker speaks to her personally

 

Well that explains it.

 

So she goes from cold, deceitful and manipulative to devout and nice, because a deity is speaking to her?

 

Come on Maria, it might have a certain logic to it, but the character is pretty much insane.

 

Its because she's an attempt to shoehorn a completely different character into Imoen's appearance and personality, and the end result is a wacko.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Oner]

I've noticed that on these forums when a game like DA, ME, and even Fallout 3 comes out, it is well received. People play it and talk about how much they enjoy it. Then a few months pass and suddenly it becomes mediocre or worse. What is that all about?

 

 

I've noticed that as well. I think it's because turning up one's nose at a game and harping upon its flaws and mediocrity make one seem much smarter and knowledgeable about the business than the developers, who obviously have no clue as to how a "good" game is constructed. In some gaming circles, liking a game makes one appear to the hard-core cynics as puppy-like, fanboy, or sheeple behavior. Only those who can articulate how poor a game really is are, like, the "real" gamers.

Or maybe after a few weeks the initial wonder and awe wears down and you start to remember the annoying bits - like the "Decompression in progress" sequence in ME, interestingly over which I haven't seen anyone complain yet for some reason. And then come the "How to design games "properly" discussions.

[Maria Caliban]

and is under the impression that the Maker speaks to her personally

 

Well that explains it.

 

So she goes from cold, deceitful and manipulative to devout and nice, because a deity is speaking to her?

 

Come on Maria, it might have a certain logic to it, but the character is pretty much insane.

 

Its because she's an attempt to shoehorn a completely different character into Imoen's appearance and personality, and the end result is weird.

 

She was never cold, deceitful, and manipulative. She was *sweet,* deceitful, and manipulative. Honestly, the only thing that Imoen and she share personality wise is that they

[RPGmasterBoo]

She was never cold, deceitful, and manipulative. She was *sweet,* deceitful, and manipulative. Honestly, the only thing that Imoen and she share personality wise is that they’re girly. Well, lots of women are girly.

 

The character is only insane if the Maker isn’t speaking to her. If the Maker does speak to her, she’s not nuts.

 

That's the point. You can't do the sort of work that she's supposed to have done without damage to your self, without being a monster inside. You can't play sweet and nice, and stab someone in the gut later without leaving serious fractures in your personality. That sort of behavior fits characters like Dexter, who have no moral compass. Thane was obviously damaged by it. She on the other hand is supposed to be a normal human being but shows little remorse or maturity considering all the things she's done. On top of it all, she has the gall to preach to the PC when he does something that's not "nice".

 

As for god talking to her well I think the maker has better things to do than make phone calls in people's heads.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[RangerSG]

DAO has some choices, but they don't really affect how the quests play out. No matter what, most of the quest is just a grind, and then you make a choice at the end, the new Bio paradigm. Plus there's nothing particularly great about the choices you make, they didn't really feel very satisfying, it's pretty much be a goody two shoes or a jerk once again.

 

You can say that after the Urn of Sacred Ashes quest? Your choice there affects your party big time. How about your choices in/after Landsmeet? Life or death, quite literally, for several of the NPC's. Your choices affect the ending in ways you cannot even imagine at the time you are making them. The Dalish quest had three potential outcomes, and the results of each could not have been more different nor affect the game more. I'm really confused that you would say this about this particular game, since it is the first game I've played where choices have such far-reaching, potentially catastrophic and unpredictable results.

The Dalish quest affected the game? How?

What I said is choices don't affect how the quest plays out, you still do a long grind and a decision at the end. And they're not great because you can always do the right thing without cost if you want to, nothing new here. As far as being unpredictable, that's why I said they're not very satisfying, for example you have to say something that doesn't make any sense at the end of Alistair sister quest, or else Alistair will act like a boneheaded jerk at the end of the game.

 

Well, I've never said anything that "doesn't make sense" to Alistair after seeing his sister. In fact, I've never done the "hardening" line with either romance option. So I fail to see how it's "necessary" to avoid having Alistair act like a jerk in the end. Though I would note, that whether or not you like what Alistair does in the end, it makes perfect sense given his internal motivators. His actions are irrational, but entirely consistent. And since human beings aren't computers, what he does makes sense.

[RangerSG]

You can play as your dead Warden in Awakening. Your DEAD Warden. This is after years of telling us that they made the combat system the way they did because in Thedas, death was 'meaningful.'

 

I was disappointed when I read this in the FAQ too. I'm guessing they had serious issues with the import on a dead PC and decided that if someone wanted to do it that way, they could since people were crying about *not* being able to do it anyway. That said, I won't import my "sacrifice" PC. She made that choice for a reason, and it just doesn't fit to bring her back.