Ink Blot Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Isn't Drakensang based on The Dark Eye, which would be Das Schwarze Auge (DSA)? I admit Drakensang was my first thought and DAS could just be a typo... Yep, and I figured it was a transposition error as well. Can't think of anything that fits the DAS:RoT acronym any closer.
lazyman Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 What some people here don't realize (or try to avoid like plague) is that one of major reasons for success of old IE games was RPG system used - AD&D (renamed to just D&D from 3E); system well know among my generation with rich background and varied settings (so many beautiful worlds like DarkSun, Planescape .. all dead & gone now) and most importantly it was _tried and tested on humans_ during myriads of game session all over the world. Something like that is very very hard to even come close to as many who tried to make their own RPG system (and failed) can confirm. 1
Noin Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. The fighting mechanics are terrible however, and are MUCH better in BG. It just feels like a cheap MMO rather than a RPG. Also, BG has more depth and is less gamey overall, there is more freedom (all this crap like giving your companions trinkets to get +1 to relations, or this horrendous camp). All in all, the result is thus: BG - finished several times, DaO - finished 0 times, stopped playing and never touched the game again. Neither do I want to.
Noin Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 What's DAS:RoT? . I'm guessing Drakensang:River of Time? Isn't Drakensang based on The Dark Eye, which would be Das Schwarze Auge (DSA)? I admit Drakensang was my first thought and DAS could just be a typo... Ach so, that explains it. As much as I'd like to enjoy that game, the story was boring and the combat pretty bad. Definitely not holding a candle to BG.
Captain Shrek Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 What are you talking about RoT has amazing low level story better than BG anyday. The combat is probably best ever for an RTwP. DSA ruleset is almost exactly applied as well as it can for RTwP. The *only* reason why it may lag behind BG in combat is the lack of spells. The melee and ranged combat in RoT >>>>> BG melee/ranged which is nothing but right click and wait. You guys have weird nostalgia filters. Even encounters in RoT are better than BG. "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
Captain Shrek Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. Well, it should, shouldn't it? Look at the time difference between releases of those 2 games. Why are you people so hell bent on trying to pretend that all new(ish) games were made without any history, with no reference, no previous (similar) work to take inspiration from, etc. Was BG perfect? Hell no, but at the _time_ it was made it really breathed fresh air into dying RPG genre (and no, Fallouts didn't have the same impact because of settings that a lot of people didn't like) Very good. Now read my posts in the thread and check that you agree with me 100%. "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
Captain Shrek Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. The fighting mechanics are terrible however, and are MUCH better in BG. It just feels like a cheap MMO rather than a RPG. Also, BG has more depth and is less gamey overall, there is more freedom (all this crap like giving your companions trinkets to get +1 to relations, or this horrendous camp). All in all, the result is thus: BG - finished several times, DaO - finished 0 times, stopped playing and never touched the game again. Neither do I want to. Lol. In what way is DAO like an MMO? "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
MReed Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Ways DAO is like a MMO: * Taunting mechanics (e.g. abilities that serve no purpose other than to change the AI's targeting priorities) * 4 classes, clearly identifiable as corresponding to the 4 MMO character archtypes. Prestige classes mitigate this to some degree, but it is clear that the designers intent was to match up with archtypes from MMOs. * Cooldowns on abilities / the elimination of "resting" as a mechanic. All of these innovations were introduce in MMOs -- none of which existed in the IE games. Now, you may view these as positive changes, and that's fine -- but a large number of the backer's for this game don't (including myself). I consider all of the above to be clear deficiencies in DAOs design.
Elerond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. The fighting mechanics are terrible however, and are MUCH better in BG. It just feels like a cheap MMO rather than a RPG. Also, BG has more depth and is less gamey overall, there is more freedom (all this crap like giving your companions trinkets to get +1 to relations, or this horrendous camp). All in all, the result is thus: BG - finished several times, DaO - finished 0 times, stopped playing and never touched the game again. Neither do I want to. Lol. In what way is DAO like an MMO? I would guess that ability cooldowns and threat mechanic make game MMO, even though I don't know how such mechanics can make game Massively Multiplayer Online.
Elerond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 Ways DAO is like a MMO: * Taunting mechanics (e.g. abilities that serve no purpose other than to change the AI's targeting priorities) * 4 classes, clearly identifiable as corresponding to the 4 MMO character archtypes. Prestige classes mitigate this to some degree, but it is clear that the designers intent was to match up with archtypes from MMOs. * Cooldowns on abilities / the elimination of "resting" as a mechanic. All of these innovations were introduce in MMOs -- none of which existed in the IE games. Now, you may view these as positive changes, and that's fine -- but a large number of the backer's for this game don't (including myself). I consider all of the above to be clear deficiencies in DAOs design. DAO has only 3 classes, Mage, Rogue, and Warrior. DAO has resting. Cooldowns, abilities that change target priorities of enemies, and roles like support, crowd control, tank, and dps aren't something MMORPGs invented but they are somewhat mastered them.
Ink Blot Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 * 4 classes, clearly identifiable as corresponding to the 4 MMO character archtypes. Assuming you're referring to the Warrior, Mage, Rogue (or DPS if you prefer) and Healer, these archetypes far predate MMOs. And, as noted, there are only the first three in DA:O.
Noin Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. The fighting mechanics are terrible however, and are MUCH better in BG. It just feels like a cheap MMO rather than a RPG. Also, BG has more depth and is less gamey overall, there is more freedom (all this crap like giving your companions trinkets to get +1 to relations, or this horrendous camp). All in all, the result is thus: BG - finished several times, DaO - finished 0 times, stopped playing and never touched the game again. Neither do I want to. Lol. In what way is DAO like an MMO? This: Ways DAO is like a MMO: * Taunting mechanics (e.g. abilities that serve no purpose other than to change the AI's targeting priorities) * 4 classes, clearly identifiable as corresponding to the 4 MMO character archtypes. Prestige classes mitigate this to some degree, but it is clear that the designers intent was to match up with archtypes from MMOs. * Cooldowns on abilities / the elimination of "resting" as a mechanic. All of these innovations were introduce in MMOs -- none of which existed in the IE games. Now, you may view these as positive changes, and that's fine -- but a large number of the backer's for this game don't (including myself). I consider all of the above to be clear deficiencies in DAOs design. There are DPS, Heal and Tank roles, most encounters are solved in the same way. Barrage of AoE, Tank tanks, Healer heals the tank. Boring like hell. For me the biggest drawback of DAO is its target audience and all that it implies. The most popular mods for DAO are "beauty" mods and "sexy armors" and such stuff. Tells a lot already. And also the simplification of everything. I was a lot more dissapointed with DAO than with PoE.
Ink Blot Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 I was a lot more dissapointed with DAO than with PoE. I wasn't. Different tastes, and all, I guess.
Captain Shrek Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 DAO is nothing like an MMO. All the characteristics mentioned were well ingrained in RPGs before MMOs. "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
LeonKowalski Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Combat was terrible in DA:O, it wasn't much better in BG, it's not any better in D:OS, it's not any better in PoE ... bad combat and western cRPGs go hand in hand really. PS. I have tried to enjoy DSA games, but god that ruleset is bad. Of course so is PoE's ... like almost all D100 flat RNG rulesets, needless granularity gives developers the temptation to pretend irrelevant modifiers are relevant and it doesn't really make the math more intuitive because relative vs. absolute percentage changes screw that up any way ... shoulda just done D20, or D10 if they want to be different. Edited April 28, 2015 by LeonKowalski
Captain Shrek Posted April 28, 2015 Author Posted April 28, 2015 DOS has amazing combat. It has okayish encounters. In fact, I will be bold and say that DOS has better magic than ANY post 1997 CRP GAME ever. "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
SKull Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 as BG was a horrible game as such Baldur`s Gate = RPG classic Pillars of Eternity = Not an RPG classic Since we`re spouting opinions as facts; everything about BG is better than PoE, possibly except the graphics. Music, story, game play. You name it. 1
Elerond Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Prove it. Why? Is there price? But you can go in global/party camp and rest to remove your injuries if you want. Edited April 28, 2015 by Elerond
View619 Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 DOS has amazing combat. It has okayish encounters. In fact, I will be bold and say that DOS has better magic than ANY post 1997 CRP GAME ever. Agreed, combat is the only good thing about DOS. If Larian ever gets around to releasing a good balance patch, I'll be sure to get back to playing.
Stun Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Prove it. Why? Is there price? But you can go in global camp and rest to remove your injuries if you want. That means that DA:O has a "home base" mechanic. Like any home base mechanic in any game. You don't rest there however, because there's no resting. There's no NEED for a resting mechanic. Injuries are instantly healed upon area transition to home base. Edited April 28, 2015 by Stun 1
Kimuji Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) BG1 & 2 are among my favorite crpgs ever, and yet I can't help smiling when people praise their combat system (especially when comparing to more modern games). BG2 improved BG1 combat mechanics just slightly, but honestly it was still blatantly unbalanced and the fights really messy. PoE share some of these flaws, the balance isn't perfect, fights are still a bit confusing sometimes but if you have to point out these shortcomings you just can't mention BG1 or 2 as a reference because, clearly, they were no better at it. Edited April 28, 2015 by Kimuji 1
Stun Posted April 28, 2015 Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Agreed, combat is the only good thing about DOS.I'd also rank D:OS's character building/customization up there with any game. And while people usually just lump D:OS's amazing environment interaction mechanics with "combat", I Don't. They're their own category, and deserve separate praise for what they are, since they're often used to solve NON-combat situations/puzzles/challenges. D:OS's Co-op play is also quite good. I don't recall another game that did it better, or even tried. And the Music....oh god...the music.... It's so good that it doesn't fit a game of D:OS's caliber. Edit: of course, D:OS's flaws are also numerous. Stealing is too easy. Party members are IWDish, The story is so excessively light and non-captivating that it almost seems deliberate....as if the developers were encouraging you to ignore it and just enjoy the combat and environment. The Humor is Beavis and Butthead-like and can become grating after a while. Crafting is a bit too convoluted to be fun, and loot itemization could use a bit more soul. Edited April 28, 2015 by Stun 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now