334 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

astrallite wrote...

I think Duke Nukem is a vastly superior side scroller to Mario.

Touche.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Adfero - for brevity I'll skip where we have agreed on something.

Adfero wrote...

I would say they are on the same level. You can complete both games without touching either of them if you wanted to. To add on, now that I think about it the higher tiers for runecrafting in Awakenings was less troublesome to make use of than the higher or highest level rings that could be crafted in LO. Minor point but I think it is worth a mention.

I get the impression they are more intrinsic, but ultimately its subjective so lets agree to disagree.

Ignoring Guard Counter for the sake of this point,

Which we can't really do since its a fundamental part of the game.

what you have is Final Fantasy 1-9 at the least in terms of party positioning and makeup. All those games had some enemies which could move characters from the frontlines to the back and vice versa, difference being in LO that  there is a formation lock skill you can learn and equip for your team members too so this is the first time that such an ability could be countered.

I personally see only marginal differences in how the battles and tactics are between LO and other Square-Enix type RPGs, but nothing that gives a deeper tactical depth than DA:O on the console which i'll admit, probably pales in comparison to the PC version as well.

I have played Dragon Age on Xbox 360, but I have watched a number of PC clips of the game. It does seem far more maneouverable on PC (although as a consequence easier) whereas the console version requires more tactical prep.

I'm not checking up on your numbers but I agree with what you have said.

I have both guides, the numbers are about as close as you'll get.

Well the biggest difference being that you had a different battle music track playing during boss fights in LO. I will agree that DA:O and even Awakenings did not have a lot of bosses that you knew could destroy you if you slipped up or didn't pay attention to them. DA:O was more about small skirmishes than the huge boss fights though, so the differences in a classical JRPG type and the Baldur's Gate type of RPG show here.

I haven't played Baldur's Gate but I have read a lot of comments suggesting that game had better encounter variety than DAO.

I would conversely argue that most JRPGs are about telling a story, rather than you playing a role in the story.

In JRPGs the player joins a story, in WRPGs a player creates the story...maybe?

Still, both games are enjoyable, no?

A friend of mine suggested I play Dragon Age (this was several months ago). When I finished it he asked, what did you think and I said, its the worst game I have ever enjoyed.

If your whole party froze it was a game over, only that boss had that as a concern but is repeated later by another boss which can petrify the party with the same result. Having one person of a party of 4/5 with the anti-freeze ability to unfreeze everyone else, while getting hit by boss attacks at that, usually didn't end very well. It's a pattern repeated in older FF games as well making encounters bearable whilst being mostly immune to boss attacks. I wouldn't say that is really a tactical battle though to be fair, more a case of rock-paper-scissors if anything.

I think the differences between strategy and tactics are often confused by gamers (including myself).

I'll concede the point on there being not many additional bosses. Still the codex quests/items and other hidden/random encounters were plentiful in depth I felt whereas in LO those "optional" encounters meant you missed out on a lot of the final spells in the game. In my opinion that's not really optional, it could hinder progress if you didn't do them.

Thats a fair point.

I did, but those specific points are not evidence that LO is superior to DA in those areas as that lies on the perception of the player. DA would not be a better game if those points were learned from/used as both games combat systems are different in their intentions, aims on progressing and telling their stories.
 
LO was good, it lasted longer than DA:O and Awakenings did in total hours for me, the story was good and the "Thousand Memories" was amazing but DA was a more satisfying game. Even only looking at the specific points you have previously mentioned, I disagree they make LO superior to DA in those areas. To me it is simply a case of Quantity vs Quality.

In terms of enemy variety and design, frankly there is little if any debate about which is better.
In terms of bosses, again its a black and white issue.
In terms of secret/optional material I'll give Dragon Age the nod except in terms of optional combat (new bosses/enemies).

In terms of overall combat I think we enter a grey area. Choices matter less in Dragon Age, but the realtime (pauses aside) aspects of the game are great. What I would really like to see from Dragon Age are difficulty levels where its not statistical changes but choice consequences that will kill you.

[SomeBug]

But you see you're still missing the point here.



Even if we concede that Lost Odyssey has more enemy variety and design, which is a fair and probably accurate conclusion, you have yet to explain in any real terms why that is better.



I can think of plenty of problems with the enemy variety in LO. Ignoring the fact that some are simply reskins or texture swaps, the game is designed to have more variety because random battles and combat play a much larger role in that game. There's no dialogue tree system in LO, no optional party recruitment, no character creator.



It's unfair and ridiculous to say that by simple virtue of there being 'more' enemies that is in any way relevant. You have an insipid and baseless argument here and it's embarassing to see you keep droning on about it. Over and over.

[Domyk]

Meh if anything more publishers are using Bioware games to mold themselves after.  Many have tried, most have failed

Don't change a thing Bioware ! /respect

Modifié par Domyk, 09 avril 2010 - 09:28 .

[Suron]

no thank you..Lost Odyssey is a JRPG..DA:O is a WRPG...two totally different playstyles



I do NOT want JRPG filtered into my WRPG thank you very much.



and I disagree...I enjoy the combat in DA:O much better then ANY JRPG.

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]SomeBug wrote...

Your argument is very selective and falls well within the purview of an apples to oranges comparison.[/quote]

Are you sure its not more a case of comparing red apples to green apples?

[quote]You omit gameplay mechanics that Dragon Age does well to fit your own internal narrative. [/quote]

Of course I do. This is about boosting Dragon Age in areas wher I think it is weaker. Not about saying which game is overall better - I stated that in the original post.

[quote]For example, you promote choice as being a key benefit to Lost Odyssey, but need I remind you that you are talking purely about mechanical, gameplay choice. Not story choice.[/quote]
 
Of course I am. Dragon Age isn't weak (IMO) in story choice. Thats why I didn't have story choice as one of the factors.

[quote]Losty Odyssey is an entirely linear game, perhaps less so than a FF13, but by comparison to Dragon Age you have almost no player control over the story at all.[/quote]
 
Agreed. Other key areas where Dragon Age is notably superior. Character customisation. Variable difficulty levels, thats just off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.

[quote]Furthermore, I cringe when people such as yourself make a 'more is better' argument. [/quote]

So no DLC is better than DLC? Isn't DLC simply 'more'. Are you saying the idea of something like Return to Ostagar is a waste of time?

[quote]So what if Lost Odyssey has more bosses. Heck, it could have two thousand boss battles for all I care. Some people are not looking for pure quantative output in their games. I'd take one meaningful boss battle over a million nameless Big Bads.[/quote]

Yes but thats ultimately my point. Lost Odyssey has 24 bosses of which 22 are unique and memorable encounters. You can probably list the memorable boss encounters in DAO on one hand. That said, what makes a boss memorable to one person might not mean the same to another.

But not only does Lost Odyssey have more bosses (and I am fully aware that statement requires that we renege on what Bioware constitutes a 'boss'), but they are more diverse, more challenging and just downright more fun to beat. Do I expect everyone to agree with me on all of that, no of course not.

[quote]When I think of the memorable bosses from Dragon Age, I think about culminations of plotlines, ones that I have had a hand in shaping myself. Fighting against Witherfang in an act of betrayal, or deciding to be greedy and take the Anvil of the Void for myself. These are what matter, not the nameless Magic Beast or the Holy Beast on Numara Atoll.[/quote]

Then you would compare bosses in the DAO story to bosses in the LO story. If we want to compare optional bosses then compare them to other optional bosses: High Dragon to Blue Dragon for instance. Or Gaxkang to Persona. You can't say Witherfang is great because its intrinsic to the story but the Holy Beast is pants because its not. 

I love the build up to a DAO boss fight (in many ways the build ups are better than LO), but generally the battle itself is more often than not a bit of a let down.

[quote]See, the point I'm trying to make is that these differences between the games are just that. Differences. Not qualitive distinctions of quality. I prefer Alistair as a companion over Seth, you might not. It's a subjective opinion which reaches into the gameplay and structure of the title too.[/quote]

Its only subjective up to a point. I can say the enemies and bosses in LO are more diverse - thats simply a cold hard fact any which way you slice it. I can say the bosses are more of a challenge - the same gamer playing both games will come to the same conclusion.

[quote]Harder does not equal more fun. [/quote]

True, but challenging does equal more rewarding.

[quote]More does not equal better[/quote]

Only when its something you don't want or its surplus to doing the same job. Which ironically would mean the High Dragon (as an optional boss) since its a variant that does the same as Flemeth would be less relevant than something like the Holy Beast which is a totally new monster with new powers and so forth.

[quote]and these differences you cite as being advantages are really not what you think.[/quote]

Greater monster variety, more unique and interesting bosses, choices in combat becoming more relevant to the outcome. Personally I think these are elements we should strive for.

[quote]Perhaps you should go back and look as why Stanley called out your initial post as being baseless and without substance, [/quote]

He did call me out and I answered him. Lets see where he wants to go with it.

[quote]and why even after your multiple replies and thousands of word posts you are still saying nothing that falls outside of 'Here is my opinion on this....'[/quote]

Are aspects of my posts subjective - yes of course they are. Its a message board after all.

But at the same time are the fundamental points I'm raising in areas where Dragon Age could improve relevant - yes I think they are.

[Upper_Krust]

SomeBug wrote...

But you see you're still missing the point here.

Even if we concede that Lost Odyssey has more enemy variety and design, which is a fair and probably accurate conclusion, you have yet to explain in any real terms why that is better.

As opposed to what, YET another hurlock battle?

Ask yourself this, if the enemies in DAO were so all-encompassing why did Bioware add new enemies to Awakening?

Ask a hundred people on these forums what new monsters they'd like to see in future Dragon Age games and you might get 40% saying "GRIFFONS!". In fact Bioware themselves created a thread asking what new enemies players would like to see?

Why, because having a greater variety of enemies is interesting. Just ask D&D players.

I can think of plenty of problems with the enemy variety in LO. Ignoring the fact that some are simply reskins or texture swaps,

I didn't factor those in my initial count. Its a base 82:30 (approx.) model difference. Thats a 2.7 difference.

The difference itself is moot. The resources and time spent on new monsters in one game might go into other areas of development, such as the romancing or story development or new hairstyles. Which of these elements are more important? The answer is all and none, because different people want different things from the game.

However, this thread is to discuss elements of Dragon Age which I thought weaker than another similar game, in this case Lost Odyssey. So its elements I'd love to see improved. Other people can post elements they'd like to see improve or disagree with my choices.

the game is designed to have more variety because random battles and combat play a much larger role in that game.

Thats a good point, but not quite as relevant here (as other JRPGs) because its not as grind intensive (as xCobalt mentioned). Added to which the enemies do change pretty frequently.

There's no dialogue tree system in LO, no optional party recruitment, no character creator.

Agreed. Dragon Age is much superior in those areas.

It's unfair and ridiculous to say that by simple virtue of there being 'more' enemies that is in any way relevant. You have an insipid and baseless argument here and it's embarassing to see you keep droning on about it. Over and over.

Well I made one post about it, since then all my posts have been replies answering questions.

I'd just like to see future Dragon Age games (whether expansions, DLC or Dragon Age 2) as good as they can be.

[Stalky24]

its interesting how some unknown avatarless teenage boy DARES to go and teach people about game design who made Baldurs Gates, Kotors, Jade Empire, Mass Effects, Dragon Age, works on most expensive project in EA history and people who are considered to be kings of western rpgs.

Seriously, this troll got too much attention.

[frayjog]

Upper_Krust wrote...


I'm an RPG (pnp) Designer, and if I have a speciality its monster design. I think I know a little about the subject.

Yes, stating this really helps your argument.  Clearly we should take your word for it.  I mean come on, how could anyone not believe a claim made on an anonymous internet forum?

[Stalky24]

Upper_Krust wrote...


I'm an RPG (pnp) Designer, and if I have a speciality its monster design. I think I know a little about the subject.

Yep. And I am super ninja in darth vader suit.

and by the way, this guy is more of a game designer then youll ever be

Modifié par Stalky24, 09 avril 2010 - 10:26 .

[Catcher]

    OK, I'm in. I'll preface this by saying that I've never played LO nor any other JRPG of any recent vintage so I won't pretend to speak authoritatively there. I will speak to some of the OPs points and where I think she/he may not be aware of or interested in limitations to her/his requests.

1: Player choice has little impact on sucessful combat in DA:O As I understand the arguements (or perhaps more properly, the examples), the OP finds that party positioning means little in DA:O and that deployment of runes are unimportant to victory as opposed to rings.  The first example I could see in some cases. Since there's no effective "blocking" in DA:O, Bioware has implemented the Threat system primarilly to keep your (often more numerous) opponents from simply bum-rushing your squishy mages. However, having and holding the high ground does seem to have a significant effect on both melee and ranged combat as I've observed both to my pleasure and my horror. Further, I haven't heard anything about the concept of flanking/backstab in LO but it can be crucial to sucess in DA:O. I guess the main question I would have for upperKrust on this point is: how could a mythical DA2 improve this aspect within it's own gamesystemworld? As far as runes vs rings go, I believe this is a straight design decision that Bioware is approaching the problem of player choice in combat by allowing the Player to apply a multitude of smaller factors as opposed to a few highly significant factors that seem to be the case in LO. Taking runes as an example, a Player can apply an elemental rune to a weapon that has a relatively small effect, but can then further enhance that effect by using it against an opponent who is more susceptable to that element and/or wearing gear that gives bonuses to elemental damage and/or casting a spell that further boosts that elemental damage/weakens the foe's resistance and/or employ Talents that increase attach speed and thus elemental damage inflicted over time and/or... I think you get the picture. The difference, it seems between the two approaches is that any one of these not applied or applied incorrectly may not mean defeat in DA:O where it seems as if it might in LO. This impression is strengthened by the focus on "Boss" battles in LO where passing encounters not treated seriously in DA: O seem more memorable. (Remind me to tell you about playing 'Here We Go 'Round the Mulburry Bush' with 3 golems some day )

2: Greater opponent variety would necessarilly improve challenge/enjoyment. I think the word that just about  every player loves (and every developer phears) i MOAR! Everyone might say, I'd love to see more critters powers, models, etc. What you don't hear offered is whatother wonderful parts of the game they could do with less of in order to get MOAR! That's the rub. upperkrust, you've already ceeded that DA:O has better character creation/customization than LO. Don't you think that's where a bunch of the resources that could have been used for monster models went? Further, the Dragon Age world and its inspiartions are very different from the LO world and its inspirations. The D&D Monster Manual was a hodgepodge of different mythos that fit together like a patchwork quilt made of neons and plaids.  DA: O sought to bring a little more sanity to their own beastiary by fitting it to the lore of the land. Thus, many of your opponents could just as likely be your allies under slightly different circumstances. Darkspawn have a few established types for reasons I won't reveal here because it would definitely be a Spoiler. The Bioware designers went for enemies that were familiar and yet could always teach you a thing or two about how to use some of your own abilities. If I were to wish anything from the next DA, it's that they use the experience gained thusfar to make our enemies smarter, not more different.

    There's some good starts here. I'd like to hear more about how things can be done within the DA way rather than transplanting LO int DA. What do you say? 

[Harcken]

Domyk wrote...

Meh if anything more publishers are using Bioware games to mold themselves after.  Many have tried, most have failed

Don't change a thing Bioware ! /respect

This right here is what leads to games like Call of Duty 13.

There's no harm in liking a game company or game, however, like all things touched by humans, they too, have flaws. Mechanics, can always be improved; gameplay can always use a tweak; dialog can only get better with experience (or worse, I guess).
I'm hoping Dragon Age 2 completely blows 1 out of the water, and fulfills some nostalgic memories .

Modifié par Harcken, 10 avril 2010 - 01:12 .

[hexaligned]

Harcken wrote...

Domyk wrote...

Meh if anything more publishers are using Bioware games to mold themselves after.  Many have tried, most have failed

Don't change a thing Bioware ! /respect

This right here is what leads to games like Call of Duty 13.

There's no harm in liking a game company or game, however, like all things touched by humans, they too, have flaws. Mechanics, can always be improved; gameplay can always use a tweak; dialog can only get better with experience (or worse, I guess).
I'm hoping Dragon Age 2 completely blows 1 out of the water, and fulfills some nostalgic memories .

I have high expectations for Bioware to put some spitshine on the engine for DAO2.  It would be interesting to see some dev feedback on what areas they thought the original did well in and in what areas they are focusing on improving.  At least for me the major sellng point is if Nightmare gets overhauled to actuallly offer a challenge or not, so specifically I'm interested to know whether thats on the to do board.  Of course I have no idea how far along in the process they are, these things are probobly still being decided.  

Here's hoping their MMO doesn't tank (like MMO's have a habit of doing)  that would be bad mojo for us DAO lovers, considering how expensive they are to make and maintain.

Modifié par relhart, 10 avril 2010 - 01:31 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Krust, you really just want to pound it in, don't you? "I'M RIGHT GRRRR". Of course you're going to have your airtight responses - but those are only your opinions.

[Paromlin]

I agree with the OP.

Although, I kinda think this is a big waste of time.. arguing with people whose nerve centers for reality are completely devastated.

[Stalky24]

Paromlin wrote...

I agree with the OP.

Although, I kinda think this is a big waste of time.. arguing with people whose nerve centers for reality are completely devastated.

please waste your time and find yourself an avatar and do not waste our time with your pointless pointlessity.

[Suron]

frayjog wrote...

Upper_Krust wrote...


I'm an RPG (pnp) Designer, and if I have a speciality its monster design. I think I know a little about the subject.

Yes, stating this really helps your argument.  Clearly we should take your word for it.  I mean come on, how could anyone not believe a claim made on an anonymous internet forum?

this.

let's see some of these monster designs you "specialize" in....

I'm willing to bet they're not as good or special as YOU may think....I always love self-proclaimed anythings....they just make the person look stupid.

[uberdowzen]

I've just flicked through this thread but here are my 2 cents:



1. I noticed the OP at one point said that the large number and variety of foes in LO made the setting feel more fantastic. Dragon Age isn't meant to feel fantastic, it's meant to feel realistic and more like our world with some fantastical elements. I find that a lot more immersive than the enemy creation process of "OK now we need another enemy, make something with heaps of tentacle and call it the Tentacular or something like that."



2. The OP also lost me when he said that Bioware should have taken a leaf from DnD 4. I haven't played DnD but I thought the community on the whole thought that the version 4 rules were a complete and utter traversty. And what are the flaws exactly the Dragon Age as taken from the DnD3.5 ruleset.



3. Um, since when has DAO had simplistic combat? I've played it for over 150 hours and I'm still finding new tactics and ways to play.

[uberdowzen]

Actually, having had a closer look, I have 2 more points:



1. Is the OP someone who has played the Xbox version of DAO and not the PC version? If so than this argument is somewhat stupid because obviously a game that was designed for Xbox (LO) and one that was designed for PC and has a rudimentry console port (DAO) is going to appear better.



2. MORE IS NOT BETTER!!!!

[frayjog]

uberdowzen wrote...


1. Is the OP someone who has played the Xbox version of DAO and not the PC version? If so than this argument is somewhat stupid because obviously a game that was designed for Xbox (LO) and one that was designed for PC and has a rudimentry console port (DAO) is going to appear better.

But he's seen videos of the PC version on Youtube!  He must be an expert on it.

[uberdowzen]

frayjog wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


1. Is the OP someone who has played the Xbox version of DAO and not the PC version? If so than this argument is somewhat stupid because obviously a game that was designed for Xbox (LO) and one that was designed for PC and has a rudimentry console port (DAO) is going to appear better.

But he's seen videos of the PC version on Youtube!  He must be an expert on it.

Oh yeah, of course, silly me.

Did you know that if your Xbox breaks down, you can fix it by baking it for 10 minutes?

[thegreateski]

uberdowzen wrote...

frayjog wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...


1. Is the OP someone who has played the Xbox version of DAO and not the PC version? If so than this argument is somewhat stupid because obviously a game that was designed for Xbox (LO) and one that was designed for PC and has a rudimentry console port (DAO) is going to appear better.

But he's seen videos of the PC version on Youtube!  He must be an expert on it.

Oh yeah, of course, silly me.

Did you know that if your Xbox breaks down, you can fix it by baking it for 10 minutes?

*Does the towel trick*

I HAVE DEFEATED PHYSICS!

WITH TOWELS!

[AlanC9]

uberdowzen wrote...
1. Is the OP someone who has played the Xbox version of DAO and not the PC version?

Well, the OP is a registered owner of the 360 version. Outside of that, beats me. But I don't see anything he's talking about that's XBox-specific except for maybe the combat system, which I hear is weaker on consoles.

[SphereofSilence]

Not sure comparing a JRPG is a good idea...



I do agree that Dragon Age needed improvement in certain areas. Sure it has a pretty good story, well-thought out world, shiny presentation, allowed for player choices to impact the story, and a great cast of characters. But if one were to strip all those aside, you get a 'game' that's lacking - especially in the combat, leveling/classes, armor crafting/trapmaking/potionmaking/runecrafting/enchanting, magic/mana system.



Combat - too much filler combat, too easy, straightforward fight, no need to think much, repetitive enemies



leveling/classes - inability to create a truly unique character that nobody else have, multiclass, many cool prestige classes (e.g. BG2, NWN & NWN2), DA's classes too straightforward, shallow and narrow in comparison with D&D



crafting/potions/runes/traps/enchanting - too straightforward, unfulfilling, doesn't make enough impact especially with all the powerful magic and talents around, players tend to forgo all these since combat/magic talents are enough to get you through



magic/mana system - everyone has too easy and quick access to powerful spells, mana and potion system means infinitely spammable spells, what makes it worse is that there are a lot of 'I win' spells, again it's a matter of just casting them off - too straightforward, not much tactical thinking involved.



I love Dragon Age. But it's a shame that the basic underlying game play has degenerated to boring, repetitive grinding.

[uberdowzen]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Not sure comparing a JRPG is a good idea...

I do agree that Dragon Age needed improvement in certain areas. Sure it has a pretty good story, well-thought out world, shiny presentation, allowed for player choices to impact the story, and a great cast of characters. But if one were to strip all those aside, you get a 'game' that's lacking - especially in the combat, leveling/classes, armor crafting/trapmaking/potionmaking/runecrafting/enchanting, magic/mana system.

Combat - too much filler combat, too easy, straightforward fight, no need to think much, repetitive enemies

In what way filler combat exactly? The ratio of combat to story is pretty much the same as it is in any other game. In response to saying the combat is too easy, I think a lot of people would go in the other direction and say that the combat is too hard, even on normal. And with regards to repetitive enemies, the enemies are no more repetitive than in any other game.

SphereofSilence wrote...

leveling/classes - inability to create a truly unique character that nobody else have, multiclass, many cool prestige classes (e.g. BG2, NWN & NWN2), DA's classes too straightforward, shallow and narrow in comparison with D&D

I'll give you that characters of a certain role often end up being similar, but at least the rule set is understandable without having to read a 300 page manual. In NWN I pretty much used the auto level because I had no idea what was going on.

SphereofSilence wrote...


crafting/potions/runes/traps/enchanting - too straightforward, unfulfilling, doesn't make enough impact especially with all the powerful magic and talents around, players tend to forgo all these since combat/magic talents are enough to get you through

I actually find when I go out of the way to use traps etc, my party is much more effective IMO.

SphereofSilence wrote...


magic/mana system - everyone has too easy and quick access to powerful spells, mana and potion system means infinitely spammable spells, what makes it worse is that there are a lot of 'I win' spells, again it's a matter of just casting them off - too straightforward, not much tactical thinking involved.

I haven't played Baldur's Gate, but the combat in DAO is way more tactical than in NWN for example. I think in the end the reason so many of those things don't seem that effective is because they're meant to be optional so that you don't have to use them if you don't want to.