334 réponses à ce sujet

[Upper_Krust]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Or worse, try playing on console where you have to rely on tactics and theres no 'avoid friendly fire' stipulation.

However, I still think my initial point holds water for a number of reasons.

Firstly, you get to explicitly pick where you want the fireball to be when playing the mage. Under that criteria you can easily avoid friendly fire.
Secondly, its only one example spell of many where the mage gets multiple effects hitting multiple enemies for damage akin to a weapon talent.
Thirdly, parties are always at full health for each battle meaning you can easily afford to injure or even 'kill' your own PCs if it gets you the win, especially against multiple weaker opponents - which is where fireball really shines.

[Sable Phoenix]

I think this thread needs to stop now.

Dragon Age is a Western RPG.  The examples of how it could be made "better" have all been Japanese RPGs.  Don't get any JRPG in my WRPG, thanks.  BioWare makes WRPGs and needs to stick with that.  The minute BioWare starts making JRPG-style games is the minute I stop buying them.  You want a JRPG, buy stuff from SquareSoft.  There are eighty thousand Final Fantasy games to choose from if that's the style you want.

[xCobalt]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I think this thread needs to stop now.

Dragon Age is a Western RPG.  The examples of how it could be made "better" have all been Japanese RPGs.  Don't get any JRPG in my WRPG, thanks.  BioWare makes WRPGs and needs to stick with that.  The minute BioWare starts making JRPG-style games is the minute I stop buying them.  You want a JRPG, buy stuff from SquareSoft.  There are eighty thousand Final Fantasy games to choose from if that's the style you want.

This post sure shows how informed you are. Doesn't sound like you even read the thread...or you believe WRPG should stick with as little enemies as possible while maintaining a hack and slash style of gameplay.

[Hollingdale]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I think this thread needs to stop now.

Dragon Age is a Western RPG.  The examples of how it could be made "better" have all been Japanese RPGs.  Don't get any JRPG in my WRPG, thanks.  BioWare makes WRPGs and needs to stick with that.  The minute BioWare starts making JRPG-style games is the minute I stop buying them.  You want a JRPG, buy stuff from SquareSoft.  There are eighty thousand Final Fantasy games to choose from if that's the style you want.

While you do have a point I don't agree that this thread should stop now.

JRPG's may be very different to WRPG's but both can still learn from each others respective strengths and weaknesses. Indeed there are elements in JRPG's that work great and could work great even in a WRPG and vice versa.  And such elements may be more or less effectively singled out and brought forward through discussions such as the occuring in this thread. Take for example the fact that while most posters did not agree with the majority of the OP's statements many did however agree on the fact that Lost Odyssey does have much greater enemy diversity which Dragon Age sorely lacks.

Generally JRPG's also contain some music that Western's lack, mainly atmospheric music relating to enviroments. Many Jrpg tunes while poorly produced often succeeds in capturing the magical feel of an enviroment. Such as:  which is played as you venture through the Macalina Woods in FFX. This is not to say that the music of western rpg's is worse than that of eastern just that tunes like the aforementioned that fill a purpose on an atmospherical level don't seem to be a part of the western rpg's repertoire of music. Indeed I think that western rpg's should learn not to see their enviroments as mere dungeons but rather as important parts of the puzzle that is the feel of the world in which the game takes place and as such should not omit to create atmosphere.

And one a sidenote: JRPG's could learn not to be so goddamn pretentious and in over their heads in sentimentaly and that pre adolescent protagonists of undeterminable sex that act either act ''distant and cool'' or are completely hysterical along with side characters of that seems to exist in order to convey one emotion each and which are so completely without depth and one dimensional (note the fact the characters also constantly repeat themselves in dialogues stating the same things over and over again) suck and that you feel like youre reading Marcel Proust playing Dragon Age after Tales of Symphonia. And they could also bloody well learn not to disguise this as deep **** by adding some kind of strange pseudo philosophical confused crap about love and stuff that the protagonists get to yell at the final boss before the battle starts.

Seriously I loved Jrpg's when I was younger and I still would if their developers would've grown up with me...

Modifié par Hollingdale, 10 avril 2010 - 11:01 .

[uberdowzen]

Upper_Krust wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

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?

No of course not, I'm saying it's one thing to be able to create a large number of weird and fantastical creatures but it's quite another to create a good selection of enemies that react in a logical way. Take for example the excellent puzzle game World of Goo. The designers have said that originally they had about twice as many levels but most of these were ditched so that only the truly exceptional levels remained. I know this is a slightly different context but the same concept applies.

Also someone else pointed out that in Dragon Age you could just look at an enemy and know how to counter it. That's kinda the point. It's no fun having an enemy that you expect to do one thing and then discover that you have to counter it in some other random way.

The OP has said that his point was that all your choices in LO are critical to the success of the battle (is this what you meant? Please correct me if I'm wrong). That honestly doesn't sound as much fun as DAO. DAO is more like a really good action movie. The heroes set up to defend against the incoming enemies. They have a general plan but it completely falls apart as the battle unfolds. You'll make mistakes but you won't instantly lose, you'll just be disadvantaged. LO sounds more like you see an enemy, spend a minute deciding how you have to beat it and then perform those actions in the correct order to defeat the enemy.

My point is that both games are different and I don't think there is much DAO could take from a JRPG. More enemies are great, but they have to fit into the world. I never felt that DAO had too few monsters and I liked the fact that I could just glance at a monster and know how I needed to counter it.

Oh yeah, and Mages are not overpowered. They give out a lot of hurt, but they can't take much pain themselves. Think of them like siege weapons in a RTS, powerful but lacking HP.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 10 avril 2010 - 10:03 .

[hexaligned]

So you want simplicity of design and combat. Some of us prefer complexity.  If a game doesn't stimulate both my mind and intellect, I view it as a waste of time.  Regardless the post was made to offer an opinion, when you start throwing yours around like it's an absolute it pretty much negates the merit of anything you have to say.

Modifié par relhart, 10 avril 2010 - 10:24 .

[Hollingdale]

Mages are definitely OP. Although this is largely due to the fact that they are often Yellow and allways stand far away. It's also because non mages suck and are not yellow and die before the berserk animation is over.

Seriously remove the berserk animation and have berserk stay on after combat.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 10 avril 2010 - 10:21 .

[Nukenin]

This thread got human* fast, but just reading the topic all I could think of was…

Fruits Apples Should Study…#1 Oranges



_______
*pick yer demeaning quality

[Lilisia]

And the crazy conversation of the week award goes to....

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

No of course not, I'm saying it's one thing to be able to create a large number of weird and fantastical creatures but it's quite another to create a good selection of enemies that react in a logical way. Take for example the excellent puzzle game World of Goo. The designers have said that originally they had about twice as many levels but most of these were ditched so that only the truly exceptional levels remained. I know this is a slightly different context but the same concept applies.

[quote]Also someone else pointed out that in Dragon Age you could just look at an enemy and know how to counter it. That's kinda the point. It's no fun having an enemy that you expect to do one thing and then discover that you have to counter it in some other random way.[/quote]

I think that poster (and I don't want to put words in their mouth so I may be wrong) was saying too many Dragon Age enemies acted/attacked in exactly the same manner.

[quote]The OP has said that his point was that all your choices in LO are critical to the success of the battle (is this what you meant? Please correct me if I'm wrong).[/quote]
 
Not exactly. The choices in LO are more important than in Dragon Age. In the harder boss fights they do border on critical.

Having choice be less important has a knock on effect to the challenge the game will have. The smaller the difference each choice makes, the less flexibility the developers have when determining overall difficulty.

[quote]That honestly doesn't sound as much fun as DAO. DAO is more like a really good action movie. The heroes set up to defend against the incoming enemies. They have a general plan but it completely falls apart as the battle unfolds. [/quote]

Or you could say its more like a Steven Seagal DTDvd movie where the hero basically never gets hit and each battle is too easy, until the end fight where the last boss gets one hit in and bloodies his nose. 

[quote]LO sounds more like you see an enemy, spend a minute deciding how you have to beat it and then perform those actions in the correct order to defeat the enemy.[/quote]

There is never only one way to win period. But there are ways to lose. In Dragon Age, the majority of encounters border on being un-loseable, because the difference between making all the right decisions and making all the wrong decisions is so tiny that the developers can't use them as a factor to set difficulty.

[quote]My point is that both games are different and I don't think there is much DAO could take from a JRPG. More enemies are great, but they have to fit into the world. I never felt that DAO had too few monsters and I liked the fact that I could just glance at a monster and know how I needed to counter it.[/quote]

You never felt that DAO had too few monsters!? There are about 250 fights in the game against Darkspawn alone, the VAST majority being simply Hurlocks and Genlocks (which are both all but identical).

[quote]Oh yeah, and Mages are not overpowered. They give out a lot of hurt, but they can't take much pain themselves. Think of them like siege weapons in a RTS, powerful but lacking HP.[/quote]

Mages dominate DAO by a WIDE margin. Why do you think Bioware upped the power of the other classes in Awakening...of course the logical thing to do would have been to reduce the power of the Mage class...

[imran shah]

DAO beats the crap out of lost odese (or what its called)



LoL

[AlanC9]

Upper_Krust wrote...
Firstly, you get to explicitly pick where you want the fireball to be when playing the mage. Under that criteria you can easily avoid friendly fire.

Sure, but this also means avoiding most of the enemies sometimes.

Secondly, its only one example spell of many where the mage gets multiple effects hitting multiple enemies for damage akin to a weapon talent.

Yeah, like a weapon talent. So what?

Thirdly, parties are always at full health for each battle meaning you can easily afford to injure or even 'kill' your own PCs if it gets you the win, especially against multiple weaker opponents - which is where fireball really shines.

Sure. I didn't say the spell wasn't good. 

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Also someone else pointed out that in Dragon Age you could just look at an enemy and know how to counter it. That's kinda the point. It's no fun having an enemy that you expect to do one thing and then discover that you have to counter it in some other random way.[/quote]

I think that poster (and I don't want to put words in their mouth so I may be wrong) was saying too many Dragon Age enemies acted/attacked in exactly the same manner.[/quote]

OK, my bad.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The OP has said that his point was that all your choices in LO are critical to the success of the battle (is this what you meant? Please correct me if I'm wrong).[/quote]
 
Not exactly. The choices in LO are more important than in Dragon Age. In the harder boss fights they do border on critical.

Having choice be less important has a knock on effect to the challenge the game will have. The smaller the difference each choice makes, the less flexibility the developers have when determining overall difficulty.[/quote]

See, I think this kind of proves that combat wise these games don't have much to learn from each other. I just watched a gameplay video of Lost Oddysey and I don't think (and I don't get me wrong I don't think that LO is a bad game) there is anything there that would improve DAO. The combat is completely different. LO is about taking your time working out which of your attacks etc is needed to defeat the current enemies. DAO is more about the environment and where your characters are placed in it. Again, neither system is better they are just different.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...


[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

That honestly doesn't sound as much fun as DAO. DAO is more like a really good action movie. The heroes set up to defend against the incoming enemies. They have a general plan but it completely falls apart as the battle unfolds. [/quote]

Or you could say its more like a Steven Seagal DTDvd movie where the hero basically never gets hit and eachbattle is too easy, until the end fight where the last boss gets one hit in and bloodies his nose. [/quote]

Uh, no, I mean more like the Lord of the Rings where the fights develop and things change. Look at is this way, if LO was a movie it would be one where all the heroes go in, the fight goes perfectly and they run on further. DAO is more like a movie where things go wrong in the fight and the excitement comes from the heroes fighting back.

The DVD that comes with the CE of DAO, has a great quote from the lead designer explaining what I mean. I'm paraphrasing but it went along the lines of "You set up your heroes as best as you can and then you're just frantically adjusting your heroes to try and get that tiny advantage you need to win. And then when you've finished you're like Yes! now I've just got to do that hundred more times."

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...


[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

LO sounds more like you see an enemy, spend a minute deciding how you have to beat it and then perform those actions in the correct order to defeat the enemy.[/quote]

There is never only one way to win period. But there are ways to lose. In Dragon Age, the majority of encounters border on being un-loseable, because the difference between making all the right decisions and making all the wrong decisions is so tiny that the developers can't use them as a factor to set difficulty.[/quote]

I don't know what game you're playing but I thought Dragon Age was really difficult in places and I always felt like I was on the border of losing. Remember the console versions of DAO have less enemies and the combat has been rejiggered to feel more like KOTOR.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...


[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

My point is that both games are different and I don't think there is much DAO could take from a JRPG. More enemies are great, but they have to fit into the world. I never felt that DAO had too few monsters and I liked the fact that I could just glance at a monster and know how I needed to counter it.[/quote]

You never felt that DAO had too few monsters!? There are about 250 fights in the game against Darkspawn alone, the VAST majority being simply Hurlocks and Genlocks (which are both all but identical).[/quote]

Uh, no, not really. Like I've said before it has more enemies than most games.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...


[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Oh yeah, and Mages are not overpowered. They give out a lot of hurt, but they can't take much pain themselves. Think of them like siege weapons in a RTS, powerful but lacking HP.[/quote]

Mages dominate DAO by a WIDE margin. Why do you think Bioware upped the power of the other classes in Awakening...of course the logical thing to do would have been to reduce the power of the Mage class...
[/quote]

If mages were that over-powered how come they haven't fixed them in a patch? I find if my line is broken and a melee enemy gets through to my mage he/she is screwed.

[uberdowzen]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Thirdly, parties are always at full health for each battle meaning you can easily afford to injure or even 'kill' your own PCs if it gets you the win, especially against multiple weaker opponents - which is where fireball really shines.

See how is that a realistic and sensible tactic?

[Tirigon]

I´ll commit a sacrilege and suggest any given, no-name Hack´n´slash. Because Hack´n´Slash combat is more fun.

[uberdowzen]

Tirigon wrote...

I´ll commit a sacrilege and suggest any given, no-name Hack´n´slash. Because Hack´n´Slash combat is more fun.

I thought that at first when I was playing DAO but actually once you get to know DAO's combat system I'd say it's better.

[Tirigon]

uberdowzen wrote...

I thought that at first when I was playing DAO but actually once you get to know DAO's combat system I'd say it's better.

Well. I admit, it´s a LOT better then what I expected after the first fights in the origin stories.
Especially mage is quite funny, actually.
But I still think that jumping around and cutting off heads and all that is, in the long run, more fun, especially when playing warrior or rogue. Assassinating without actually having to sneak is just not so interesting.


For me, DAO lives because of the roleplaying part - I just don´t know any other game (including ME) where I actually listen to my party, even if it´s not necessary for the progress (for example Leliana´s fairytales:wub::wub:)
For that, I accept the combat system, but DAO´s roleplaying part coupled with good, action-oriented fights would be a game of my dreams.

[Sable Phoenix]

xCobalt wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I think this thread needs to stop now.

Dragon Age is a Western RPG.  The examples of how it could be made "better" have all been Japanese RPGs.  Don't get any JRPG in my WRPG, thanks.  BioWare makes WRPGs and needs to stick with that.  The minute BioWare starts making JRPG-style games is the minute I stop buying them.  You want a JRPG, buy stuff from SquareSoft.  There are eighty thousand Final Fantasy games to choose from if that's the style you want.

This post sure shows how informed you are. Doesn't sound like you even read the thread...or you believe WRPG should stick with as little enemies as possible while maintaining a hack and slash style of gameplay.

I like how you put words in my mouth.  I said nothing of the kind.

First, Dragon Age is not hack and slash.  It is a happy fusion of realtime and turn-based combat which has been a hallmark of good RPGs from Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment onward (probably before that although I can't think of examples).  Hack and slash is Dungeon Siege.  Hack and slash is Diablo II, or Titan Quest.  Dragon Age is nothing like these games and thank goodness for it.

Second, more enemies is not necessarily better.  I don't get why a huge enemies list is being held up as some kind of achievement or something to aspire to.  A huge enemy list more often than not means lots of grinding, lots of pointless side-combat, lots of random encounters, and lots of recycled models.  Nor can you claim that a small enemies list is somehow a hallmark of games like Dragon Age.  More variety among enemies might be nice, but in a game like Dragon Age, combat is secondary to the story and must always serve the story, not the other way around.  How many of the faceless minions that you are slaughtering your way through do you really pay attention to?  That's what I thought.  Can you unequivocally establish that, say, doubling the number of different kind of enemies would have made Dragon Age a better game?  Can you really?  Dragon Age is not a combat-focused game... just look at its expansion, Awakenings, which was combat focused, and how badly that falls on its face compared to Origins.  Combat is not Dragon Age's strength, nor should it be.  The combat is involving, engaging, and difficult enough to support the story and make it entertaining, and is a large part of the game, granted, but it is not the focus of the game by any means.  I would much rather the development time and resources to make a larger enemy list instead be spent upon more character conversations and dialogue,  and improved interaction technologies.

JRPGs on the other hand are progressions of combat scenarios pasted together by static cutscenes in a largely noninteractive story.  That's fine for what it is, but the two designs are fundamentally incompatible.

I do not play JRPGs for a reason, just as I do play WRPGs for a reason.  Contaminating the latter with the former would be like spreading wasabi on your filet mignon.  It has its place, but the combined flavors make something unpalatable.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 11 avril 2010 - 05:34 .

[soteria]

I do not play JRPGs for a reason, just as I do play WRPGs for a reason. Contaminating the latter with the former would be like spreading wasabi on your filet mignon. It has its place, but the combined flavors make something unpalatable.

I think your argument is moot because "more variety in enemies" isn't a design feature exclusive to the JRPG. The OP could have made the same argument using BG 1 or 2--those games have a much greater variety in enemies as well. Try fighting a group of illithids the same way you fight a group of fire giants, and be ready to die horribly.

More variety among enemies might be nice, but in a game like Dragon Age, combat is secondary to the story and must always serve the story, not the other way around. How many of the faceless minions that you are slaughtering your way through do you really pay attention to? That's what I thought. Can you unequivocally establish that, say, doubling the number of different kind of enemies would have made Dragon Age a better game?

I didn't pay any attention to the minions because I didn't have to, and neither did you, I'm guessing. With a few exceptions, they were largely unremarkable. I don't think doubling the number of different enemies is necessary or feasible, because of the work involved in creating models, but I do think it would have been better with more variety in enemy abilities and behaviors. As I've said before, every enemy mage, boss or no, uses the same set of spells.

I don't know what game you're playing but I thought Dragon Age was really difficult in places and I always felt like I was on the border of losing. Remember the console versions of DAO have less enemies and the combat has been rejiggered to feel more like KOTOR.

So did I, on my first playthrough. After taking the lessons I learned and applying them, every subsequent game got significantly easier--if you ask on the gameplay forums what people think of the difficulty on nightmare, I think you'll find a number of people agree that nightmare is too easy. That has nothing to do with the consoles (I play on PC).

Modifié par soteria, 11 avril 2010 - 06:46 .

[JtheDeadClown]

Huh, I just recently started playing DA:O so I can't really compare yet but LO didn't feel difficult to me, except the first and third bosses which were unfairly so, but aside from that everything was a breeze.



Nor was it really strategic, see enemy type A; equip ring A. Enemy type B? Ring B. That really was the gist of it. Any semblance of thought is thrown out the window after the prologue tutorial boss, which is a shame because that segment is awesome.



The main story was bleh, the thousand dreams were very nice.



The depth of ring crafting is impressive, I liked that.

[Stanley Woo]

Unfortunately, Upper_Krust, it really sounds like the entirety of your argument isn't that DAO needs more depth or complexity, but that it needs to be the Lost Odyssey combat system because of how much you enjoyed that system.



Don't get me wrong. That is an acceptable argument and your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, including mine, but I think the point that you're not getting from those arguing (maturely and respectfully) against you is that you are considering Lost Odyssey's combat system only within the context of Lost Odyssey and its genre. In a JRPG, that level of complexity in a combat system is acceptable and desired, because less time can be spent on things like story branches and player choice in that story. And that's fine... for a JRPG.



Western RPGs have to contend with a different audience, one that also enjoys a gripping story where they make the decisions. That necessarily requires more time and resources to be spent on writing and voicing and design, and less on the intricacies of positioning and rings and whatnot.



As for the "more is not better argument," I think it's a little disingenuous to compare your "more is better" statement to "more DA products is better" because that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the combat system, not a game franchise. In most western RPGs, the combat system is there to support the story. Many people in this thread can win Dragon Age combats with ease, even on Nightmare, but many are in it for the story. They want to see how it ends.



In most JRPGs, on the other hand, the story is there to support the awesome new combat system they've developed. As an example, look at the Final Fantasy series. The few that I've played have tremendous variation and customization in combat tactics, abilities, buffs, summons, and animations. The cinematics when performing ultimate moves are spectacular, and I love watching them. Performing them starts to become a minigame in and of itself, as you perform the correct combination or number of moves necessary to fill the meter, get the timing right on the real-time rhythm game, and press the correct combination of buttons at just the right moment in the animation. It's great, and I enjoy it, but I don't like the rest of what a JRPG is, which is endlessly slogging through voiceless character dialogues to uncover a story that isn't necessary to win the game, the trilling sound effect of printed text, lack of choice in dialogue responses, all to get to the next potentially poorly-translated, voiced cinematic.



A JRPG, to me, is having to suffer through character "development" and "interaction" to get to the next cinematic or combat, while a western RPG is, to me, going through combat to get to the next bit of exciting story development and character interaction. In a western RPG, especially BioWare's, there a sense of the characters being real enough to touch, and strong attachments are developed, which is why we always have character love and hate threads, and romance threads, in every one of our game forums.



So yes, you can definitely compare RPGs like Dragon Age and Lost Odyssey, but try to incorporate entire systems from one into the other? You'd essentially be changing the genre and potentially alienating an entire audience.

[Tirigon]

@ Stanley Woo: If I understand you correctly, you say that the JRPG combat IS really better than the one in DAO, but DAO has the better story.

So why would it hurt to combine DAO-Style story and roleplaying elements with JRPG-style combat? Essentially, that would mean combining the strengths of both and eliminating the weaknesses, thus creating the perfect game, right?

[soteria]

I think what he's saying is that creating a more intricate combat system would take more development time away from the writing. I guess what I don't understand about that is, as far as I know the writers weren't the ones that developed the combat system. I can understand saying that the combat design folks and art people just didn't have time to create more or more diverse enemies, but I don't understand saying that they were so busy working on the story that they couldn't get the combat any better.



I just think it would be nice in future sequels to see more enemies with unique enemies. Except for being, on average, weaker, darkspawn use the same abilities that human enemies use. Wouldn't it have been cool if they had a chance to inflict you with a disease, or had a few abilities unique to each race? Ogres and shrieks are distinct and cool, but genlocks and hurlocks are almost identical in behavior. I like the way they have their own personalities, and fighting different enemies *feels* different, but in practice, it's *not* different.



Elf, human, and darkspawn mages all use different spells, because their tactics scripts are all different. That's good. What would have been even better, though, is to actually give some of them unique spells, especially darkspawn mages and boss mages. Some fights with mages were actually pretty interesting (at the mountain, for one), but others had wasted potential.



A certain "easter egg" optional boss could have been so much more, and the three high-level mages in the Brecilian forest are ones I'm thinking of. The arcane horror was a neat fight that suffers from bows/staves outranging spells, the one out in the woods could have been amazing with some unique spells, and same with the one at the end of the ruins. Well, he *kinda* has a unique spell, but that's not so much an ability as a scripted event to give him a sliver of a chance of surviving a few seconds. Finally, what's with the (boss!) blood mages that don't use blood magic? I can only think of two mages that do, and they're only lieutenants.

[Thibbledorf26]

I played Lost Odyssey and it was good, but suffered due to a saccharine story and repetitive combat.



LO's combat system is fun, with components like fire components that can be added to weapons, a ring system to line up critical hits and a wide range of abilities and spells. But in no way is it more complex than the DA combat system. LO's combat system is turn based but DA's has to handle real time actions. DA's system has a system of status effects, a wide range of talents, skills, resistances, runes and modifying items. It is just as complex. In LO for example there is not any variety in weapon choices for each character, each character uses one kind of weapon and you can find upgrades of that weapon during the game. Kain- sword, funny guy- staff etc.



Apples and oranges.

[Anakha6]

Games bioware should study- anything without a glitch every five minutes.