334 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

ts 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.

Wow, you told him. He doesn't have an avatar? Who does he think he is? Doesn't he know you HAVE to have an avatar for anyone to take you seriously? And saying that a game backed by EA and designed by Bioware could have been better in some areas? Preposterous!



Sarcasm aside, I know who Upper_Krust is, but who the heck are you and why are you calling him the troll?

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."

I'm not a huge fan of crazy-looking monsters like your tentacle example, but that's not the only way to provide variety in monsters. The problem, to me, is that every humanoid enemy you fight has basically the same abilities you have (weapon and class-specific talents). Every canine has essentially the same abilities (overwhelm, dread howl, charge), every spider is the same (poison, web, overwhelm), and even the monstrous enemies are the same (massive attack, etc). With one exception, there are no surprises--glance at a humanoid enemy and you know pretty much exactly how it will attack and behave, even if it's a boss. Even the enemy mages use generic spells.



If you want a non-JRPG example, World of Warcraft also does monster variety better, imo. Not that every enemy is unique, and they don't even have unique graphics most of the time, but they do have unique abilities. Some heavily-armored melee enemies are "avengers," that power up (200% haste and attack power) if they see an ally fall in battle. Enemy mages have interesting spells like mass polymorph, shadowbolt volley, mind control, etc. Some enemies are immune to some types of crowd control (and you can't tell just from saying, "Oh, 2h warrior). One or two bosses have changing elemental resistances and powers.



Basically, DA:O lacks the "Oh, crud, that's not going to work in this fight, now what?" factor that other games have. A single strategy really is universally effective, and no, not every game is like that.

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.

Right, because the PC version totally has a greater variety of enemies and more interesting bosses. Wait... Also, he said himself that he's seen what PC gameplay looks like and it is, in some ways, more tactical. Also, probably easier (my opinion).

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.

I disagree; see above. It seems like in general the enemies are just generic. An enemy warrior with a 2h is going to look and behave exactly like one of your companions would at the same level with default tactics. So, if they want to create an encounter with a boss and enemies, all they have to do (or can do, for that matter) is plop four melee enemies (let's give them shields), ten archers, and a mage in around the boss. Oh, and let's make the boss a 2h warrior. Done. Level scaling takes care of the details.



I'd say only eight boss encounters were really what I'd call interesting in Dragon Age. Final boss, one optional boss, four past Orzammar, two in the mage tower. That sounds good, however unfortunately only about half of those ended up being challenging (the four past Orzammar, actually). That's out of, what, thirty-some "bosses"? Quantity over quality... I agree.



To be honest, given the above paragraph, I don't have a huge complaint about the bosses except that they were all, without exception, too easy on nightmare. I just think the generic enemies are too generic. Baldur's Gate did better in this area--trolls that required acid or fire, vampires that needed a stake and drained your life, beholders, and illithids all made the combat a lot more interesting.

[SphereofSilence]

uberdowzen wrote...

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.

- Filler combat as in boring combat, feels like grinding
- 'No more repetitive than other games'? Exactly my point, DA deserves better than this.  
- Played on Nightmare with Nightmare Plus mod, still find it a bit easy to my liking. It's just a personal preference then, I realize there are far more players that may find it hard.
- classes: On the other hand, there are some among us who likes scope/depth in customizations and reading the rules in detail. I suspect we're in the minority though. Again, different strokes for different folks.
- Regarding traps: In the few times I did use traps they were effective and potentially could be quite fun. But the problem was I couldn't be bothered when the available talents and spells were more than sufficient. Now, when the story was the only reason why I'm willing to go through with all the grindfest combat, why waste time delaying myself further by building traps and so forth, when I can just get over it via meeting the enemy straight on? You may counter that 'why are you complaining then, just don't use them.' Again, my point is that combat can be better, it should be strong enough on its own, not exist as an obstacle to proceed the storyline. If the combat aspect is that fulfilling, then now I'm more likely to use optional stuffs like traps etc.  
- I agree it's a necessary design decision that many things are optional. But it's still good to make them rewarding and compelling, in that it adds to the fun when they are used and when they are used well. 

[SphereofSilence]

soteria wrote...

I'm not a huge fan of crazy-looking monsters like your tentacle example, but that's not the only way to provide variety in monsters. The problem, to me, is that every humanoid enemy you fight has basically the same abilities you have (weapon and class-specific talents). Every canine has essentially the same abilities (overwhelm, dread howl, charge), every spider is the same (poison, web, overwhelm), and even the monstrous enemies are the same (massive attack, etc). With one exception, there are no surprises--glance at a humanoid enemy and you know pretty much exactly how it will attack and behave, even if it's a boss. Even the enemy mages use generic spells.

If you want a non-JRPG example, World of Warcraft also does monster variety better, imo. Not that every enemy is unique, and they don't even have unique graphics most of the time, but they do have unique abilities. Some heavily-armored melee enemies are "avengers," that power up (200% haste and attack power) if they see an ally fall in battle. Enemy mages have interesting spells like mass polymorph, shadowbolt volley, mind control, etc. Some enemies are immune to some types of crowd control (and you can't tell just from saying, "Oh, 2h warrior). One or two bosses have changing elemental resistances and powers.

Basically, DA:O lacks the "Oh, crud, that's not going to work in this fight, now what?" factor that other games have. A single strategy really is universally effective, and no, not every game is like that.


To be honest, given the above paragraph, I don't have a huge complaint about the bosses except that they were all, without exception, too easy on nightmare. I just think the generic enemies are too generic. Baldur's Gate did better in this area--trolls that required acid or fire, vampires that needed a stake and drained your life, beholders, and illithids all made the combat a lot more interesting.

Well said.

[Stalky24]

I agree with saying there are too many potions in DA:A. When I finished awakenings, I had combined amount of potions over 100 and another dozens of elven roots.



But in DA:O? I mean, I literrally prayed for another elven root to be able to buy a hp potion, checking always all the possible sellers to see if they got something etc... This wasnt issue of DA:O.

[Upper_Krust]

Suron wrote...

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.

While I know it won't appease those whose goal is simply seeking to discredit me for suggesting some area of Dragon Age could be improved, you can view my website here:

www.immortalshandbook.com

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]Catcher wrote...

    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.[/quote]

I agree but would factor in that its not simply about the high ground but more specifically areas it takes time to get to (whether from barricades or simply looping pathways). Lone archers in far off, hard to reach places were MUCH more dangerous than archers 10 feet away or archers bunched up. Which makes it annoying that sort of positioning was rarely used.

[quote]Further, I haven't heard anything about the concept of flanking/backstab in LO but it can be crucial to sucess in DA:O.[/quote]
 
It should have been critical, but more often than not isn't.

[quote]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? [/quote]

Not sure which aspect(s) you mean.

For the archer problem, I'd use more thought to the positioning of archers in combat. Have them spread out in areas that are hard to reach or protected with traps and barricades. This is done brilliantly in Dragon Age Origins - but the problem is that we only see it done 2-3 times in the whole game.

For flanking, I think the way to drive home the relevance of flanking is to have enemies that are either VERY resistant to frontal attacks or even COMPLETELY resistant to frontal attacks. Meaning flanking would not just be slightly important but it would be a virtual necessity. If Bioware are looking for mythological monsters with powers like this I suggest something like the Peluda (a medieval french monster).

[quote]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.[/quote]
 
I have studied this approach and LO's. I think the problem with individual choices giving only tiny benefits is that it massively restricts how challenging you can make an encounter.

In fact I believe its crippling to game difficulty. Which I think we saw in Awakening. Bioware can't make the game notably more difficult (either in terms of boss fights or simply different difficulty levels) because the margins they have tied to player choices are so (relatively) insignificant.

Lets say (hypothetically) 10 decisions make up a given combat. If every decision makes a 5% difference then the difference between getting them all right and getting them all wrong is +/-50%. Now if a typical combat is set so that the developers assume you'll get 4 right, that means the game swings between 80-130% in terms of difficulty. That means the highest you can set the difficulty is 30% greater than average, and the lowest is just 20% less. Those just seem very small margins for error. Thats why I think Bioware have had to reduce the challenge of the enemies to almost non-existent.

If every decision you make is worth 25%, then the difficulty variable is +/-250%. That seems to give a larger margin for player success and failure.

[quote]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 ) [/quote]

Branka n'est ce pas?

[quote]2: Greater opponent variety would necessarilly improve challenge/enjoyment.[/quote]
 
Did you mean to say wouldn't?

[quote]I think the word that just about  every player loves (and every developer phears) i MOAR! [/quote]

True.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Exactly. Its a catch 22 for the developers. I don't envy them their decisions because they can never please all the people all of the time.

[quote]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? [/quote]

You would have a strong case but for one point. Many of the enemies in Dragon Age are so similar (in terms of attacks/defenses) as to make their differences irrelevant. So my opinion is Dragon Age would already have enough enemies IF each was given more of an identity.

I mean, Hurlocks, Genlocks, Humans, Dwarves, Skeletons, Corpses, Elves and arguably Shrieks and Werewolves all basically attack in the same manner.

How about if different groups of humanoids attacked in different formations (square formations for dwarves, wedges for humans etc.). What if they all were assigned a different morale rating (genlocks are cowardly, dwarves are stubborn and fight to the death). What if ranged Genlocks used grenades instead of bows. How about if skeletons only take 10% damage from piercing weapons. Or if corpses deal injuries with each hit. I think even minor changes can give each monster type a bit more of an identity.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I think Bioware did the right thing in going for a medieval fantasy world, rather than the high fantasy so typical of JRPGs where anything goes. 

[quote]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? [/quote]

Well I don't think I was necessarily saying Dragon Age should do anything overtly the Lost Odyssey 'way'. I do think choice needs to be more important. I do think enemy variety is important (not simply more 'of the same' enemies, but more diverse enemies).

[Upper_Krust]

uberdowzen wrote...

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."

Monsters, simply for their own sake are not what I am talking about though. I think monsters with a stronger self-identity are the goal.

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.

No, although I am sure some do. Mechanically, 4th Edition is a much more robust and balanced system. In fact many of its detractors say it draws too much inspiration from video games.

And what are the flaws exactly the Dragon Age as taken from the DnD3.5 ruleset.

Well, for one, that spellcasters are overpowered. Although redressed in Awakening so that now all classes are seemingly overpowered.

Although when I made the initial comment I was specifically thinking about the statistical differences between levels.

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.

Don't remember saying it has simplistic combat. I do remember saying choices you make in Dragon Age only make small differences. Which might have you asking, well so what? But as far as I can discern, choices mattering less have far reaching consequences for the measure of the games challenge (including different difficulty levels).

[Upper_Krust]

uberdowzen wrote...

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.

Having played the 360 version and looked at the PC version in depth, its clear to me that the PC version plays better, gives you more control over the party. For instance you can't tell console party members where to go or who to attack, you actually have to control them yourself (or rely on tactics) on console. That makes a massive difference.

2. MORE IS NOT BETTER!!!!

So, you don't want more Dragon Age? DLC is irrelevant? Expansions are useless. Is that what you are saying?

[VampireCommando]

I dont know if its already been said, but, the directory genius of Kojima through out the MGS series games, and just MGS in genral.

[Upper_Krust]

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.

But try telling people that and watch the claws come out.

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

Agreed.

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 think thats a tad unfair. I mean you have race (3) gender (2) class (3) class feature groups (4 per class) specializations (4 per class).

While it only has 3 classes. Mage is really four classes in one, as is Warrior (Archer, Dual weapon, Two-hander, Weapon and Shield). Within those classes you can sort of multiclass, choosing different talents - although this works much better for mages than warriors. 

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 think crafting is always supplementary rather than compulsary. I think one way around (or at least to make it slightly more relevant) this might be a 60 second cooldown on potions and a limit of one salve at a time. Thus the goal of crafting would always be to create the better potions and salves.

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 definately think spellcasting is overpowered. A fireball does (1) at range (2) to multiple targets, (3) knocks them down and (4) still does as much damage as a typical weapon power. That can't be balanced.

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

I think the backbone of the game is definately the strong story and its weakest area is the combat. Which is primarily why I am saying the combat needs improving.

[Suron]

and I'll take more open character creation over JRPG ******-erotic blond teenage boy main character anyday.

and I laugh at the notion that you THINK almost any JRPG (much less LO) is "more strategic" then DA:O

LO you have;

• spell cast times
• enemy weaknesses
• the stupid ring that requires no real strategy just good timing
• static positions other then a front/back row
• buff dispelling? (this one I'm not sure of I didn't get very far before my 360 DVD drive took a **** on me)
• debuff awareness? (not sure on this either due to buff dispelling reason)
• the "morale" meter thing (forget what it's called but if it drops to zero..yer boned)

DA:O you have;

• spell casting times
• enemy weakness in the form of armor (so needing armor pen helps a ton with heavy armored mobs)
• positional awareness
• open moving so it takes more effort to protect the "back line"
• flanking/backstabbing
• spell area of effect awareness (you can fry your own team unlike the "strategic" LO -lmao-)
• buff dispelling (must be aware of enemy buffs and get around/through them)
• debuff awareness (to debuff and watch for debuffs on yer party..like the one that prevents healing)
• caster vs melee vs ranged attackers require different approaches

And that's just off the top of my head....GTFO of my face with yer LO is more "strategic"....it makes you sound stupid, sorry....static positioning in battle where melee/magic/range doesn't mean a whole lot....

enemy variety? can't really comment on this other then...who cares really...battles pan out relatively the same anyway..as you're in STATIC positions basically....and....in order to achieve such "variety" requires a lot of ridiculous looking enemies as it is.

Thanks but there's a reason I prefer WRPG's over JRPG's..and considering the trend of loss in popularity JRPG's are having...EVEN THE DEVS SAY THEY NEED TO LOOK TO WHAT MAKES WRPGs SO LOVED RIGHT NOW....

Sony made FF13 and SAID they were looking at WRPGs for inspiration to make changes to hopefully make JRPG's more popular....due to this...one of the main characters is the same voice actor as Liara from Mass Effect..but even some of the powers are DIRECT BITE-OFFS from Mass Effect (the anti-grav crap you see her and others use are a direct rip-off of Mass Effect Fields and Biotics)

so..again..LMAO that Bio should take ANY inspiration from a genre that is not only falling in popularity but has become so stagnant that they're looking to WRPGs for things to change to try and bring them back.

and you gotta be all kinds of high to think LO is more "strategic" then DA:O (or most any other WRPG)

[AlanC9]

Upper_Krust wrote...
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?

That depends on what's in the DLC. RtO, no. Some of the ME2 DLCs, absolutely yes.

[soteria]

and I laugh at the notion that you THINK almost any JRPG (much less LO) is "more strategic" then DA:O

Strategic? Do you mean tactical? DA:O isn't really very "strategic" at all, in the sense that you never have to plan past the current battle. With the (minor) exception of injuries, what you do in one fight has no impact on the next. Compare that to the JRPG (and a lot of older WRPGs) that had abilities with longer cooldowns and health that didn't regenerate, making battle much more "strategic."



I would consider strategic choices to be anything that effect multiple battles, and tactics to be confined to a single battle. Maybe you meant tactics, by that definition? I'm still not sure I could agree. You seem to despise JRPGs, which suggests that you probably haven't played them much. That also suggests you might not be very highly qualified to accurately compare them beyond watching some trailers and maybe your buddies play them.



That said, pretty much everything you said in regards to the tactical nature of DA:O can be negated with a tactic slot to use a potion at 50% health on every character, or 75% if you want to be extra careful. Make lots of (very cheap) potions, kill the mage first, then the archers, and almost every fight plays itself.



You miss the point: the problem isn't that DA:O lacks (potential) depth for tactics, but that enemies are so lacking in variety and resiliency that every encounter can be handled in exactly the same way. Add to that a plethora of overpowered player abilities and mechanics, and you'll find that none of the tactical pluses you listed for DA really matter. The only time you really have to play tactically at all is if you handicap yourself, and even then, again, every fight plays out the same way.

Thanks but there's a reason I prefer WRPG's over JRPG's..and considering the trend of loss in popularity JRPG's are having...EVEN THE DEVS SAY THEY NEED TO LOOK TO WHAT MAKES WRPGs SO LOVED RIGHT NOW....



Sony made FF13 and SAID they were looking at WRPGs for inspiration to make changes to hopefully make JRPG's more popular....due to this...one of the main characters is the same voice actor as Liara from Mass Effect..but even some of the powers are DIRECT BITE-OFFS from Mass Effect (the anti-grav crap you see her and others use are a direct rip-off of Mass Effect Fields and Biotics)

If your point is that JRPGs are trying to take a page from the West, I think you goofed. I mean, seriously, they used a voice actor for the English version of their game that also did ME? Really? Wow, maybe she gave them all sorts of tips on how Bioware.... oh, wait, she's a voice actor. She does voice acting, for games. And, yeah, they totally stole a sci-fi thing for the game... that appears in like one cutscene. So, yeah, maybe FFXIII took some notes from WRPGs in terms of cinematics? Other than that, you got nothing. I'm 50 hours into FFXIII, and although the gameplay has evolved some, Square has always pushed the envelope and tried to make each game better and different. Pretty much all of the combat abilities are standard FF--fire, fira, firaga...

so..again..LMAO that Bio should take ANY inspiration from a genre that is not only falling in popularity but has become so stagnant that they're looking to WRPGs for things to change to try and bring them back.

Do you have a source for this, or is this just what you and your friends have talked about and decided must be true? If anything, I'd say that the developers who are looking at other games to try and improve themselves are the ones that are moving forward. That's the opposite of stagnation. Being stagnant would be saying, "We're just going to keep on doing things the same way."



Last I checked, FFXIII by itself has sold some 3.5 million units in the four weeks since it was released. I think that's about as much as DA:O has sold since it was released last November. Not bad for a dying genre, eh?

[Bryy_Miller]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...
[quote]2. MORE IS NOT BETTER!!!![/quote]

So, you don't want more Dragon Age? DLC is irrelevant? Expansions are useless. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]

Nice strawman, buddy.

[AlanC9]

Upper_Krust wrote...I definately think spellcasting is overpowered. A fireball does (1) at range (2) to multiple targets, (3) knocks them down and (4) still does as much damage as a typical weapon power. That can't be balanced.

Well, with friendly fire on it isn't all that overpowered, depending on the encounter setup. There are plenty of times you can't do much with it at all.

[Suron]

soteria wrote...

and I laugh at the notion that you THINK almost any JRPG (much less LO) is "more strategic" then DA:O

Strategic? Do you mean tactical? DA:O isn't really very "strategic" at all, in the sense that you never have to plan past the current battle. With the (minor) exception of injuries, what you do in one fight has no impact on the next. Compare that to the JRPG (and a lot of older WRPGs) that had abilities with longer cooldowns and health that didn't regenerate, making battle much more "strategic."

stop playing on easy..approaching a battle head on is sure-fire way to get you killed..tactics/strategy MUST be used..but whatever you want to tell yourself.

and about what I said about JRPGs looking to WRPGs for stuff....I read about it...one of which was from Sony themselves..no I'm not going to dig it up for you...not my problem if you're too lazy.  and if you're going to dismiss it because you're too lazy to look it up..ALSO not my problem.

[soteria]

stop playing on easy..approaching a battle head on is sure-fire way to get you killed..tactics/strategy MUST be used..but whatever you want to tell yourself.

I'm not kidding myself or anyone else. The game really is that easy if you don't restrict yourself at all, on nightmare. Now, it's true that I don't just take every fight head on in many of my videos, but that's because I'm restricting myself (no potions is the big one). I'm hardly alone in that, either.

and about what I said about JRPGs looking to WRPGs for stuff....I read about it...one of which was from Sony themselves..no I'm not going to dig it up for you...not my problem if you're too lazy. and if you're going to dismiss it because you're too lazy to look it up..ALSO not my problem.

Well, seeing as how you made the claim, the burden of proof *is* on you. How am I supposed to prove the non-existence of an article on the internet? After looking up sales figures/popularity, as far as I can tell you're just making stuff up. Unfortunately, EA hasn't been as open as Square with their sales data, so I've had a hard time finding sales for the PC versions of ME2 and DAO. What I found contradicts you, though. And if you're not going to check my sales figures because you're too lazy, I guess that's not my problem, now is it?



See, it's so much easier to just make a claim when you don't have to go through the trouble of looking it up. Because, it's easy to just type trash and hit Submit, but when you actually have to back your claims up with a source, *that* takes work.



After all, it's much easier for you to just dismiss me with ad hominem attacks ("You play on easy and are lazy to boot) then it is to actually respond, now isn't it? That would take thinking... and maybe looking up that source you're too lazy (or incapable) of finding.

[AlanC9]

 soteria wrote...

You seem to despise JRPGs, which suggests that you probably haven't played them much.

Probably true. You'd have to be really stupid to play a lot of games you don't like, after all.

That said, pretty much everything you said in regards to the tactical nature of DA:O can be negated with a tactic slot to use a potion at 50% health on every character, or 75% if you want to be extra careful. Make lots of (very cheap) potions, kill the mage first, then the archers, and almost every fight plays itself.

90 silver isn't really cheap. Or are you talking about making lots of the cheaper poultices?

[soteria]

Probably true. You'd have to be really stupid to play a lot of games you don't like, after all.

Yeah, I have nothing good to say about sports games, but since I also never play them, I try not to get into discussions about what is good and bad about them.

90 silver isn't really cheap. Or are you talking about making lots of the cheaper poultices?

Making them. Even without buying infinite elfroot, there's plenty of resources unless you're just building your characters wrong (constitution on a tank, for example). There can be a few rough patches toward the beginning, depending on where you go, I'll admit, but in general I've found that the supply of elfroot outstrips the demand with a "classic" setup of tank/healer.

Modifié par soteria, 10 avril 2010 - 06:46 .

[Hollingdale]

Suron wrote...

soteria wrote...

and I laugh at the notion that you THINK almost any JRPG (much less LO) is "more strategic" then DA:O

Strategic? Do you mean tactical? DA:O isn't really very "strategic" at all, in the sense that you never have to plan past the current battle. With the (minor) exception of injuries, what you do in one fight has no impact on the next. Compare that to the JRPG (and a lot of older WRPGs) that had abilities with longer cooldowns and health that didn't regenerate, making battle much more "strategic."

stop playing on easy..approaching a battle head on is sure-fire way to get you killed..tactics/strategy MUST be used..but whatever you want to tell yourself.

and about what I said about JRPGs looking to WRPGs for stuff....I read about it...one of which was from Sony themselves..no I'm not going to dig it up for you...not my problem if you're too lazy.  and if you're going to dismiss it because you're too lazy to look it up..ALSO not my problem.

If you are too lazy too look up your own sources don't expect people to take them as facts. Also, I've played Dragon Age on nightmare, on console and the vast majority of all battles are easy as hell and require very little concentration. It was harder in the beginning when I wasn't building my characters properly and didn't know which spells and attacks ruled, but really once you get a little used to it Dragon Age is easy.

Furthermore the often linear JRPGS actually require more in terms of story pacing and dramatical structure than do their freer western counterparts. WRPG players tend to ''metaroleplay'' (perhaps an unecessary term), by which I mean that they go beyound the actual contents of the game and imagine their own characters intentions and actions aswell as motives fully impersonating their character.

Jrpg's on the other hand have linearly detailed laid out story that offer much less in terms of subjective comprehension leading to what one may want to call a more third person relationship between player and main character (or cast if such is lacking).

The aggresive nature of your post makes it rather clear that you consider JRPG's inferior to WRPG's. While youre entitled to your own opinions no matter how subjective they are I do genuinely suggest you to actually present some arguments for them rather than simply typing aggresively in caps lock. Really it would make your posts much more interesting to lead and may actually help develop the discussion!

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

Yeah, I have nothing good to say about sports games, but since I also never play them, I try not to get into discussions about what is good and bad about them.

But if JRPGs can't be compared with WRPGs, this entire thread is pointless.

Making them. Even without buying infinite elfroot, there's plenty of resources unless you're just building your characters wrong (constitution on a tank, for example). There can be a few rough patches toward the beginning, depending on where you go, I'll admit, but in general I've found that the supply of elfroot outstrips the demand with a "classic" setup of tank/healer.

90 silver is the cost for making a Potent Health Poultice. Concentrator and Distillation agents are the cost factor. That builds up fast. Cost falls off fast for the lower -priced ones if you can get by with those; Health Poultices might as well be free.

The reason you don't notice the expense is that you don't really need cash for anything. The purchased equipment just isn't that much better than what you'll find along the way. My impression is that most players are just buying top-of-the-line stuff for the PC and equipping the rest of the party with found stuff, and you don't even really need to do that.

[Stalky24]

soteria wrote...

ts 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.

Wow, you told him. He doesn't have an avatar? Who does he think he is? Doesn't he know you HAVE to have an avatar for anyone to take you seriously? And saying that a game backed by EA and designed by Bioware could have been better in some areas? Preposterous!

lol you completly misunderstood my point

[Upper_Krust]

Suron wrote...

and I'll take more open character creation over JRPG ******-erotic blond teenage boy main character anyday.

...so you are criticising a game because of supposed ******-erotic overtones while defending another game with actual homosexual 'action'. Is that a textbook definition of hypocrisy or what.

and I laugh at the notion that you THINK almost any JRPG (much less LO) is "more strategic" then DA:O

LO you have

*SNIP*

Nice list but massively missing the point here (though well done illustrating the two games can be compared and contrasted).

The point I have been making since the beginning are that choices matter more in Lost Odyssey. Both have spells - correct. But the choice of spell you use in LO is invariably more important to the outcome of the battle.

GTFO of my face with yer LO is more "strategic"....it makes you sound stupid, sorry.

I don't remember using the term strategic. I do remember saying choice is far more important in LO though.

...static positioning in battle where melee/magic/range doesn't mean a whole lot...

Then you must not be familiar with LO.

enemy variety? can't really comment on this other then...who cares really...

...anyone who doesn't want to fight the same battle a hundred times over against the same enemies thats who. ...anyone who doesn't want to fight the same battles at the start of the game as you do at the end of the game.
...Bioware...thats why they put new enemies in Awakening to keep things getting too stale
...Bioware (again) by asking people in a thread a month or two back what enemies they wanted to see in future games/expansions.

So basically everyone wants to see new enemies except probably you.

battles pan out relatively the same anyway..as you're in STATIC positions basically....and....in order to achieve such "variety" requires a lot of ridiculous looking enemies as it is.

Battles pan out the same way in DAO too. The difference being they are usually fought against the same enemies.

Thanks but there's a reason I prefer WRPG's over JRPG's..and considering the trend of loss in popularity JRPG's are having...EVEN THE DEVS SAY THEY NEED TO LOOK TO WHAT MAKES WRPGs SO LOVED RIGHT NOW....

Sony made FF13 and SAID they were looking at WRPGs for inspiration to make changes to hopefully make JRPG's more popular...

More popular outside Japan that is. However, its key to note that while they did make FF13 in realtime (a nod to WRPGs), they DID still make choices in combat directly relate to the outcome. In fact, like Lost Odyssey, one of the main criticisms of FF13 is that its too hard.

Japanese developers have the challenge/strategy aspects of RPGs in place, but they do fail to use the variable difficulty feature of WRPGs. The opposite seems to be the case as regards Dragon Age.

due to this...one of the main characters is the same voice actor as Liara from Mass Effect..but even some of the powers are DIRECT BITE-OFFS from Mass Effect (the anti-grav crap you see her and others use are a direct rip-off of Mass Effect Fields and Biotics)

so..again..LMAO that Bio should take ANY inspiration from a genre that is not only falling in popularity but has become so stagnant that they're looking to WRPGs for things to change to try and bring them back.

I hate to state the obvious, but its hardly as if Bioware (borrowing what is essentially the core mechanics of D&D, tweaking them and mixing that with some Lord of the Rings and making a videogame around it are the champions of originality). That said, all games borrow ideas from other sources, so this is not a criticism per se.

and you gotta be all kinds of high to think LO is more "strategic" then DA:O (or most any other WRPG)

I think you will find many disagree with you.

[0LunarEclipse0]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Mr. Woo, many a time I have argued with you over these forums. Many a time I have disliked what you have said. Many a time I have also seen and apprciated your comitment to this community. (Even if you sometimes disregard or misconstrew our comments ) Now Mr. Woo I find myself in an awkward posistion, I must bow down to your tact and greatness with this response. I don't think I have ever smiled so much on these forums. (well at least not the NEW forums...ah the glory days of old) So community watch me now and see what I do:

*drops to one knee and bows* Well done Mr. Woo, well done.

[Upper_Krust]

AlanC9 wrote...

Upper_Krust wrote...
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?

That depends on what's in the DLC. RtO, no. Some of the ME2 DLCs, absolutely yes.

Had RtO been a level in DAO no one would have complained an iota.

But what is DLC or an expansion if not MORE...of the same.

If the argument was "More time spent by the developers creating enemies not markedly different to those we already have IS NOT BETTER". Then I think the argument would have merit.

Stanley Woo already put the point directly to me as to HOW are the Lost Odyssey enemies more varied and so forth, and I outlined how I thought they were overall 'better'.

If the argument was "Ten different, memorable enemies are better than a thousand samey lame ones". Again the argument would have merit.

But if anything its Dragon Age that not only has FAR less enemies, but also a roster of far too many samey ones.

So in many ways MORE IS BETTER, including when that 'more' is variety.

Its not better when you have two things doing the same job that one could accomplish (as with Hurlocks and Genlocks). Which is why I have been petitioning for better identity amongst the roster - such as giving Genlocks grenades instead of bows, making them rogues instead of warriors, make them cowardly instead of stubborn etc.