Dragon Age did get at least one thing right though...

[pseudonymous]

Basically, please be more like Origins and less like BGII. Blasphemy, etc.

 

No, no, no, no, no, and no.  I didn't give Obsidian money to play a remake of Knights of the Old Republic in a fantasy setting.  Just no.

[Ulquiorra]

 

Better tactics...? lolno. It's good that plugged up the door blocking exploit and a lot of the things your saying it did can all be great, in theory. It's just the implementation was really dumbed down, and I believe that the finger of blame can be pointed towards the crafting system and how overpowered it was. My strategy for majority of battles were to equip mages with items that lowered their threat levels, and my tank with itmes that raised their (as well as several very powerful defensive items) threat levels, used taunt when needed, and spam healing potions and magic. All the baddies would die with the tank just chugging away at bottles like its new years eve. That's literally all there is to it +/- threat level equipment, and crafted potions. It's too simple.

 

 

Id it was TOO simple then why you use ut ? BTW. Dragon Age from potion sawning was also better then BG becouse you need some time before you drink next potion. In BG you coud drink potions almost whole battle (but also taking more demage from that) ...

 

And im sure thet you played Dragon Age on highest dificulty lewel if you are saying that it was simple ...

 

 

in real life it happened, sometimes in truly awesome ways. A small unit of soldiers holding a pass against a massive enemy force? Hear of the movie 300? It is based on the historical battle of Thermopylae. A corridor can be held easily by a man or two, provided the enemy isn't suicidal or of far greater skill. Strength only counts if it can be used effectively. An idiot trying to barge through would only get himself stabbed to death.  

 

 

If a movie 300 is your real life then im sorry for you ... what does the MOVIE has to do with real life ? It was portraited on battle of Thermopylae but there was about 25000 soldiers not 300 ...

 

Sexondly if you goy 4 fighters and a dragon thet is big as t-rex .. or are atact by 20 goblin warriors then i don't imagine they coud stand in the same place whole battle ...

[Rubarack]

Honestly they both kind of failed in this department, BG used the awful D&D rules set which was unbelievably clunky and a very poor fit for a computer game, Dragon Age was horribly unbalanced with degenerate tactics being pretty much essential. Even though you could win all the battles pretty easily without AoE it would take hours to kill the hundreds and hundreds of enemies it threw at you one at a time.

 

Project Eternity sounds extremely promising and Obsidian are definitely on the right track as far as I'm concerned. It just remains to be seen if they can pull it off.

[Ulquiorra]

Honestly they both kind of failed in this department, BG used the awful D&D rules set which was unbelievably clunky and a very poor fit for a computer game, Dragon Age was horribly unbalanced with degenerate tactics being pretty much essential. Even though you could win all the battles pretty easily without AoE it would take hours to kill the hundreds and hundreds of enemies it threw at you one at a time.

 

Project Eternity sounds extremely promising and Obsidian are definitely on the right track as far as I'm concerned. It just remains to be seen if they can pull it off.

 

I don't think that DAO was the best tactical game, but it was better then BG becouse BG has simply horrible. BG was not briliant but had more elements then simple "dubble click" mechanics ...

 

The balance in game is wery dificult subject becouse if you make a game "To balanced" or "to realistic" most of the players whoud never played that game becouse they want to feel powerfull .. there are even players that will not play a bame if it have to complexed mechanics so .. it all goes down to what kind of players you are makeing this game ...

[Jarmo]

DA:O had good combat in early levels, but it became an uncontrollable mess later on.

BG2 started out bad and only got worse, except when you got stuff like Gate and Summon Deva and could just hang back.

 

Icewind Dale and 2 had good combat all the way. Dated (even then), but good.

 

Final Fantasy XIII (or was it XII) had great triggers and automations, with stuff like heal if at under x%health,

you could pretty much program the thing and leave the group fighting by themselves.

(But no terrain or stuff like that, just folks standing in line bashing each others)

[Ffordesoon]

XII.

 

Yes. That game did the AI thing right.

 

Dragon Age's combat is the worst thing about it, but I do agree that it had some smart ideas, and that the AI programming thing was on the right track.

 

The biggest problem with DA's combat from my perspective was that it tried to be Baldur's Gate 2 translated into the language of World Of Warcraft. That was great for people who find WOW's combat enjoyable, and was probably a smart business decision overall (WOW was still at its height then). It alienated me utterly, however, because it made me feel old. At the time, I didn't understand the language of MMOs, and yet the game talked in that language constantly. Imagine reading the sequel to your favorite book and finding that all the verbs are in a language you have never heard before and sometimes they're adjectives for no reason. Dragon Age was like that for me.

 

Add to that the fact that its balance was shonky at the best of times, and combat in DA managed some kind of unholy perfect balance between tedium, frustration, and impenetrability. For me, anyway.

[JFSOCC]

For all it's flaws DA:O had some interesting things worth looking at. I liked the "tactics" slots you could program your NPC AI in.

[Ulquiorra]

In my opinion BG is simply an old game. Dragon Age is for one hand newer game. I think that the best team fighting mechanics where in MOUNT&BLADE. You had even 366 soldiers + you and still it was looking like great battle ... here are some example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA8KXvkgCBk

[Nonek]

I enjoyed Origins combat from an aesthetic standpoint, but the Benny Hill style chases after the undead at the Siege of Redcliffe village didn't exactly endear the broken control system to me. Nor did my allies happily jumping into the flames outside the windmill. I'll take Icewind Dales combat control scheme anytime over that. Also why did I have to buy tactics slots, surely these should have been free AI behaviours like in the Infinity Engine games.

[Ffordesoon]

I enjoyed Origins combat from an aesthetic standpoint, but the Benny Hill style chases after the undead at the Siege of Redcliffe village didn't exactly endear the broken control system to me. Nor did my allies happily jumping into the flames outside the windmill. I'll take Icewind Dales combat control scheme anytime over that. Also why did I have to buy tactics slots, surely these should have been free AI behaviours like in the Infinity Engine games.

Holy moley, I completely forgot about having to buy the tactics slots! That was the whole reason I never got the hang of the party AI system. What a bad idea.

[Ulquiorra]

I enjoyed Origins combat from an aesthetic standpoint, but the Benny Hill style chases after the undead at the Siege of Redcliffe village didn't exactly endear the broken control system to me. Nor did my allies happily jumping into the flames outside the windmill. I'll take Icewind Dales combat control scheme anytime over that. Also why did I have to buy tactics slots, surely these should have been free AI behaviours like in the Infinity Engine games.

 

If you don't click on character in BG he whoud not even atack ... not talking even about "not going" intu the flames .. they where simple rug doll. BTW. In DAO you have simple command "stand still" below portraits .. then give everybody a bow and set "archer seting" or siply mikro you warriors manualy so they don't go itu the flames ...

 

About the "undead chaseing a Vilidger" .. you coud give every warrior in your team a special ability (like power atack in Icewind Dale) that where prowoking all enemys aound to atack THEM .. and then simply micro them ...when i was playing a mage or fighter on normal setting i was allways able to save all villidgers .. only as rogue i must take "low" dificulty ..

 

BTW, Redcliff mission was propable the worst becouse of week npc that where put up to a fight. I liked the setting where only my party was involved in a fight.

 

In BG it was like controlling rug dolls expecionally in BG 1.

[Nonek]

I agree Ulquiorra control was far superior in the Infinity engine games, where you could quickly and efficiently manage the rag dolls yourself. Far superior to the broken threat mechanics of Origins.

[Tigranes]

NWN2 already showed how you can have party AI that people can turn off if they wanted to treat party members like ragdolls, and that mostly worked quite well. (IE games also had party AI, so they weren't exactly 'ragdolls', but the scripts weren't as sophisticated.)

[Ulquiorra]

I agree Ulquiorra control was far superior in the Infinity engine games, where you could quickly and efficiently manage the rag dolls yourself. Far superior to the broken threat mechanics of Origins.

 

Wait. You are saying that BG is better becouse of ragdolls (sugdesting that you don't like AI in games) but you coud easly turn it of if you don't like AI. Secondly you like more ragdoll system but you say that allowing AI to go intu the fire is a prof of broken mechanis ?!

 

WTF ?! The same i can tell by it that fighters don't run from mage fireball ...

 

I understand if you WANT roll everything manully ...(rag doll system) and i whoud even udnerstand if you could not turn it of like in skyrim or mass effect .. but in DAO you coud turn it off if you don't like it ...

 

The AI gives me problems only at the beggining (mostly rogue) and in Redcliff with undead .. and somethimes when you put bigger dificulty or meet a dragon or other high level enemy ....

 

for some rag doll mechanics are frustraiting when you must to pause the game every 2 seconds even if you are fighting low level monsters ... if you like that system then turn off AI .. but don''t say that DAO have bad mechanics becouse it had AI  ... this simply stupid .. the same as .. "hay .. they have plate armors ... eee this game is ****ty .." ...

 

Sorry i don't want to offend you but this looks like type of thinking that 8-10 year children have ....

 

BTW.

I agree Ulquiorra control was far superior in the Infinity engine games

 

An ilusion of control ...every time you have roll on atack on deffence and on everything else, co besiacly you coud pump on a dragon and kill it whoud even 1 puse .. and secondly you coud pomp on that same dragon and he killed you even if you pasued 12 times .. and think every move 10 times ..

 

In NWN it look perfectly .. iv got paladin on 8 lvl and encouter a lich ... first time he killed me and take only minor demage, second time i killed him takeing also minor demage ...  first time i'v paused game at least 5 times, in second i don't pused even onece .. so where controll in that ?!

Edited May 16, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Lephys]

In NWN it look perfectly .. iv got paladin on 8 lvl and encouter a lich ... first time he killed me and take only minor demage, second time i killed him takeing also minor demage ...  first time i'v paused game at least 5 times, in second i don't pused even onece .. so where controll in that ?!

Whether or not the game uses chance rolls has absolutely nothing to do with how in-control of the character's actions you are. For what it's worth...

[Nonek]

I wish I was 8 -10 years old again. Sorry my opinion riled you so Ulquiorra, I thought you were on the same page that having more control over your party and situations is a good thing. However I can see you're rather fanatical about Origins so i'll not denigrate the game any more.

[curryinahurry]

While I agree with the OP about AI slots being convenient (although buying them was a terrible, cheap way of forcing resource management on the player), the rest of his/her post about control and micromanagement is mostly a matter of preference.  Personally, as others have pointed out in this thread, I want to actively manage my parties actions; possibly not all of them, but I certainly don't combat to be of the sort that 80% of the time I am watching it play out like a scripted event.  

 

Unfortunately, that is how a lot of the combat in DA:O felt to me.  Most of the difficulty in that game came from not knowing a great deal about the abilities/ strengths/ weaknesses of opponents, or what our own parties abilities always functioned.  I found that most of the time, once I knew how mobs in a particular area would behave, I could adjust for it, and let the AI do 80% of the work, making occasional adjustments on the fly.  That isn't what I personally want out of combat in PE.

 

As far as graphics go; meh, I never had much of a problem as I recall...although being able to toggle spell effects (or even have an opacity slider), would be helpful later in the game, when spells are likely to be more powerful/abundant.

[Ulquiorra]

I wish I was 8 -10 years old again. Sorry my opinion riled you so Ulquiorra, I thought you were on the same page that having more control over your party and situations is a good thing. However I can see you're rather fanatical about Origins so i'll not denigrate the game any more.

 

I like control, but this doesen't mean i'm sometimes lazy or simply don't want to manualy corntol EVERY fight. As i sad i had only problems in redclif mission becouse i was a rogue. But when my char is 18-22 rogue and goes to orzamar i simly kill the strongest enemys myself before thei even notice. Fighters and mages are controlig by AI BUT my char is controled by ME. I silmy go intu the shadows and kill the strongest enemys before their even notice that something hit them behind.

 

So that is some king of tactic becose the only reason for my fighter is to drowe atention on them selfs when i kill most of the enemys. I don't like turn-based system like in Arcanum becouse i wan't to feel like in real fight when sometimes you CAN control somethning but somethimes NOT ... i don't like to fight and feel im playing chess.

 

Of courese if you like this system them ok and even if a game is based on turn-based system i will not say it's "Broken" game unless i can't turn it off. I only liked turn-based systems in strategy games but even then i prefer real time like Europa universalis 2-3 or Maount&Blade ... this simply shows a big reality how the battels look liked ... they looked like mosty a chaos ...

 

BTW.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Ulquiorra]

However I can see you're rather fanatical about Origins so i'll not denigrate the game any more.

 

No orgins have ****ty romances, to many low DLC's, Some characters where shallow and stipid (leliana), darkspawns coud be done better and the game world i mean Ferelden where very poor in content, not like D&D games where you have multiple-history of citys, races, events etc ....

 

I also think that plot coud be done better then go to thre places, then go to one special place and we will be starting the end ....

 

I enjoyed DAO from combat point of view becouse it was better tactical an more enjoyble then simly ragdoll or turn based systems thats all.

[PrimeJunta]

To each their own. I hated DA:O combat. Partly because of the MMO-esque mechanics, but mostly just because it was so. endlessly. repetitive, and so heavily reliant on the "neener neener" ploy, i.e., materializing waves of enemies around you or plonking you in the middle of an ambush.

 

BG2, on the other hand, had rich, varied, and occasionally interesting combat challenges that made the most of the horrifying mechanical mess that is AD&D v2. So for combat I'll take any IE game over DA:O.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

To each their own. I hated DA:O combat. Partly because of the MMO-esque mechanics, but mostly just because it was so. endlessly. repetitive, and so heavily reliant on the "neener neener" ploy, i.e., materializing waves of enemies around you or plonking you in the middle of an ambush.

 

BG2, on the other hand, had rich, varied, and occasionally interesting combat challenges that made the most of the horrifying mechanical mess that is AD&D v2. So for combat I'll take any IE game over DA:O.

I agree, but with BG2, it was practically required that you have a Mage in your party. That is one aspect of the mechanics I absolutely loathed, fortunately PE will avoid that.

[PrimeJunta]

That's one of AD&D 2's flaws. Mages just get way overpowered at higher levels. You can't make a game without dominant strategies like that in a system so badly flawed.

[Sedrefilos]

Dragon Age (Origins) did most things right: nice dialogues, nice battles, nice character development, origins, characters, situations, immersion... The only thing it didn't do very good was the main story where you could guess the end by seeing their 1st trailer 2 years before the game came out; the journey, though, was so good that you didn't care that much about that at the end.
Oh, and the role-play was avarage, typical bioware stuff, but well executed: The choices had not that much meaningful impact at the main story but where tough ones to make.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Sedrefilos

[mickeym]

Dragon Age (Origins) did most things right: nice dialogues, nice battles, nice character development, origins, characters, situations, immersion... The only thing it didn't do very good was the main story where you could guess the end by seeing their 1st trailer 2 years before the game came out; the journey, though, was so good that you didn't care that much about that at the end.

Oh, and the role-play was avarage, typical bioware stuff, but well executed: The choices had not that much meaningful impact at the main story but where tough ones to make.

 

I'd say that Redcliffe was one of the overall highlights of the RPG genre. If the rest of the game were on that level I am certain that Origins would be remembered as a classic by anybody with an interest in the genre.

Edited May 17, 2013 by mickeym

[Ulquiorra]

 

I'd say that Redcliffe was one of the overall highlights of the RPG genre. If the rest of the game were on that level I am certain that Origins would be remembered as a classic by anybody with an interest in the genre.

 

 

If whole game whoud look like redclif (expecionaly the saige stage) most of the players whoud throw this game out of the window. Becouse this quest is annoying if you don't have good healer.

 

Upgrated peasants stand only few seconds longer then not upgrated. My team only whoud propably do better whout those peasnats.

 

I personaly think that the best ype of the quest was orzamars deep roads becouse it was one of the darkest in game secondly the orzamar main quest was ... good. Becouse you whoud have diftent opinion (who shoud be my ally) depending on your orgin. If you whoud start as dwarwen commoner you whoud allly youself to "evil" prince but if you had the "dwarwen noble" orgin you whoud propably go for narrowminded but good "haromont" (i don't remeber his name) the best part of that quest is that you can't complate this with usual "Happy end" both solutions have good sides and down sides ...