Dragon Age 2

[RPGmasterBoo]

ME2's inventory was excellent, a huge step away from the tedious inventory systems of the past. Although I get why packrats will be peeved.

 

When ME 2 came out, I started a thread on the BSN suggesting I'd like to see their costume system in DA II. Queue eight pages of posters calling me a console kiddie who wanted to dumb down RPGs. Also, not a real BioWare fan who needs to go back to her JRPGs.

 

I don't think it's just packrats. I think there are many people who see the most cumbersome aspects of Western RPGs as important and defining the genre.

 

Gameplay complexity is inherent to RPG's. That's what makes them more satisfying than Tomb Raider. I've nothing against the latter, and when I want to play an action game, I'll play it. When I want to play an RPG I want stats, squad tactics, inventories etc.

 

If its not complex and if there is no micromanagment all that's left is choose your own adventure button mashing. It grates me to do nothing but push the story along with one button combat and dialog (eg ME). Any fool can do that. There's no accomplishment in it, no nerd glory. It feels like Benny said: "The game was rigged from the start", only in the player's favor.

 

I forgave TW this because everything else about it worked so well.

Edited November 5, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Tale]

Too bad combat and dialog aren't inventory. I'll agree with combat and dialog, but don't confuse them. Most inventory systems are ridiculous monty haul systems of picking up tons of junk to sort through and sell, not actual intelligent complexity.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tale

[Volourn]

" It grates me to do nothing but push the story along with one button combat and dialog (eg ME)"

 

I can beat BG2 using just one button (or mouse click as it were). I'd find it impossible to beat ME with one button. *shrug*

[entrerix]

i think he meant just pressing the buttons mindlessly instead of having to think and plan. mass effect you can kinda sleepwalk through and still succeed, planescape torment or baldurs gate don't work that way

Edited November 5, 2010 by entrerix

[WorstUsernameEver]

Too bad combat and dialog aren't inventory. I'll agree with combat and dialog, but don't confuse them. Most inventory systems are ridiculous monty haul systems of picking up tons of junk to sort through and sell, not actual intelligent complexity.

 

Erasing the inventory system is not a solution. That said, it's not that bad, but still, equipment progression and diversification is not a bad thing.

[Tale]

i think he meant just pressing the buttons mindlessly instead of having to think and plan. mass effect you can kinda sleepwalk through and still succeed, planescape torment or baldurs gate don't work that way

Yes, I'm pretty sure he said that. But it's not an element anyone is supporting, so he's basically just rambling. The topic, in specific, at hand was the inventory/equipment system of ME2. Which still requires thinking and planning.

 

Erasing the inventory system is not a solution.

Care to justify the claim? Paring down the inventory system (which is exactly what ME2 did) solved the problem mostly. So, to claim it's not a solution, when it did in fact solve something, seems a bit silly.

 

That said, it's not that bad, but still, equipment progression and diversification is not a bad thing.

Equipment progression isn't a bad thing. It's not a good thing either. It's largely an unnecessary thing. Narratively, it's particularly weak. I don't recall any of the heroes I'm familiar with picking up new swords out of every cave or doing comparative analysis to see if the enemy's sword might just be slightly better than the grand one the king just gifted him. And in the case that the enemy swords are weak, he tosses all of them in a sack to lug around to sell to the local smith. But maybe that goes on in the stories I haven't read.

 

Even outside of the narrative consideration, it doesn't actually bring much else to it. If we're talking about weapons with unique properties that make them stronger in one sense and weaker in another, that's all good. But 9 times out of 10, they're simply all around weaker and the sole purpose they serve is to be turned into cash later on. That's not an intelligent system by any means, it doesn't add anything of value.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tale

[RPGmasterBoo]

Most inventory systems are ridiculous monty haul systems of picking up tons of junk to sort through and sell, not actual intelligent complexity.

 

I agree with this, which is why I liked BGII so much. One look and it was obvious what was junk and what was worth keeping. And selling junk in piles was never worth the bother. Magical items were sufficiently rare so as to stay exciting, and the mundane stuff you just ignored.

There was the issue with the arrow quivers, but apart from that it was perfect.

BG 1 had too much junk and ToB had an overload of magical items.

 

I don't like picking up piles of crap and selling it and I hate an abundance of randomly generated prefix-suffix magical loot like Diablo has. I was sorely disappointed with Dragon Age over this.

 

@Tale

Sorry, what's this thinking you had to do in the ME2 inventory?

Edited November 5, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[entrerix]

i dont remember there being an inventory system in mass effect 2... i guess thats not a bad thing, but its not a very good thing either.

[Wrath of Dagon]

KOTOR 2 had the best inventory system I've ever seen. I don't understand why RPG's don't just use that instead of constantly screwing with different idiotic implementations. I'm not including Bioware in this, as they don't even try to make RPG's any more.

[WorstUsernameEver]

That said, it's not that bad, but still, equipment progression and diversification is not a bad thing.

Equipment progression isn't a bad thing. It's not a good thing either. It's largely an unnecessary thing. Narratively, it's particularly weak. I don't recall any of the heroes I'm familiar with picking up new swords out of every cave or doing comparative analysis to see if the enemy's sword might just be slightly better than the grand one the king just gifted him. And in the case that the enemy swords are weak, he tosses all of them in a sack to lug around to sell to the local smith. But maybe that goes on in the stories I haven't read.

 

Even outside of the narrative consideration, it doesn't actually bring much else to it. If we're talking about weapons with unique properties that make them stronger in one sense and weaker in another, that's all good. But 9 times out of 10, they're simply all around weaker and the sole purpose they serve is to be turned into cash later on. That's not an intelligent system by any means, it doesn't add anything of value.

 

I don't remember cycling dialogues in epic poems. Or people picking up fetch quests. Or... you name it. They're designing a game. Narrative comes second to the enjoyment of the player. As for your second point, I'm not sure why 'most games do it bad' is a justification for not trying it at all. I also wouldn't want DA2 to be structurally similar to ME2 since they have largely different game mechanics.

[Tale]

@Tale

Sorry, what's this thinking you had to do in the ME2 inventory?

Tradeoff considerations. Do you want more shields, more armor, or more health? Do you want to have more ammo or do more damage? The heavy pistol was kind of absurd with how low ammo it had, if you remember. The starting armor pistol was fine as a main weapon, but the low ammo on the heavy one meant it's only useful for fighting armor or you'll run out. Assault rifles were very generalist, but that was a benefit of the Soldier class. You could pick it up later as other classes, but it's again a tradeoff to make that choice. You may have to sacrifice upgrading a weapon just to get the assault rifle. Or you might end up having to skip snipers to get assault rifles.

 

It's more thinking than most progression systems. "Is the number bigger? Yes, it is, I'll use it."

 

I don't remember cycling dialogues in epic poems. Or people picking up fetch quests. Or... you name it. They're designing a game. Narrative comes second to the enjoyment of the player. As for your second point, I'm not sure why 'most games do it bad' is a justification for not trying it at all. I also wouldn't want DA2 to be structurally similar to ME2 since they have largely different game mechanics.

Who doesn't complain about fetch quests? Are you actually telling me right here and now that if they did away with fetch quests, that would be a bad thing?

 

A system should work to address important objectives. You've so far not mentioned an important objective the old systems attempted to meet except "I'm not sure why." That's not an argument, that's a failure to consider. The system ME2 used allowed for player customization, choice, and even included some element of progression in that the player gained versatility and more choices as the game continued on. If you can think of an interesting objective the old systems tried to meet, I'd love to hear it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tale

[RPGmasterBoo]

@Tale

Sorry, what's this thinking you had to do in the ME2 inventory?

Tradeoff considerations. Do you want more shields, more armor, or more health? Do you want to have more ammo or do more damage? The heavy pistol was kind of absurd with how low ammo it had, if you remember. The starting armor pistol was fine as a main weapon, but the low ammo on the heavy one meant it's only useful for fighting armor or you'll run out. Assault rifles were very generalist, but that was a benefit of the Soldier class. You could pick it up later as other classes, but it's again a tradeoff to make that choice. You may have to sacrifice upgrading a weapon just to get the assault rifle. Or you might end up having to skip snipers to get assault rifles.

 

It's more thinking than most progression systems. "Is the number bigger? Yes, it is, I'll use it."

 

I've no idea what you're talking about. All those choices were irrelevant considering the game was cakewalk even on hard (or veteran, or whatever the above average difficulty was).

I pulverized through everything with every available weapon and it made no difference whatsoever.

 

Tradeoffs make sense when there is some palpable gain or loss either way. There wasn't.

Edited November 5, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Oner]

I don't remember cycling dialogues in epic poems. Or people picking up fetch quests. Or... you name it. They're designing a game. Narrative comes second to the enjoyment of the player. As for your second point, I'm not sure why 'most games do it bad' is a justification for not trying it at all. I also wouldn't want DA2 to be structurally similar to ME2 since they have largely different game mechanics.

I don't derive enjoyment from playing hide and seek with vendor trash.

[Tale]

I've no idea what you're talking about. All those choices were irrelevant considering the game was cakewalk even on hard (or veteran, or whatever the above average difficulty was).

I pulverized through everything with every available weapon and it made no difference whatsoever.

 

Tradeoffs make sense when there is some palpable gain or loss either way. There wasn't.

It's still a sight better than than the alternative. Claiming that tradeoffs only make sense when the game is difficult seems somewhat senseless. The argument should be to increase the difficulty, not remove the tradeoffs.

 

If your entire argument against the inventory system is that the enemies were too easy in general, then I don't see how you and I can engage in this debate. Because I completely fail to understand the argument. It's not as if vendor trash would have made them harder to fight. So you can't blame the inventory for that.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tale

[Hassat Hunter]

Most RPG's: "Let me see, it does more damage, but it doesn't have the +STR boost. Which one to use?"

 

ME2: "Cool! Yet another heavy weapon I never use *tosses away*... so, have I actually changed my gun since the start? Nope? Where am I? Finale... al right..."

 

ME2's inventory was "+10% DAMAGE achieved" updates bought...

That's not an inventory, that's an upgrade system.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I've no idea what you're talking about. All those choices were irrelevant considering the game was cakewalk even on hard (or veteran, or whatever the above average difficulty was).

I pulverized through everything with every available weapon and it made no difference whatsoever.

 

Tradeoffs make sense when there is some palpable gain or loss either way. There wasn't.

It's still a sight better than than the alternative. Claiming that tradeoffs only make sense when the game is difficult seems somewhat senseless. The argument should be to increase the difficulty, not remove the tradeoffs.

 

If your entire argument against the inventory system is that the enemies were too easy in general, then I don't see how you and I can engage in this debate. Because I completely fail to understand the argument. It's not as if vendor trash would have made them harder to fight. So you can't blame the inventory for that.

 

The argument was that it didn't work in ME2. It might not have been a bad idea on the drawing board but it wasn't implemented fully.

 

I'm not for stripping down the inventory to its bare essentials since I like inventory micro. On the other hand, I don't like loot spam. There is a functional middle ground.

 

There was too little inventory micro in ME2 for my tastes. I let the same thing slide in the Witcher since the protagonists fixed image would be ruined by constant visual changes.

[Morgoth]

Inventory management is a waste of time. I wanna play a game, not shelve things around....

[Morgoth]

BioDocs interview @ Eurogamer

[Nepenthe]

If your entire argument against the inventory system is that the enemies were too easy in general, then I don't see how you and I can engage in this debate. Because I completely fail to understand the argument. It's not as if vendor trash would have made them harder to fight. So you can't blame the inventory for that.

I think it's time we just accept that Boo will never again like anything Bioware will make, so that he will stop trying to twist his subjective opinion into quantifiable objective fact and I can stop getting headaches from trying to connect the dots in the argument.

 

ME2's inventory was excellent, a huge step away from the tedious inventory systems of the past. Although I get why packrats will be peeved.

 

When ME 2 came out, I started a thread on the BSN suggesting I'd like to see their costume system in DA II. Queue eight pages of posters calling me a console kiddie who wanted to dumb down RPGs. Also, not a real BioWare fan who needs to go back to her JRPGs.

 

I don't think it's just packrats. I think there are many people who see the most cumbersome aspects of Western RPGs as important and defining the genre.

 

It's an entertaining circle. People bemoan the reuse of CRPG tropes ("we haven't seen anything innovative in 10 years!"), and then when a game tries to move past them, they start bashing those games for "no longer being RPGs", because they no longer subscribe to those tropes.

 

Some of the most contested "it's no longer an rpg, they sold out!" features of ME2 have clear parallels and examples in P&P RPGs... the Agency handing out the weapons is reminiscent of Spycraft, mission-based (as opposed to kill-based) exp is probably more widely used these days... *shrug*, it's their loss, not mine, and when I finally completely tire of the incessant inane whining, I can always leave.

[Monte Carlo]

Bioware are redefining the RPG by turning it into, as Boo says, into Tomb Raider.

 

Maria makes an astute, well-observed point, WRPGs have lines in the sand. One by one Bio have eliminated them, hey they'll probably be making Final Fantasy type games within five years.

 

Basically, Bio are making games uniquely tailored to make me not want to buy them, it's an interesting journey made even more odd by the fact that Dragon Age: Origins was so nearly there and a good game to boot.

 

The pattern is familiar too - make a really good game, then five lame ones, then a good one... rinse and repeat.

[Thorton_AP]

Magical items were sufficiently rare so as to stay exciting

 

[RPGmasterBoo]

That was the point of my anti DA2, ME argument all along. Those games aren't about improving RPG's but melting them into a completely different genre, with the only difference between the two being a branching plot and player influence over it. That's all fine and dandy, but please don't try to sell that crap as progress.

 

The fact of the matter is this. There is no more market (not one large enough for the likes of EA) for the semi turn based isometric, rules heavy games. What sells now is what everyone can play and get into. That is market logic. Its not refining, improving or moving a new step towards a gaming paradise. There was nothing wrong with space sims, yet they still kicked the bucket. The same will apply to "old school RPG's".

 

I find that sad but understandable. What I can't stomach is trying to sell old concepts as something new and exciting.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The fact of the matter is this. There is no more market (not one large enough for the likes of EA) for the semi turn based isometric, rules heavy games.

You should look into Age of Decadence, if you haven't already.

[Maria Caliban]

Pictures.

 

The skill tree.. circle thing is interesting and the interface is much cleaner than DA:O's. I assume you drag ang drop skills directly to the hotkey bar. I find the icons a touch too modern looking; the first one looks like a street sign. I thought the DA:O ones were fine.

 

 

I'm not sure what the heart and circle is in the lower right.

 

If you look at the left of the skill circle, there's a vertical slider that indicates how far you are on the friendship or rivalry path. They *both* are indications of how much the NPC likes you. The idea is that you shouldn't have to agree with your companion's beliefs for them to approve of you as a leader.

 

 

An image of Lady Hawke

 

 

She seems to have a cow catcher strapped to her armor.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The fact of the matter is this. There is no more market (not one large enough for the likes of EA) for the semi turn based isometric, rules heavy games.

You should look into Age of Decadence, if you haven't already.

 

I downloaded the combat demo today. Unfortunately its horribly unoptimized so I couldn't get much out of it.