334 réponses à ce sujet

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

This is a thread for people to suggest games that Bioware should study and why they should study them...or comment on previous suggestions.

Okay, Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360. What could Bioware learn from it? Before that, lets just note that Lost Odyssey is a Japenese RPG from the father of Final Fantasy. Its roughly about the same length as a typical Dragon Age Origins playthrough.

1. Combat. While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to explain it all, or even in part.

Odyssey's 'Ring' system is vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more intelligent system of checks and balances.

2. Enemies. Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about 60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

3. Bosses. Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and tactics that force players to think.

4. Hidden/Optional Stuff. This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.

While by no means perfect, on the above points I note, Lost Odyssey is vastly superior to Dragon Age.

[Nazo]

Uh. I played Lost Odyssey, it wasn't really that amazing or great. Combat preferences aside, why is more monster types better? Does that really add to gameplay somehow?



And an optional arena where you sit in one room and fight over and over again is innovative or fun why?



Secret areas that are a Guide Dang It? ( http://tvtropes.org/...ain/GuideDangIt )



Nothing you point out is unarguably 'better', it's just different. And all things I'd prefer were left out.

[xCobalt]

As much as I enjoy Lost Odyssey. Chances are, many people will disagree with you(and maybe flame you) since this board is populated with mostly PC gamers and/or WRPG enthusiasts.



As for my opinion on this matter. I do feel there are certain aspects that make LO better than DA, despite how different these two games are. LO's crafting system provided a more rewarding and enjoyable experience compared to DA where you could only make potions/traps/bombs that weren't all that useful or engaging.



I also felt that LO's story was, without doubt, more emotional (the dreams were also a nice touch). Although, both games do suffer from being a bit too generic.



Combat-wise, DA more fast paced since LO is turn-based after all.Which, I would say, makes DA better. However, I didn't mind the reticule/targeting system that LO had as well as the offense/defense thing.

[hexaligned]

I enjoyed Lost Odyssey, though I never actually finished it. I agree with you in variety of enemies if nothing else. One thing great about the BG series and the DnD universe in general is the amount of different creepies to both kill and learn about, DAO seems really limited, and like a step backwards, in that regard.

Modifié par relhart, 09 avril 2010 - 12:32 .

[aaniadyen]

I haven't played Lost Odyssey, but I will say that having so many varieties of enemies is sometimes a bad thing. You only need as many monsters as the story calls for. If you have too many more it can just become silly. I admit, I think it's weird to say that Bioware can learn from a turn based RPG. If I had to pick a game for Bioware to learn more from, I'd give them a copy of Baldur's Gate 1.

[xCobalt]

Would you elaborate on why it's silly to have variety in enemies? It's hard to imagine someone saying, "Theres too many different kinds of enemies, this is terrible.". It adds to the mythos of the game I'd say.

[Hysteria]

what games should they study ? Baldur's Gate & Neverwinter .... oh wait ...

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]Nazo wrote...

Uh. I played Lost Odyssey, it wasn't really that amazing or great. [/quote]

I was addressing some specific points.

[quoteCombat preferences aside, why is more monster types better? Does that really add to gameplay somehow?[/quote]
 
Yes it does. Its called variety and its widely regarded as the spice of life.

However, not only are we talking about more monster types, but we are talking about monsters, many of which have unique attacks or defenses. Unlike Dragon Age, where we not only have less monster types, but most of the monsters actually share the same attacks and almost none of them have any defenses of note anyway.

[quote]And an optional arena where you sit in one room and fight over and over again is innovative or fun why? [/quote]

...like the Orzammar Arena you mean? I wasn't suggesting this was particularly innovative, but it does illustrate the amount of effort put in when Lost Odyssey throws in hidden bosses that are completely new enemy models.

[quote]Secret areas that are a Guide Dang It? ( http://tvtropes.org/...ain/GuideDangIt ) [/quote]

I think you could also tar Dragon Age with that brush to a degree, although obviously it has far fewer "secrets" than Lost Odyssey.

[quote]Nothing you point out is unarguably 'better', it's just different.[/quote]

On the contrary. Combat where the players choices actually matter are far more rewarding. A greater variety of enemy types gives the impression of a far more fantastical realm with much more depth. While more challenging bosses, requiring the player to think again are far more satisfying. More secret stuff adds to replayability. 

[quote]And all things I'd prefer were left out. [/quote]

So you want unthinking combat against a small bunch of 'samey' enemies, lazy bosses you can easily spam and no optional material? Is that right?

[Eurypterid]

My only concern with your points is your statement that 'rings' are in many ways critical to progress. While I've no argument with the player likely needing to upgrade their gear, I don't feel something on the optional side of things (such as runes and - if I understand correctly - the 'rings') being necessary to completing the game.

[Upper_Krust]

xCobalt wrote...

As much as I enjoy Lost Odyssey. Chances are, many people will disagree with you(and maybe flame you) since this board is populated with mostly PC gamers and/or WRPG enthusiasts.

Just to clarify again for would-be-flamers. I am not saying which game is better, simply that Lost Odyssey is better (in my honest opinion) in the specific areas I mentioned. 

As for my opinion on this matter. I do feel there are certain aspects that make LO better than DA, despite how different these two games are. LO's crafting system provided a more rewarding and enjoyable experience compared to DA where you could only make potions/traps/bombs that weren't all that useful or engaging.

It think thats to the crux of the Dragon Age debate. The choices you make in combat (or in combat prep) don't really make a big difference to the outcome.

I also felt that LO's story was, without doubt, more emotional (the dreams were also a nice touch). Although, both games do suffer from being a bit too generic.

I suppose that depends on familiarity with eastern and western fantasy staples. Someone familiar with both could easily see the inspirations.

That said, you'd be hard pressed to say the enemies/bosses in Dragon Age were more creative than their Lost Odyssey counterparts.

Combat-wise, DA more fast paced since LO is turn-based after all. Which, I would say, makes DA better. However, I didn't mind the reticule/targeting system that LO had as well as the offense/defense thing.

As noted above I think that the impact of a players choices should be important and in Dragon Age I rarely got the impression they mattered to any notable degree (against the High Dragons and thats about it).

[ladydesire]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Nazo wrote...

Uh. I played Lost Odyssey, it wasn't really that amazing or great.

I was addressing some specific points.

Combat preferences aside, why is more monster types better? Does that really add to gameplay somehow?

 
Yes it does. Its called variety and its widely regarded as the spice of life.

However, not only are we talking about more monster types, but we are talking about monsters, many of which have unique attacks or defenses. Unlike Dragon Age, where we not only have less monster types, but most of the monsters actually share the same attacks and almost none of them have any defenses of note anyway.

5 Monster Manuals and how often did you ever see the more esoteric monsters in a D&D based video game? I think you saw the beholder a few times, but nothing more exotic than that.

Nothing you point out is unarguably 'better', it's just different.

On the contrary. Combat where the players choices actually matter are far more rewarding. A greater variety of enemy types gives the impression of a far more fantastical realm with much more depth. While more challenging bosses, requiring the player to think again are far more satisfying. More secret stuff adds to replayability.

It also requires a lot of modelers, animators and texture artists; ask the modding community about how much work goes into creating a believable creature. I know a few modelers you could ask, even.

And all things I'd prefer were left out.

So you want unthinking combat against a small bunch of 'samey' enemies, lazy bosses you can easily spam and no optional material? Is that right?

It depends on what you define these things as, and how people build their characters; unless someone overbuilds, DA is quite a bit harder than some players want to say it is, as is Awakening.

Modifié par ladydesire, 08 avril 2010 - 11:43 .

[Upper_Krust]

Eurypterid wrote...

My only concern with your points is your statement that 'rings' are in many ways critical to progress. While I've no argument with the player likely needing to upgrade their gear, I don't feel something on the optional side of things (such as runes and - if I understand correctly - the 'rings') being necessary to completing the game.

That may have been a fractional exaggeration on my part (though for some of the secret bosses they are of critical importance). 

But I think it serves as an example that the Players Choices in combat within Lost Odyssey are more important than in Dragon Age. As a result, its far more challenging and ultimately rewarding.

I think this boils down to the differences a given choice will make in each game. In Dragon Age using an Expert fire rune might make a 5%* difference for one, of 4 characters. Theres no way Bioware can set up combat to swing on such a miniscule difference to the party.

While in Lost Odyssey using a Volcano Ring might make a difference about 50-75%* (or more to wind based monsters) for one, of (up to) 6 characters. Thus the smart choice becomes that much more important.

Of course this is the most basic example I can think of, and in any given combat there'll be multiple such choices to make. The choice of Ring, the choice of Spell, the choice of Positioning and the choice of which enemy to attack are all key factors.

*Guesstimates, but thats certainly how it feels. Others who have played both feel free to comment on this.

[xCobalt]

Eurypterid wrote...

My only concern with your points is your statement that 'rings' are in many ways critical to progress. While I've no argument with the player likely needing to upgrade their gear, I don't feel something on the optional side of things (such as runes and - if I understand correctly - the 'rings') being necessary to completing the game.

It's definitely not necessary to complete the game with rings. I will say it does make things much easier for the player. For example, if you're in an area filled with enemies who specialize in water/ice. Equiping an Earth-ring will increase the damage. As well as elemental properties, rings provides other stat bonuses and can induce status effects.

You could compare them to DA's rune system but on a much greater scale. 

Modifié par xCobalt, 09 avril 2010 - 12:00 .

[TheMadCat]

Never played Lost Odyssey so I'll kind of take these as more generalized arguments so bear with me.

1. Combat.
While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the
shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to
explain it all, or even in part.

Odyssey's 'Ring' system is
vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with
Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being
critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is
vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more
intelligent system of checks and balances.

The combat and stat development systems of DA:O are indeed simplistic and shallow when comparing it to other games in it's field. And it was intentionally done for several reasons...

• Business: Simplicity sells, plain and simple. The more complex something is the further you pull away from the casual crowd.
• Purpose: Combat, even though it's been harder to see as of late, has never been the primary focus of a BioWare game rather a necessity required by the medium they develop on. They do what they can to keep it interesting, but it's never been deep or incredibly thought out.
• Being new: This is a system pretty much made from scratch trying to seperate itself from what it's initally birthed from, the D&D system. Over time it will develop itself out naturally as they have more time and gain more experience and have a better understanding on what direction they want to take it.

There are tons of game that have better systems for combat, character development, things like rune crafting, ect. But just because a system is better doesn't mean it's the best way to go, every product requires different levels of complexity and style to suit it's needs. DA:O's system suits it's need just fine, some tweaking and a bit more depth perhaps but for what it needed to do it was solid.

2. Enemies.
Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about
60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own
strengths and weaknesses.

Hard to comment on since I have no knowledge of Lost Odyssey, I'd bet my car though that it's enemies aren't as originally designed as you may think. But this is sort of a tie in to the points I made with the combat, familiarity breeds comfort and comfort breeds sales. This would also fall under the need for added depth in the combat, more varied enemies with a wider range of unique strengths, weaknsses, special abilities, ect.

3. Bosses.
Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth
getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional
ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from
probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and
tactics that force players to think.

See above.

4. Hidden/Optional Stuff.
This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new
monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It
even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of
those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area
with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.

I don't know, I'd say there is plenty of optional stuff in DA:O. Sidequests, characters and little stories, a few locations with a few housing bosses and such, two areans though each are quite short. I'm not sure what they could do here that puts it so high above DA:O.

Ultimately though your four points all seem to revolve around one general point, and that's combat. As I said the combat for DA:O did what it needed to do. Did it do with in some super fashion? No, but that's where BioWare put's it's primary focus. Overtime the system will improve, but it will never be the chief selling point of their games.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 08 avril 2010 - 11:59 .

[Upper_Krust]

ladydesire wrote...

5 Monster Manuals and how often did you ever see the more esoteric monsters in a D&D based video game?

Depends how many monsters they have in the game. If they only have time for 10 then obviously you put in all the classics.

I think you saw the beholder a few times, but nothing more exotic than that.

Depends on the number of enemies you can fit in. They had 5 Monster Manuals for a reason.

It also requires a lot of modelers, animators and texture artists; ask the modding community about how much work goes into creating a believable creature. I know a few modelers you could ask, even

I am sure its a lot more hard work than someone such as myself would imagine. That said, Awakening almost didn't have any completely new enemy models (other that the Children).

It depends on what you define these things as, and how people build their characters; unless someone overbuilds, DA is quite a bit harder than some players want to say it is, as is Awakening.

Honestly it isn't. Once you get past the initial learning curve its a gift.

[Adfero]

Upper_Krust wrote...

1. Combat. While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to explain it all, or even in part.

Odyssey's 'Ring' system is vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more intelligent system of checks and balances.

The ring system in Lost Odyssey did not make that vast a difference, sure they could make some fights easier but in no way are they critical to progress in the game. Now skills you had your Immortals learn, they are vital to progress.

"Team positioning"? There isn't any really besides having your meat shields in the front so the defense wall formed protected your back row. Fighters in front/caster at the back is not remotely a new concept used in the game.

2. Enemies. Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about 60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

I agree, there is a lot of monsters and monster types and it wasn't until nearer the end of the game you saw reuses of older monsters again. That was mostly as you didn't revisit many areas until nearer the end of the game anyway.

3. Bosses. Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and tactics that force players to think.

Every (almost every?) enemy which was ranked Orange to you in DA:O is a boss to be frank. Although not wholly unique there was a lot more of them in DA:O and some, if not most, as is the majority of the game based on tactical encounters. In a game like LO and FF you don't get the chance to think on the fly. Yo prepare for the boss beforehand or you get to reload after you lose. The only thing in LO you could do on the fly was change your equipped ring and accessory. While handy, it doesn't help against the boss that can freeze your entire party if you have not learned the freeze immunity and taught it to others before then.

4. Hidden/Optional Stuff. This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.

Only one was tougher than the final boss, and that was the one in the arena you mentioned. The others were challenging, but by no means harder than the last boss. DA:O has plently of optional quests, hidden clues in codex entries and items and boss fight. DA:O also has DLC too as you are aware, and it is a far sight more in depth than what LO was offering to theirs which did not enchance the story at all. A few nice extra trinkets, but that was it.

While by no means perfect, on the above points I note, Lost Odyssey is vastly superior to Dragon Age.

I politely disagree.

Modifié par Adfero, 09 avril 2010 - 12:24 .

[Hollingdale]

I really have to agree that Dragon Age never was very difficult which is quite a shame in the battles that are actually hard you tend to die due to unfortunate cc chains or because the enemies nuke one your characters while youre chopping darkspawn with your twohander looking to score phat crits since combat most of the time is a breeze.



In other words, when you die its because you werent paying attention imo, but luckily the difficulty can be tuned although even Insanity can often be trivial for many players.



Lost Odyssey on the other hand can be genuinely difficult, in a stupid and frustrating way I remember playing it and being forced to grind exp because I couldnt beat bosses even after learning them thoroughly.



Neither game is perfect in the difficulty aspect but Dragon Age Origins at least lets you choose difficulty making it in my opinion superior, having to stop grinding to beat a stupid boss when you just want to see the story progress is dull to say the least.



Before I say that you are right in stating that Lost Odyssey has much more varied enemy and boss design let's not forget that in lost Odyssey you have to watch the main characters strut in horribly designed costumes that you can't do anything about. It's kind of irrelevant though since

you most certainly still is right in stating that Lost Odyssey has more varied enemy and boss design, there's really no excuse for the lack of variety in Dragon Age, there should be more enemies.



And you are also right in saying that Lost Odessey has more optional difficult bosses but you can't really use that as point against Dragon Age for it instead contains more story related side quest. Here the games are merely different and I personally prefer Dragon Age as it allways struck me as silly to grind my characters until they reach some kind of super saiyan level in order to beat extremely powerful but nonetheless absurd bosses. It simply doesn't seem believable, even in a fantasy world. Indeed many JRPG's more resemble shounen mangas in this aspect.



Also as regards the ring versus runecrafting system, it's simply not a fair comparison. As I recall rings take up a much larger part of Lost Odyssey's equipment system than runes do Dragon Age's. It would be better to simply compare the entire equipment and leveling systems against each other in which case I vager that Dragon Age would come out on top in terms of complexity containing much more equipment and rather than having set stats letting you customise the attributes of your characters.



But it was a while since I played Lost Odyssey and perhaps I missunderstand you. Maybe you also mean the timing thingy that you use to boost your attacks in combat? Where you hold a button down and release it as two circles meet.



If that is the case I do however argue that timing ones abilities can be equally important in Dragon Age, just not in the same way.



Furthermore lost Odyssey's combat is extremely slow and often very very tedious. I would go as far as to say that it's a rather poor combat system even for a JRPG (and that's even though I like how you learn abilities similarly to FFIX).



There are more interesting combat systems, that of FFX-2 (although I really hate the game I have to admit the combat is brilliant), and that of FFXIII or heck even Tales Of Symphonias real time battles.

[Noilly Prat]

Okay, I liked Lost Odyssey quite a bit-- more than any JRPG I've played since Skies of Arcadia, probably-- but none of this really makes much sense to me.

It all boils down largely to personal preference I suppose, but honestly, I can't say I remember many of the enemy types in Lost Odyssey.  I don't even remember many of the bosses all that well.  So I guess none of that made much of an impression on me.

The ring system was decent enough, but I find that games with turn-based combat need to have some sort of gimmick system like that in place in order to hold my interest even remotely.  Lost Odyssey's rings worked in this sense, but I wouldn't personally compare them with DA's runes.  Comparing with DA's weapons themselves is more appropriate, I think, as the rings in Lost Odyssey need to be occasionally swapped out depending on the enemies' strengths or weaknesses.  I tended to have my Dragon Age party members stick with a single weapon, but the Dragon Age weapons include more stat bonuses and things like that than weapons did in LO, including elemental damage and boosting resistances and such.  For this reason, I think they make for a better comparison than the runes, which can't easily be switched on the fly.

Personally, I think that DA:O has considerably more strategic and tactical depth in the combat department, in addition to the combat system being more fluid and versatile than the turn-based system in LO, but they're totally different combat systems, so it's a bit difficult to even compare them directly.

I can think of at least one thing about Dragon Age that the developers of Lost Odyssey should study: the lack of random battles (except when traveling the world map).  Seriously, I thought that those were dismissed as unacceptable years ago.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that western RPGs and JRPGs are very different creatures and take Upper-Krust's comments individually, because I have a few things I'd like clarified. Let's also leave aside the "considering things in isolation" argument, since any game is a sum of its parts first. Only once the whole is experienced can each part be analyzed. That said, this analysis is done with two games of comparable length, gameplay, and "epic-ness" (I assume, since I haven't played Lost Odyssey).

Upper_Krust wrote...
1. Combat. While Lost Odyssey is turn based, the depth to it leaves DAO in the shade. In fact just thinking about it I am unsure where to begin to explain it all, or even in part.

Odyssey's 'Ring' system is vastly superior to DAO's Runes (including Awakenings Runecrafting) with Rings not only making a notable difference but in many ways being critical to progress. Spellcasting seems balanced, Team positioning is vital, theres quite a lot I am leaving out but its a far more intelligent system of checks and balances.

Okay, how is it better? Where is the "ring" system's depth? How is it "vastly superior?" How do rings make "a notable difference" and where does it make that difference? How is the "ring" system "critical to progress?" What does spellcasting have to do with the rings? How is tem positiong "vital", and what is it vital to, and how does this involve the rings?

Not only is there "quite a lot [you're] leaving out," but you don't even begin to describe this "far more intelligent system of checks and balances." What is checking or balancing what? And where do the rings fit in?

2. Enemies. Very original in terms of design. Incredibly varied (I estimate about 60 types before variants, and not counting bosses). Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

How are Lost Odyssey's enemies "very original in terms of design?" Are you speaking strictly in combat, graphically, or story-wise? And what are these "strengths and weaknesses" you're describing? You're implying over 60 distinct strengths and weaknesses for rank-and-file, regular creatures encountered during gameplay. Is this accurate?

3. Bosses. Okay, I could have lumped these in with the enemies, but they are worth getting their own special mention. 16 bosses (not counting the optional ones, see below), of which I think one is a duplicate. Apart from probably the opening boss, each has a challenging set of abilities and tactics that force players to think.

"Force players to think" how? What abilities and tactics are used/required?

4. Hidden/Optional Stuff. This game has EIGHT optional bosses SEVEN of which are completely new monsters! About 5 are tougher than the End Boss of the main game. It even has optional levels with 30 new enemies in them (although most of those are variants of existing monsters). It also has an arena area with 20 progressively more difficult challenges.

I daresay that Dragon Age may have far more than 8 "optional bosses," if you include all of our game's side quests and light content and if you assume our definition of "bosses" is the same. But aside from that, does all of these extra hidden/optional content mean Lost Odyssey is better, or simply more?

While by no means perfect, on the above points I note, Lost Odyssey is vastly superior to Dragon Age.

You've mentioned a lot of things, but have in no way described how they are "vastly superior" to Dragon Age, except to state that they are.

[lady winde]

Lost Odyssey is a great game. One that made me weep when you know who was finally reunited with whats her face and left you feeling WTF HER!? The delivery in that one scene was wonderful. Made me cry as if my grandma died. Was truly powerful, for me anyways.



But honestly? >.> It just seems silly to me to try and compare these two games and say one is superior than the other. It's awesome you love the game but... I dunno. Dragon Age had its on direction on what it wanted to offer the player and Lost Odyssey had theirs. I'm glad they're so different from each other. You should be too.

[Challseus]

Really hard to compare these 2 games, as they are really a different beast. However, to this day, this is the only game that has made me cry (27 year old male at the time).

It all happens in this cutscene. Obviously, there are spoilers in this, and taken out of context with the rest of the story of the game, it may not make sense to some. That said, it is without a doubt, the most emotional scene I have ever seen in a video game, and something I don't expect to get with WRPG's, which is okay, in itself. Every game shouldn't be all things to all people. I can enjoy both JRPG's, as well as WRPG's no problem.

But I guess if Bioware had to learn something from this game, it would be how to do cutscenes like this.

Modifié par Challseus, 09 avril 2010 - 05:16 .

[hexaligned]

I agree the game had a far greater emotional impact, one of the only ones since I was a kid that did for me, The Thousand Years of Dreams were particularly interesting, some of them were very well written, especially for a JRPG (which I usually can't stand). The most the characters in DAO inspired in me was at worst annoyance, and at best indifferance. That's subjective though. Ultimately comparisons based on story and writing styles are going to be a matter of opinion.

I think Bioware has a fine writing staff, just based on face value though I get the impression their hands were tied to try and appeal to the ADD generation, which makes sense from a business perspective, but the final product in terms of story and character complexity is most likely going to end up failry generic .

All that being said though, I don't play vids for fullfilling stories, I'm sceptical such a mass marketeded  medium is even capable of producing one I consider to be so, thats what books and to a lesser degree movies are for.  I'm interested in combat and game mechanics, and at least imo DAO is the winner between the two.  Yes there are AI issues, yes there are balance issues that make NOT exploiting a challange.  If I take just the base design and overlook the implementation flaws, the combat in DAO is far more custimizable and interactive.  Odyssey's whole turn based thing is really outdated, and worse it's slow paced even by turn based standards.  The only real custimizing you can do is in ring crafting...and even then it doesn't have a significant impact on game play.

Modifié par relhart, 09 avril 2010 - 01:49 .

[thegreateski]

Ah yes . . . Lost Odyssey. It was good for a rent. I will now be a complete dick and respond to the OP.

Everything you said was entirely opinion based and your arguements have no substance.

I hate myself now.

Modifié par thegreateski, 09 avril 2010 - 06:01 .

[astrallite]

At least you didn't make some generic flame questioning the OPs intelligence for playing JRPGs. Or said something along the lines of "Go play [insert Bethesda RPG]" as if that was a hard-hitting insult.

[Wyndham711]

I enjoyed Lost Odyssey, but by no means was it superior to Dragon Age. But even so, there are indeed certain things even Dragon Age could learn from it. The two that first come to mind are the creature design and the soundtrack. Zur is certainly very good, but let's be honest: he's no Uematsu. And Dragon Age's art style is certainly strong, well thought out and fitting, but it isn't incredibly creative for the most part. We are talking about the fantasy genre - one of the genres that offer most freedom in terms of creature-design. I feel that freedom should not go under-utilised.