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

[mickeym]

Love it or hate it, there is no denying that Dragon Age was much less unweildy than BG (that game that origins was a spiritual successor of) when it came to controlling the actions of each individual group member than Baldurs Gate. BGII was ****ing micromanagement hell, especially once you hit around epic levels and had to take on armies of giants, demons and Dragons in the BGII expansion. I kid you not when I say that I actually spent more than HALF of my gameplay time in BGII: ToB just moving characters around, casting spells and squinting through all of the speciall effects. All so I could make slight adjustments to my formations before letting the fighting proceed for fractions of a second. That type of compexity in gameplay has no place in a real time with pause game at all, and sadly a lot of that aggavation had nothing at all to do with the gameplay, but poorly designed interfaces and no obvious ways of modifying AI scripts.

 

See how each companion in DAO has the status bar running parallel with the skill buttons? See how an ability bubble pops up above the head of the characters whenever one is used? See how you could script characters to automatically handle basic tasks such as drinking some health whenever it drops too low? These type of design decisions are fairly obvious nowadays, but it sadly didn't occur to the BG team. And I think that PE eternity could improve the feedback even further by dividing the short term status effects from the long term. I must have been a much more patient person than I was 10 years ago, because I just can't replay BGII anymore without getting bored or frustrated at how unweildy the interface design is and how I control even the most basic actions of my group all of the time because they're dumb.

 

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

[rjshae]

Dragon Age? You mean the game where the party would scatter all over the map, you couldn't block a gap, and tactics were hardly worth a damn? Yeah, sure.

[Dream]

I will admit that the start of Origins was better than the start of BG, but once you got rolling I enjoyed the combat in the BG games more.

[BruceVC]

Love it or hate it, there is no denying that Dragon Age was much less unweildy than BG (that game that origins was a spiritual successor of) when it came to controlling the actions of each individual group member than Baldurs Gate. BGII was ****ing micromanagement hell, especially once you hit around epic levels and had to take on armies of giants, demons and Dragons in the BGII expansion. I kid you not when I say that I actually spent more than HALF of my gameplay time in BGII: ToB just moving characters around, casting spells and squinting through all of the speciall effects. All so I could make slight adjustments to my formations before letting the fighting proceed for fractions of a second. That type of compexity in gameplay has no place in a real time with pause game at all, and sadly a lot of that aggavation had nothing at all to do with the gameplay, but poorly designed interfaces and no obvious ways of modifying AI scripts.

 

See how each companion in DAO has the status bar running parallel with the skill buttons? See how an ability bubble pops up above the head of the characters whenever one is used? See how you could script characters to automatically handle basic tasks such as drinking some health whenever it drops too low? These type of design decisions are fairly obvious nowadays, but it sadly didn't occur to the BG team. And I think that PE eternity could improve the feedback even further by dividing the short term status effects from the long term. I must have been a much more patient person than I was 10 years ago, because I just can't replay BGII anymore without getting bored or frustrated at how unweildy the interface design is and how I control even the most basic actions of my group all of the time because they're dumb.

 

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

 

I'm not sure about your point around DA:O doing the combat gameplay better than BG2. Firstly I enjoyed both games and I will say that BG2 took more thinking in complex  combat but it wasn't confusing? You pause the game and plan your strategies and you need to be aware of the status of your party.

 

I preferred the combat in BG2 because it was more unforgiving and you did have to consider your characters next move more, for example no auto-resurrection and if you got turned to stone you stayed that way until Stone to Flesh was cast.

[Bartimaeus]

Nope, I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Dragon Age's combat was near unmanageable for me - no true overhead view, (hurray for limited range), which means you have to go with that awful "personal" third person view of characters. I couldn't make myself control anyone beyond my own character except for special circumstances. Can't stand having the camera jump around and having to keep swiveling it every time I want to do something...

 

Yes, it does have convenience features, as you mentioned...but to say BG's combat was more unwieldy than DA's? Ehh...

Edited May 15, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[bonarbill]

Well to be honest with you, I didn't find the combat that great in either game because I find Real Time with Pause way to shallow.  But I'll will admit DA:O combat is a bit less "clunky" than IE games?  I still didn't enjoy it though.

Edited May 15, 2013 by bonarbill

[mickeym]

Well to be honest with you, I didn't find the combat that great in either game because I find Real Time with Pause way to shallow.  But I'll will admit DA:O combat is a bit less "clunky" than IE games?  I still didn't enjoy it though.

 

 

Part of the problem is that BGII tried to give a real time with pause game the depth that is normally reserved for turn based gaming.

 

Also, nowhere did I say "copy Dragon Age wherever possible". Obviously the DAO camera was a huge problem because it didn't zoom out nearly far enough, but fortunately it's alreay confirmed that PE will be a fixed perspective with no overhead view so we already know what to expect from that. Baldurs Gate 1s late game and BGIIs early game were both quite good for me because they had just enough depth to be interesting but not enough that I found myself taking twice as long as needed to complete a simple action such as fireball.

Edited May 15, 2013 by mickeym

[WotanAnubis]

The one thing Dragon Age really did right was cast Kate Mulgrew as Flemeth.

 

She's just delightful.

[Sensuki]

I also have to strongly disagree. Must just not like micro management.

 

DA:O had an awful camera, awful controls and the party did some random ass **** sometimes. The only thing BG2 had issues with was pathfinding and even that wasn't that bad.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Sensuki

[BruceVC]

I also have to strongly disagree. Must just not like micro management.

 

DA:O had an awful camera, awful controls and the party did some random ass **** sometimes. The only thing BG2 had issues with was pathfinding and even that wasn't that bad.

 

Yeah, I also like the whole "micro management "

 

@ mickeym

 

Did you play the pen and paper  D&D before BG2. If not I can understand the rules being a little confusing.

[Elerond]

DA:O had better tools to automatize AI behavior, but sadly it was greatly worsened by tying it to character leveling and skill points. Command queues are also good addition when compared to BG2, as was showing portraits of enemies so that targeting them was easier. But overall control of battlefield was much better in BG2. But there are things in DA:O which could make combat easier and faster to manage. But Obsidian has used some of these features in their games, so I think that they are well aware of that.

[mickeym]

 

I also have to strongly disagree. Must just not like micro management.

 

DA:O had an awful camera, awful controls and the party did some random ass **** sometimes. The only thing BG2 had issues with was pathfinding and even that wasn't that bad.

 

Yeah, I also like the whole "micro management "

 

@ mickeym

 

Did you play the pen and paper  D&D before BG2. If not I can understand the rules being a little confusing.

 

 

Not really confusing. It followed the usual RPG rul of bigger = better. the heavier armor usually protects better, the character with higher combat attributes fight better, the more the +++ an item has the better it is. It ws my first and I got into it just fine. Took a little while to understand thac0 and AC, but I got by just fine with ony a vague comprehension that bigger = better. I think that people were just mad at enhanced edition because it's one of the few games where you need to spend a good 20-30 minutes getting acquainted with the basics. I imagine that people were more accepting of the rules back in the 90s, but I wasn't really active at all on the internet.

[Tigranes]

I had a lot more trouble with Dragon Age in maneuvering characters. They'd skid around the floor and not stay still, chokepoints were useless because enemies would glide past your characters, it was like aiming cone area of effect spells while everybody was gently gliding around on an ice hockey floor. For some reason it was even worse than NWN1/2. 

 

On stuff like basic customisable AI scripts and ability bubbles, yeah, nothing wrong with that. NWN2 already had ability bubbles, enemy portraits when targeted and command queues, and I wouldn't mind seeing them here. 

[Failion]

Dragon Age was standard game. I thought avernum escape from the pit was a better game, remake of a 1995 game. The combat in first dragon age also scaled horribly at later levels. Stats like constitution and willpower were useless. Lot of people despise dragon age 2 combat but at least it was more tactical and skill based it also looked better. Original dragonage had better gameplay and arguably more interesting story.  I thought the original dragon ages story was boring as can be, assemble a army to fight evil baddies. The games npcs like morrigan made the story from being crap to passable.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I disagree. While BG2 could get pretty damn chaotic, DAO wasn't really better and had a very unbalanced and sub-optimally designed combat system.

 

IMO, what DAO did best was remove alignment, which PE is already doing. Also, it felt more like a spiritual successor to KOTOR than BG.

 

I will admit that the start of Origins was better than the start of BG, but once you got rolling I enjoyed the combat in the BG games more.

I think that is more of a problem with low-level 2E D&D.

[Dream]

Part of the problem is that BGII tried to give a real time with pause game the depth that is normally reserved for turn based gaming.

What's wrong with having deep combat in a RTwP game?

 

I think that is more of a problem with low-level 2E D&D.

Pretty much.

[TrashMan]

Meh.

 

I had no problem with BG2 combat.

 

I hated DA2 combat.

[Remmirath]

Combat in Dragon Age II was simply awful. I'm assuming that they're referring only to Dragon Age: Origins, which at least to my mind had decent combat.

 

For a 3d game, I think that Origins had the best full party combat that I've encountered so far. It's highly impractical to actually individually control each party member in a 3d game (part of the reason I don't prefer them), and so having the whole tactical setup thing did help a good deal. However, I found that it worked fine for some things (healers, fighters) and worked distinctly less well for others (mages, anything specialised and requiring careful aiming or timing).

 

Yes, you do have to pause often in some tougher fights in Baldur's Gate II, but I have no problem with that. Mostly I don't even need to pause when I'm playing; I pretty much only do it at the start of a fight to give orders, for spell choosing, and if things start to go wrong. And that's only for the large fights.

 

Not being able to block anybody in combat was a large annoyance in Origins, as was how sometimes their attacks would follow you even once you had moved quite out of range. Overall I liked Origins well enough, and the combat wasn't bad, but I would hardly call it exemplary either.

 

Basically, I feel that combat is more tactically interesting and much easier to control in Baldur's Gate II than it is in Origins (and beyond that combat is a poor jest in Dragon Age II, I've nothing to say about that).

Edited May 15, 2013 by Remmirath

[Lephys]

What I will say regarding this topic is that Dragon Age (I suppose both games, since they both used the same system) did have the right idea with party-character AI/behavior.

 

I wouldn't quite say they "got it right", though.

 

Kind of like saying "what we'll need in this desert is water!", but only taking a 16oz water skin with you into the desert.

[Ulquiorra]

Dragon Age? You mean the game where the party would scatter all over the map, you couldn't block a gap, and tactics were hardly worth a damn? Yeah, sure.

 

Yeah, in BG you coud block a gap you can also stand with bow waiting for mose big creature to blick in and kill it from safe ditance, the same you coud do in skyrim, killing giant with 100000000 fireballs standing on some high rock.

 

I think that this was more glitch not tactic ... do you think that in real life a 1 warrior coud block whole corridor ? He whoud be pushed up bu someone stronger ... the same like in DA O ...

 

DA O was Better in tactics becouse you can not you some glitches to make sure that mages are safe, mages must work to be safe for example magical traps or traps made by your thiefs.

 

Secondly dragon age was better in tactis becouse you got spell combinations, thirdly Dragon Age was better in tactics becous fighters have not only one gole "Atack" fighters got whole types of abilitys so playing fighter was something more then "click on a fighter age click on a enemy" ...

 

Besies mage coud still be abe to block enemys ... there was a spell callego "SOUL PRISION" or something like that ... that coud make character not move, and if it was for example a "ogre" and thin corridor the darkspawns that where behind him where blocked.

 

In BG the only role of fighter was "Click and go" where mages have whole types of spells ... in DAO we also have spells, even spells combinations and even fighter have some activ abilitis ... so yes DAO was better in this ...

[mickeym]

 

Dragon Age? You mean the game where the party would scatter all over the map, you couldn't block a gap, and tactics were hardly worth a damn? Yeah, sure.

 

Yeah, in BG you coud block a gap you can also stand with bow waiting for mose big creature to blick in and kill it from safe ditance, the same you coud do in skyrim, killing giant with 100000000 fireballs standing on some high rock.

 

I think that this was more glitch not tactic ... do you think that in real life a 1 warrior coud block whole corridor ? He whoud be pushed up bu someone stronger ... the same like in DA O ...

 

DA O was Better in tactics becouse you can not you some glitches to make sure that mages are safe, mages must work to be safe for example magical traps or traps made by your thiefs.

 

Secondly dragon age was better in tactis becouse you got spell combinations, thirdly Dragon Age was better in tactics becous fighters have not only one gole "Atack" fighters got whole types of abilitys so playing fighter was something more then "click on a fighter age click on a enemy" ...

 

Besies mage coud still be abe to block enemys ... there was a spell callego "SOUL PRISION" or something like that ... that coud make character not move, and if it was for example a "ogre" and thin corridor the darkspawns that where behind him where blocked.

 

In BG the only role of fighter was "Click and go" where mages have whole types of spells ... in DAO we also have spells, even spells combinations and even fighter have some activ abilitis ... so yes DAO was better in this ...

 

 

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.

[mickeym]

 

Part of the problem is that BGII tried to give a real time with pause game the depth that is normally reserved for turn based gaming.

What's wrong with having deep combat in a RTwP game?

 

I think that is more of a problem with low-level 2E D&D.

Pretty much.

 

 

Doesn't have to be anything wrong, but I think that it had room for improvement. It's just that they used a turn based rule set for a real time game and gave no accurate way of keeping count of the rounds, and as for the special effects.. have you SEEN how saturated the screen can get with that stuff flying around. In throne of bhaal against epic level group vs group battles I pretty much have to memorize where each character is positioned and in what sequence the characters took their "turn" in, or else you can get screwed over pretty easily, especially when I've got difficulty mods. It's like cats and dogs living together to say the least. Imagine what a teleport field on top of a cloud kill on top of a spell triggered trio of fireballs looks like and with half of the characters having that stupid white sphere around them. Do you see how that could be difficult to manage? DAO had som much less clutter in battles, which is a major reason why I like it in spite of how much a dumbed down BGII wanabee it is.

 

Why has nobody made a mod to make Throne of Bhaal less of an eye sore? I hope that the enhanced edition has a mode to simplify all of the spell effects.

Edited May 16, 2013 by mickeym

[Acerbissimus]

I liked combat in both BG2 and DA:O. It's been too long since I've played either, though, so I can't point to specifics.

[Pshaw]

You know there are a few things I like about dragon age but the combat is not one of them. Personally I found all the DPS to work just fine but the tanks had trouble keeping the attention of most enemies and the healer was always waaay too important.

I'm not going to say that BG2 was perfect either. Although I played the game for years I find it hard to play now as the combat is simply too clunky for me to enjoy anymore.

I really feel most comfortable in saying that the combat in both games was mediocre. Playable but not really enjoyable for it's own sake. If either game had some sort of endless attack with waves after waves of enemies just for the sake of killing them (no loot, no exp, no achievements) I wouldn't take part in it.

[Greydragon]

 

Dragon Age? You mean the game where the party would scatter all over the map, you couldn't block a gap, and tactics were hardly worth a damn? Yeah, sure.

 

Yeah, in BG you coud block a gap you can also stand with bow waiting for mose big creature to blick in and kill it from safe ditance, the same you coud do in skyrim, killing giant with 100000000 fireballs standing on some high rock.

 

I think that this was more glitch not tactic ... do you think that in real life a 1 warrior coud block whole corridor ? He whoud be pushed up bu someone stronger ... the same like in DA O ...

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.