95 réponses à ce sujet

[ztemplarz]

So here is my opening statement: If you haven't played at least one of the games I mentioned as being better, you really have no room to comment.  And that isn't me being elitist, but you simply don't have the proper frame of reference to debate the points raised here.  You can read the arguments for their logical value and debate that, but you can not address the central point (that DA isn't as good as those games).  For those of you that have played those games, I would love to hear your personal observations and judgements, and for those that haven't, I recommend you pick them up.

So I couldn't really figure out why it was that I wasn't feeling "satisfied" playing DA and DAO, yet I kept having this nagging feeling it wasn't as good as those older RPG classics.  I was trying to figure out whether I was just being nostalgic for the games I had grown up on, purely BECAUSE they were some of the first RPGs I had played, or whether they truly were "superior".  After having taken a few months off of DA (and after having played through DAO), I decided I was going to play again as a city elf rogue (having previously played as a 2H Templar/Champion and AW/SH mage).  It was at this time that everything really clicked into place and I figured out WHY I didn't enjoy it as much and why it is "inferior," which I will attempt to concisely explain below.

One of the most critical factors for me in RPGs is the NPC interaction, and I thoroughly enjoyed that aspect of DA (though not DAO).  I thought the voice-acting was great, as were the animations for the actual cut scenes.  I thought that in general, the characters were well thought out and developed, and interesting.  I didn't like the dwarf, but not everyone is going to like every character.  But then some of the flaws became more apparent to me on this playthrough- there are really no "evil" characters, for instance.  While I know that they were shooting to not make it an "archtypical" high fantasy game with clearly "good" and "evil" factions (barring the darkspawn), it did kinda detract from the replayability. 

Morrigan is the closest thing you get to it, and she ISN'T evil, as in, a sadistic psychopath.  If anything, Morrigan is just a intellectual, Darwinian moral relativist opportunist.  Morrigan doesn't believe in compassion and does believe in self sufficiency and employs Machiavellian tactics to accomplish whatever she sets her mind to.  Morrigan DOESN'T like to needlessly or even intentionally harm anything and really isn't trying to press her ideas on anyone (besides the protagonist if you keep her in your party).  Sten?  Sten is a Qunari.  He might say things which are stridently callous, but they quite clearly just reflect his upbringing and are not "evil" in any sense of the word, maybe sometimes just distasteful.  Zevran might be willing to do evil things, but is not an advocate of them, just a willing participant. 

Contrast that with BG or Arcanum.  I forget all their names, but there was an assortment of evil characters to adventure with, from the "chaotic evil" to the "neutral evil".  Korrigan was just a blood thirsty mercenary that reveled in combat, PREFERABLY against some pathetic altruists.  Edwin(?), was a self serving mage that traveled with Monteron(?), who would either do just about anything if it was personally profitable (including necromancy, among other things).  Viconia was a former DROW HIGH PRIESTESS, who really DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE, but was FORCED TO, in order to survive.  In Arcanum, there were several individuals you could have travel with you that were quite willing to wantonly kill, or even to perhaps curse someone to undeath. 

Additionally, in any of the games I mentioned in the title, you could ATTEMPT to kill ANYONE!  It doesn't mean it was always a good idea, since in some cases it would result in broken quests, or "This character was central to the main story, you must reload to continue".  If I didn't like that fact that the merchant had given me lip, or just felt like it, I could attack and kill him.  That might result in me having to fight city guards or worse, but I could.  If I decided that I didn't like a particular NPC, I could turn on him at any point and try to kill them.  DA doesn't give you any real viable options to play as an "evil" character, even if you DO want to play as a twisted serial killer or remorseless bandit.  Unless the script supports it, you CAN'T do damage to anyone- there's no such thing as sneaking up to that leader of paladins and stabbing him through the spine unless he's already gone hostile and possibly had his chance to make a speech and automatically position your party in an ambush area.  That's not to say that NEVER happened in BG, Fallout or Arcanum, just MUCH more rarely.

On to some critical game mechanics.  The biggest frustration and deal breaker for me in regards to DA is the "loot" system.  In all the RPGs I mentioned, if you saw a chest or barrel, it was nearly always "functional", as in you could open it.  Sometimes, perhaps even often, it might not have anything of value in it, but it could be opened, closed, and things could be taken out and put into it.  Additionally, if it WAS locked, then there was almost invitably something WORTHWHILE in it, otherwise why would it have been locked.  And if you didn't have a rogue, then you had the option to bash it, which may or may not succeed, and would possibly break the contents. 

Contrast that with the hundreds of purely cosmetic barrels and chests in DA, and the fact that many of the locked ones contain "1 iron dagger"... really!?!?  Who is going to put an IRON DAGGER in a locked chest???  Combine that with the fact that vanilla DA does not provide any other means of opening locked things besides by lock picking, and you end up with a 7 foot tall Qunari warrior armed with a massive maul being effectively blocked by a lone locked WOOD door, or unable to open a simple locked chest- ridiculous.  And let's say you do have a rogue.  Because of DA's system of advancement, you don't have "71%" lock-picking mastery, but either "25/50/75/100%", which doesn't seem to be much affected by your dexterity or "luck" attributes, so there is no real gradients of ability- it's either you're ok, good, really good, or a master, and that's it.  And there is NO WAY an "ok" lock picker can ever defeat a "good" level lock, even if you're willing to spend 3 hours trying to get it open.  For anyone that's familiar with lock picking, it is largely a function of your persistence and patience- some people are just good at it, but it often breaks down to who is willing to spend whatever time it takes to open it.

Then there is the actually "thieving" system.  In DA, much like the "lock picking", you either succeed or fail- that's it.  You have the skill or you don't.  It doesn't matter if you approach from the side, the front, or when they're asleep (which isn't an option any way).  Going to the last point, no day and night cycle automatically pretty much destroys the whole mechanism, since besides literal pick-pocketing, nearly every other type of thievery occurs at night or in the dark.  Why would I risk being seen trying to take something in the day light if I could return at night?  And in DA, once you've "succeeded", you're done- there's no more.  So now that you have that 5 silver pieces, there is nothing more that can be filched from them.  Oh, and you can never steal more than 1 item from any given mark!  So they WEREN'T wearing any jewelry, didn't have anything other than that 1 potion.  And you can't target specific items, like say a folded up letter you see sticking out of their back pocket, and you DEFINITELY can't PLANT anything on them (like maybe poison, or a damning piece of evidence, or just some gift you feel like secretly leaving).  Again, ridiculous.

What about a merchant?  Surely in that building or shop full of weapons, supplies, jewelry, there is something you can steal, right??  No, no there isn't.  But on the plus side, you can take 3 silvers from him.  Oh, and that LOCKED CHEST?  You can expect to find a few cheap potions and some parchment...   And why does the merchant NEVER restock anything besides potions?  Are you really trying to tell me that after he's sold you that bow, he doesn't get another? 

That's why it took me playing as a "rogue" to understand just how fully broken and gimped "thieves" are in DA.  In any of those other games, having a skilled thief could be EXTREMELY lucrative, even without a "Prima Guide".  You could get powerful items very early on, find out information about other quests, put bombs in people's pockets and do all sorts of other interesting and fun things.  On the other hand, you also had to be VERY careful- if you failed the wrong pickpocket, or got caugt trying to unlock someone's window at 2am, you could have some very dire consequences to pay....

And continuing on the "loot" vein, how is it possible that I just killed 12 bandits, yet all I have to show for it is 1 gold piece and a couple potions?  Were they not attacking me with bows, knives, and swords?  Didn't they have on armor?  Am I to believe that my blows were SOOOO powerful that they literally disintegrated their weapons and armor?  In all those other games, if you killed someone, you would find whatever they attacked you with and whatever armor they were wearing.... I know, CRAZY!!  That's why in DA I'm constantly debating whether I should buy components that cumulatively cost more than the products they make because the products they make are only sold in a few places vs trying to save my few meager coins so I can buy some okay armor.  In any of the older RPGs, it was easy to get at least decent equipment, but quite challenging to get "legendary" equipment... in DA, I dream of decent equipment while playing as a "rogue". 

And the last note on a broken "loot" system- virtually no large rewards!  So just to recap, if you play one of the origins options, you can end up with 40 gold pieces before you even begin the main quest, yet you SAVE THE EARL OF REDCLIFFE'S LIFE AND LANDS, and your reward is.... nothing.  That's right, zero.  An absolutely amazing set of armor and powerful mage's staff?  Enough money to buy either?  No, nothing.  So I just killed hordes of undead, spent dozens of my own gold pieces to be properly outfitted, and trekked all over the country to find this or that, and my reward is.... "Thanks!  We owe you a debt of gratitude."  I got more for delivering letters...

Continuing on to combat mechanics.  While I think that in general, DA's combat isn't too bad, and is at least moderately interesting, I'm just really perplexed by the fragility of everyone.  I had a full blown, well balanced, heavily armored Templar/Champion having to fight for his DEAR LIFE against some villagers with scythes and machetes...  Uh, what?  If I was playing any of the RPGs I mentioned, my paladin/knight/badass mercenary would have cleaved through them all without getting winded, yet in DA, apparently my 4 foot long double-handed sword isn't nearly as good at cutting things that are soft into little bits.  In the other RPGs, if I ran into another heavily armed and armored fighter, I could reasonably expect a tough fight, but if I found a "rogue" by his lonesome, he had best make an expeditious peace with his gods.  More armor = harder to harm, bigger weapon = more damage, more weapon training = more dangerous, more strength/dexterity = more damage or more nimble.  Somehow in DA, my powerhouse reaver actually has to stage a prolonged fight against a lightly armored, weaker opponent.  In the other RPGs, I could leave my tank on autopilot and basically just make sure he was attacking the right thing, and protect him from mage or rogue exploitation, whereas in DA I have to constantly take control of him, draw him out of combat, heal him, and hope he doesn't go down.

I had more, but truthfully, at this point, I've forgotten what they all are and will have to come back to this later.

[Forteg]

Personally i preferred DA to FA but hey thats just my opinion, i prefer the 'Medieval' games to the more 'Modern' shooting type, But i do agree with you on some of the points

[Revalc]

I agree, Dragon Age is lacking in a fair few things that Fall Out and other games do have, such as the whole thieving, sneaking and such. Stealth seems a little... pointless to me in Dragon Age simply because you can just disarm during combat or use tactics to avoid traps, and planting a trap seems to be a waste of money as they're hardly stepped on, except in choke points, good times. But i do prefer Dragon Age over say, Fall Out 3, or the Elder Scroll series. Simply because i find Dragon age much more engaging, as entertaining as putting a grenade in someones pocket is, i would prefer to play a game that was constantly challenging and getting tougher with my own level. But that is just me, and it would be good, if i could stealth round a corner, place a timed trap at a mages feet, then sneak out and watch the carnage.



For realism i agree, Dragon Age is not winning any awards, but for story telling and challenging game play? a good 10/10 for me!

[Gipp3r]

I have played all of the aformentioned games, an for me personally BGII is the best game ever created, and I have never played a game that has ever challenged that position, according to me.
Until I played DA..

It's the only game that have ever come close to being as good as BGII imho

I think it's the simple fact that you just didn't like DA, that's okey.
those games you mention are some of the best I've ever played, and so is DA.

But you can't love them all, I just think it's as simple as that

Modifié par Gipp3r, 25 avril 2010 - 08:55 .

[thegreateski]

So . . .



- You wanted an "evil" faction

- You wanted to be "evil"

- You hated the loot system

- You disliked the lock picking system

- You disliked the stealing system

- You didn't like playing a rogue

- You're not good at playing Warriors



That about right?

[Nukenin]

I own (and have played) all four games mentioned in the title.  Thus, what follows is issued in accordance with the "proper frame of reference" you have dictated.  Please, no crying:

[shadowc116]

Sadly ive never played BG games but ive always wanted to and i hav no clue what arcanum is but I wouldnt say that those games r better than DA since thats jus an opinion. To me DA is a great game for me to sit and relax and play since its jus tactics. I do prefer Fallout 3 over DA tho since i love to explore and more interaction in combat in games. Fallout 3 also did a good job story wise making it were u can be a complete evil guy r good guy while adding alot of shade of grey areas. DA also had some good grey areas such as the recruiting the elves quest. But overall whos to say whats better since its just an opinion

[Loredis]

Well to be fair those games are 10 years old, before graphics replaced content and everything turned into a dumbed down arcade game.

[Odinarius]

I played all those games.



And I have to agree with most points, but not all of them.



Dragon Age is much more linear in it`s storytelling, so changes to morality system were necessary. It`s not just that main character can`t be "really" evil because he`s saving the world as we know it, his companions must have some stake in it. Really evil, sadistic characters you mention fit in well with for example Baldur`s Gate or Arcanum because the story and it`s conclusion isn`t obvious until the very end. But in world of DAO, you know the relevant things from the very beginning, and ending is known as soon as you reach Ostagar. Sadistic characters simply don`t fit with the games epic storyline.



And you can be reasonably evil in the game. You can kill or enslave a lot of innocent people. Much of the game is in gray area, for example the conflict between Templars and Blood Mages.



So while it`s true that your companions don`t really follow you and that evil character is not really possible to the extend as other games, it`s possible to an extent and it wouldn`t fit the storyline if it was possible.



Thieving was always an afterthought for me, but sure, the system is lame.



Loot is "WOW-ized", as many other things in the game. I find that regrettable. These things make the game more "accessible" at the price of gameplay. Level-matching is the most obvious example. Although it`s not as bad as Oblivion (where bandits would attack you in glass or Deadric armor as they level up with you), it`s still noticeable and prevent you from feeling powerful. I find level-matching a big immersion breaker for me.

[AmstradHero]

Right... so being able to kill anyone you want and thus break quests and force you to reload in order to continue is a good thing?  If I want to kill everything in sight, I'll play an FPS.

As for chest opening/pickpocketing... the differences are nowhere near as great as you make them out to be.  For lockpicking, you're arguing a gradient issue. To be honest, I prefer fewer gradients, as it means less backtracking when I upgrade my lockpicking ability and go back to unlock all the chests I was unable to open before. As for pickpocketing, whether someone was sleeping or not (and in BG, there were no cycles for people being awake or sleeping, IIRC) made no difference to your chance of pickpocketing success.

I agree that loot could have been potentially distributed a bit better in DAO, but you can't tell me that having valuable items lying around in a crate/barrel/trashcan in the middle of a populated area (as happens in all of your aforementioned classics) is any less ridiculous than have an iron dagger in a locked chest.

As for "cosmetic" containers... you've seriously forgotten playing BG and running your mouse over the screen trying to identify which parts of the environment you could interact with. BG2 introduced the "tab" key to identify which containers were cosmetic and which were usable.  In DAO you get a little sparkle from most containers letting you know you can loot them without holding down the tab key.  I know which system I prefer, and it's not combing a screen with a mouse.

Then the armor/weapon issue, also happened to some degree in the games you mentioned. Perhaps not as much, but I don't mind not having to return to a merchant every 30 minutes to sell all the crap I've acquired, or alternatively just leave it behind.  You also seem to want "ZOMG EPIC ARMOR/WEAPON OF DOOM", which simply doesn't fit in with the low-fantasy setting of Dragon Age.  I did feel sometimes that a few more unique items would have been nice, but having hordes of fantastical magical items simply would not have made sense in the context of the world.

BG1/2, Arcanum and Fallout 2 were good games for their time, but saying they're better than DAO for the reasons you've stated is nostalgia reviewing, and nothing more.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 24 avril 2010 - 11:57 .

[Realmzmaster]

@shadowc116,

The full title for Arcanum is Arcanum:Of Steamworks and Magick Obsurca. It was a game developed by Troika Games (who also did Temple of Elemental Evil). If you could get past its numerous gameplay bugs, it's lack of compatibility with certain video card drivers and it copy protection scheme (SecuRom) it was a decent game. But I would hardly say it is better than DA. It was more steampunk. Basically a clash between magic and technology.

It was not exactly a big seller, but it did sell roughly 230,000 copies.



The BG series has excellent games. I perfer DA to the BG series in terms of writing and story. The BG series games and DA are by the same company BioWare. But the BG series was based on the AD & D 2.0 ruleset . BGII has sold 2 million copies to date. But the story was enhanced and limited by the Forgotten Realms setting. Basically the game had to adhere as close to the AD&D license as possible. The ruleset had quirks in it that did not make a whole lot of sense IMHO, like mage having to rest to memorize their spells.



The Fallout series take place in a post-apocalyptic world. The Fallout series are excellent games. Fallout ! & 2 were developed by Black Isle Studios for Interplay. Fallout 3 was developed by Bethesda Softworks developers of the Elder Scrolls series. Fallout: Las Vegas is developed by Obsidian Entertainment (made up of former Black Isle Studio employees) for Bethesda Softworks.



Whether BGII, Arcanum or Fallout is better than DA is a matter of opinion. Each game gas its strengths and weaknesses.

No DA will not allow you to play an evil character and there is no evil faction. It simply does not fit with the story being told. Even if the Grey Warden wanted to be totally evil he/she cannot be because the warden must defeat the Blight which ultimately is a good act. Even if the only motivation is to save the warden's own skin. Evil does not mean stupid.



The Grey warden will use any means that is necessary to achieve the goal and in that context would not be seen as evil. Some of the acts may be reprehensible, but if it lends to the ultimate goal it may be forgivable.

The fact that DA is not a monty haul is not a minus in my estimation, but a plus. Let's face it if you just hack through the enemy's armor to kill him/her why would the armor be in any sellable shape. Or you mage just fireballed a squad of archers, you would be lucky to find any bows or arrows still usable.

Also stealing to many items from any one person will invite detection no matter how good the rogue.

But that is my opinion. I like all of the games but for different reasons.

[Joshd21]

ztemplarz wrote...

So here is my opening statement: If you haven't played at least one of the games I mentioned as being better, you really have no room to comment.  And that isn't me being elitist, but you simply don't have the proper frame of reference to debate the points raised here.  You can read the arguments for their logical value and debate that, but you can not address the central point (that DA isn't as good as those games).  For those of you that have played those games, I would love to hear your personal observations and judgements, and for those that haven't, I recommend you pick them up.

So I couldn't really figure out why it was that I wasn't feeling "satisfied" playing DA and DAO, yet I kept having this nagging feeling it wasn't as good as those older RPG classics.  I was trying to figure out whether I was just being nostalgic for the games I had grown up on, purely BECAUSE they were some of the first RPGs I had played, or whether they truly were "superior".  After having taken a few months off of DA (and after having played through DAO), I decided I was going to play again as a city elf rogue (having previously played as a 2H Templar/Champion and AW/SH mage).  It was at this time that everything really clicked into place and I figured out WHY I didn't enjoy it as much and why it is "inferior," which I will attempt to concisely explain below.

One of the most critical factors for me in RPGs is the NPC interaction, and I thoroughly enjoyed that aspect of DA (though not DAO).  I thought the voice-acting was great, as were the animations for the actual cut scenes.  I thought that in general, the characters were well thought out and developed, and interesting.  I didn't like the dwarf, but not everyone is going to like every character.  But then some of the flaws became more apparent to me on this playthrough- there are really no "evil" characters, for instance.  While I know that they were shooting to not make it an "archtypical" high fantasy game with clearly "good" and "evil" factions (barring the darkspawn), it did kinda detract from the replayability. 

Morrigan is the closest thing you get to it, and she ISN'T evil, as in, a sadistic psychopath.  If anything, Morrigan is just a intellectual, Darwinian moral relativist opportunist.  Morrigan doesn't believe in compassion and does believe in self sufficiency and employs Machiavellian tactics to accomplish whatever she sets her mind to.  Morrigan DOESN'T like to needlessly or even intentionally harm anything and really isn't trying to press her ideas on anyone (besides the protagonist if you keep her in your party).  Sten?  Sten is a Qunari.  He might say things which are stridently callous, but they quite clearly just reflect his upbringing and are not "evil" in any sense of the word, maybe sometimes just distasteful.  Zevran might be willing to do evil things, but is not an advocate of them, just a willing participant. 

Contrast that with BG or Arcanum.  I forget all their names, but there was an assortment of evil characters to adventure with, from the "chaotic evil" to the "neutral evil".  Korrigan was just a blood thirsty mercenary that reveled in combat, PREFERABLY against some pathetic altruists.  Edwin(?), was a self serving mage that traveled with Monteron(?), who would either do just about anything if it was personally profitable (including necromancy, among other things).  Viconia was a former DROW HIGH PRIESTESS, who really DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE, but was FORCED TO, in order to survive.  In Arcanum, there were several individuals you could have travel with you that were quite willing to wantonly kill, or even to perhaps curse someone to undeath. 

Additionally, in any of the games I mentioned in the title, you could ATTEMPT to kill ANYONE!  It doesn't mean it was always a good idea, since in some cases it would result in broken quests, or "This character was central to the main story, you must reload to continue".  If I didn't like that fact that the merchant had given me lip, or just felt like it, I could attack and kill him.  That might result in me having to fight city guards or worse, but I could.  If I decided that I didn't like a particular NPC, I could turn on him at any point and try to kill them.  DA doesn't give you any real viable options to play as an "evil" character, even if you DO want to play as a twisted serial killer or remorseless bandit.  Unless the script supports it, you CAN'T do damage to anyone- there's no such thing as sneaking up to that leader of paladins and stabbing him through the spine unless he's already gone hostile and possibly had his chance to make a speech and automatically position your party in an ambush area.  That's not to say that NEVER happened in BG, Fallout or Arcanum, just MUCH more rarely.

On to some critical game mechanics.  The biggest frustration and deal breaker for me in regards to DA is the "loot" system.  In all the RPGs I mentioned, if you saw a chest or barrel, it was nearly always "functional", as in you could open it.  Sometimes, perhaps even often, it might not have anything of value in it, but it could be opened, closed, and things could be taken out and put into it.  Additionally, if it WAS locked, then there was almost invitably something WORTHWHILE in it, otherwise why would it have been locked.  And if you didn't have a rogue, then you had the option to bash it, which may or may not succeed, and would possibly break the contents. 

Contrast that with the hundreds of purely cosmetic barrels and chests in DA, and the fact that many of the locked ones contain "1 iron dagger"... really!?!?  Who is going to put an IRON DAGGER in a locked chest???  Combine that with the fact that vanilla DA does not provide any other means of opening locked things besides by lock picking, and you end up with a 7 foot tall Qunari warrior armed with a massive maul being effectively blocked by a lone locked WOOD door, or unable to open a simple locked chest- ridiculous.  And let's say you do have a rogue.  Because of DA's system of advancement, you don't have "71%" lock-picking mastery, but either "25/50/75/100%", which doesn't seem to be much affected by your dexterity or "luck" attributes, so there is no real gradients of ability- it's either you're ok, good, really good, or a master, and that's it.  And there is NO WAY an "ok" lock picker can ever defeat a "good" level lock, even if you're willing to spend 3 hours trying to get it open.  For anyone that's familiar with lock picking, it is largely a function of your persistence and patience- some people are just good at it, but it often breaks down to who is willing to spend whatever time it takes to open it.

Then there is the actually "thieving" system.  In DA, much like the "lock picking", you either succeed or fail- that's it.  You have the skill or you don't.  It doesn't matter if you approach from the side, the front, or when they're asleep (which isn't an option any way).  Going to the last point, no day and night cycle automatically pretty much destroys the whole mechanism, since besides literal pick-pocketing, nearly every other type of thievery occurs at night or in the dark.  Why would I risk being seen trying to take something in the day light if I could return at night?  And in DA, once you've "succeeded", you're done- there's no more.  So now that you have that 5 silver pieces, there is nothing more that can be filched from them.  Oh, and you can never steal more than 1 item from any given mark!  So they WEREN'T wearing any jewelry, didn't have anything other than that 1 potion.  And you can't target specific items, like say a folded up letter you see sticking out of their back pocket, and you DEFINITELY can't PLANT anything on them (like maybe poison, or a damning piece of evidence, or just some gift you feel like secretly leaving).  Again, ridiculous.

What about a merchant?  Surely in that building or shop full of weapons, supplies, jewelry, there is something you can steal, right??  No, no there isn't.  But on the plus side, you can take 3 silvers from him.  Oh, and that LOCKED CHEST?  You can expect to find a few cheap potions and some parchment...   And why does the merchant NEVER restock anything besides potions?  Are you really trying to tell me that after he's sold you that bow, he doesn't get another? 

That's why it took me playing as a "rogue" to understand just how fully broken and gimped "thieves" are in DA.  In any of those other games, having a skilled thief could be EXTREMELY lucrative, even without a "Prima Guide".  You could get powerful items very early on, find out information about other quests, put bombs in people's pockets and do all sorts of other interesting and fun things.  On the other hand, you also had to be VERY careful- if you failed the wrong pickpocket, or got caugt trying to unlock someone's window at 2am, you could have some very dire consequences to pay....

And continuing on the "loot" vein, how is it possible that I just killed 12 bandits, yet all I have to show for it is 1 gold piece and a couple potions?  Were they not attacking me with bows, knives, and swords?  Didn't they have on armor?  Am I to believe that my blows were SOOOO powerful that they literally disintegrated their weapons and armor?  In all those other games, if you killed someone, you would find whatever they attacked you with and whatever armor they were wearing.... I know, CRAZY!!  That's why in DA I'm constantly debating whether I should buy components that cumulatively cost more than the products they make because the products they make are only sold in a few places vs trying to save my few meager coins so I can buy some okay armor.  In any of the older RPGs, it was easy to get at least decent equipment, but quite challenging to get "legendary" equipment... in DA, I dream of decent equipment while playing as a "rogue". 

And the last note on a broken "loot" system- virtually no large rewards!  So just to recap, if you play one of the origins options, you can end up with 40 gold pieces before you even begin the main quest, yet you SAVE THE EARL OF REDCLIFFE'S LIFE AND LANDS, and your reward is.... nothing.  That's right, zero.  An absolutely amazing set of armor and powerful mage's staff?  Enough money to buy either?  No, nothing.  So I just killed hordes of undead, spent dozens of my own gold pieces to be properly outfitted, and trekked all over the country to find this or that, and my reward is.... "Thanks!  We owe you a debt of gratitude."  I got more for delivering letters...

Continuing on to combat mechanics.  While I think that in general, DA's combat isn't too bad, and is at least moderately interesting, I'm just really perplexed by the fragility of everyone.  I had a full blown, well balanced, heavily armored Templar/Champion having to fight for his DEAR LIFE against some villagers with scythes and machetes...  Uh, what?  If I was playing any of the RPGs I mentioned, my paladin/knight/badass mercenary would have cleaved through them all without getting winded, yet in DA, apparently my 4 foot long double-handed sword isn't nearly as good at cutting things that are soft into little bits.  In the other RPGs, if I ran into another heavily armed and armored fighter, I could reasonably expect a tough fight, but if I found a "rogue" by his lonesome, he had best make an expeditious peace with his gods.  More armor = harder to harm, bigger weapon = more damage, more weapon training = more dangerous, more strength/dexterity = more damage or more nimble.  Somehow in DA, my powerhouse reaver actually has to stage a prolonged fight against a lightly armored, weaker opponent.  In the other RPGs, I could leave my tank on autopilot and basically just make sure he was attacking the right thing, and protect him from mage or rogue exploitation, whereas in DA I have to constantly take control of him, draw him out of combat, heal him, and hope he doesn't go down.

I had more, but truthfully, at this point, I've forgotten what they all are and will have to come back to this later.

You my friend, need a girlfriend

[Hollingdale]

I haven't played the games you mentioned but Imo your post is easy to understand regardless, and I agree with most of it, especially your first point about the lack of evil characters.



You are indeed correct in your analysis of Morrigan and I want to point out that Sten aswell adheres to a quite distinct philosophy.



That of the ancient Spartan state, especially in it's idealized form which is presented most clearly through Plato's state. The only realy difference is that in Plato's state women could actually be warriors.

[ztemplarz]

Look!!  A troll!  Reading comprehension combined with blatant attempts at provocation do not arguments make....

But since I am outstandingly bored, I think I will entertain you with pointless argumentation and clarification.  Here is the proper summarization of my first post: thieving is broken, loot system is broken, there are no truly evil gameplay possibilities (besides a few singular examples, like allowing enslavement, but not assisting in it, or killing an "innocent" to do a ritual), the combat system is grossly imbalanced. 

And let's further embellish on those points, to put them in an even fuller perspective, shall we?  One of three classes you can play is nearly useless (hence everyone's great excitement at the additional abilities they gained in DAA, which did not fix any of their non-combat applications, mind you).  That means an ENTIRE SET OF ABILITIES do not work properly or period.  That would be like if you had say a warrior and and entire set of his abilities did not in any way enhance his survivability or dangerousness in combat...  The entire point of rogues has always been that they are good at doing all the NON-combat things, and when they suck at doing all the non-combat things, doesn't that kinda destroy their appeal?

On to the loot system.  When you are playing a game where your survival and success is to a large percent contingent on your equipment (as opposed to say, KOTOR, where it was your Force abilities), it is pretty important that you have the ability to properly outfit yourself.  When the game design is explicitly made to frustrate or retard that ability, the "difficulty" you experience playing the game is not a result of your comparative inability to properly strategize or "build" your character, but rather a result of the fact that the game is not allowing you access to the proper equipment for your needs.  Let's use a real life scenario.  Let's say I wanted to be a contractor for Blackwater.  In order to be hired, I would have to submit a resume to them, showing them that I have the credentials to work for them (as in LONG law enforcement career, special forces service, etc).  Now let's say they were satisfied with that and hired me, but would not subsidize my purchase of either weapons, body armor, or equipment in general (to include batteries).  That would mean I would need to BUY these things.  I can tell you that a good pistol is around $700, a good rifle $1300, body armor $2500, and that would probably be the bear necessities (besides ammo, say $1000 so I could have a full combat load of everything).  That total is about $5,500 for me to purchase all the things I would need to work- most banks require that your loan is at least $2000 and $5500 is less than nearly any motorcycle or car loan you can get approved for through a legitimate institution.  Working with Blackwater, you can EASILY make $10,000 A MONTH.  So what is my point?  My point is that even in the real world, it's not that hard to serve as a mercenary that has a reasonably high chance of seeing action, and that your costs would be reimbursed within the first month of service.  It doesn't make sense in a a game that I end up fighting HUNDREDS of bandits that have arms and armor, yet I can barely afford to purchase arms and armor for my small party.  It doesn't make sense that I can save the equivalent of Donald Trump and have him give me a handshake, as opposed to enough to buy a lamborghini or small island.

As to playing evil... it's called a "role-playing game", last I checked.  To have that title, and effectively fit in that market, it should present as much opportunity for that as possible.  I'm not saying it isn't, just that it doesn't do as good of a job as those other games did.  For a game to so highly tout it's replayability, it should offer more quest paths throughout the game, since there are only a handful of lynchpin moments, many of which where it doesn't matter which one you choose ultimately.  And for a game to so highly proclaim itself on that front to PROHIBIT you from even attempting certain things and failing to support your ability to do so whatsoever, garuantees that it limits it's replayability. 

And continuing on to the combat mechanics (you know, the proponderance of the game, that is integral to story and quest progression)...  Do you think that Frankie Edgars would stand a chance against Brock Lesnar? (if you don't know who those are, Google them, UFC fighters, belt holders for their divisions, one 155lbs, the other 285lbs)  No, he wouldn't.  His TECHNICAL ability might be just as good or quite possibly even better (I think it is), but his PHYSICAL ability is not.  Frankie Edgars would be unconscious, bleeding on the mat within minutes.  That is the difference between a light guy wearing leather armor using a knife going up against a big guy, wearing plate mail, with chainmail and padded armor underneath, wielding a weapon with 4 times the reach advantage and cutting and chopping power- annihilation, unless the guy with the knife is Bruce Lee fast.  I've never had any problem playing a fighter in ANY OTHER GAME, until THIS ONE, and that is because in this one, the balance is way off.  Go through the archives and other posts and you will see TONS of people making EXACTLY the same complaint- one that was ALSO addressed in DAA, by giving massive AOE abilities to 2H warriors (ie, "cheese").  Put a Toyota Prius in a collision test versus a Ford F150- who wins?  I know I didn't "build my warrior wrong", because I only specialized in 2H abilities plus other abilities which would be passively applied and dumped points into STR, CNST, and DEX, yet some rogue that is literally 1/4 to 1/2 as strong, wearing 1/2 as much armor, has 1/2 as much "combat training" (because he's been trying to learn how to sneak, poison, lock pick, and steal), SOMEHOW actually stands a fighting chance against me.



"It's the only game that have ever come close to being as good as BGII
imho"  That is EXACTLY my point (though I like Arcanum nearly as much as I like BG, with FO being the 3rd, and DA possibly taking 4th)- my point is that while DA might be a good game, and impressive for some of the risks they took and innovations they made (dynamic party system, impactable world, voice acting, original IT, etc), it just doesn't take the cake for me BECAUSE of some of the glaring weaknesses and flaws.  I realize that this is not the final incarnation of DA, and rather the first, I feel these things need to be fixed to make it a viable contestant for 1st place.  You can't beat something by having fewer features that are good- you have to have all the good, plus more.  That's why cars now have systems to help you navigate and parallel park, and heated chairs, and all sorts of other features that they didn't 10 years ago- to SHOW constant progress and improvement. 


I didn't hear any crying- what I heard was a point by point statement of criticisms supported by specific in game examples from both sides.  Crying would be, "DAA sucks!  I want my BG!!"  It's called emotive versus logic based arguments- one relies on emphatic statements, the other on facts and reason.


I considered the setting and central story as an "excuse" for the lack of full-frontal evil myself, but it just doesn't hold up.  Maybe my character REALLY doesn't care about the Blight.  Maybe he wants to see Redcliffe fall and Denerim burn.  Maybe he wants to side with Loghain.  The game "forces" you to bring order to Orzammar, to save Redcliffe, and to pacify the Wended Woods.  There is NO OTHER OPTION, than to go to the Landsmeet.  In any of the others, since the story was built upon the central premise that it was a specific "evil" mastermind behind everything, that specifically wanted to destroy you, you had no choice but to ultimately confront and destroy them.  With DA, the only thing that should HAVE to happen is to defeat the Archdemon, everything else should be negotiable.  Allow the dwarves to have their civil war?  Fine, no dwarven allies, Fereldon suffers even worse hardship because of it and your final battles are more difficult since there are more darkspawn that are not occupied.  Meet with Loghain early and betray Earl Eamon, who you don't even know?  Sure, why not?  Make a deal with the demon in the Tower and slaughter darkspawn at a great personal price?  Should have been an option.  There should be no reason why I shouldn't be able to kill those refugees battling darkspawn as well, if that is my desire.  There should be no reason why I can't behave like a proper blood mage apostate and attempt to kill Chantry members and Templars if I get the opportunity- but I can't. 

So continuing on, yes, being able to kill whatever I can actually kill is a good thing, EVEN IF it breaks quests- it's the price you are forced to pay if you want to be a homicidal maniac, or cold, relentless killer.  Because in reality, everyone is vulnerable, some people more than others.  Try to kill Bill Gates?  Can be sure it wouldn't be easy.  Try to kill a beggar under the freeway in LA?  Probably wouldn't be that hard.  Point is, when the game doesn't allow you to make that decision, it is giving you less latitude than real life.  And when the game is meant to give you more freedom than in real life, that's an issue.

To the loot stuff, I NEVER found anything remotely useful in some random crate in the middle of the city in any of those games.  Inevitably, I would have to find the residence of some merchant or noble and then break in and do my stealing then.  And there definitely was day and night cycles in all of those, because you had the "rest" option, which could be for a few hours or days (and vampires could attack you at night in BG2, which is why I never traveled then, until I had gotten to sufficiently high level and had the appropriate gear equipped for that possible contigency). 

I will concede that BG did have a good number of cosmetic crates, but I don't recall it being nearly as unbalanced in number as in DA (but that might be nostalgia talking- will find out soon enough since I'm re-ordering it for the 4th time).  I know in Arcanum and FO it wasn't that bad, but that's because they didn't really have that many containers.

I understand the "high" vs "low" fantasy setting, but it doesn't remove the fact that I just killed a dozen bandits and MIGHT have broken even in terms of what resources I had to expend vs what I gained.  You didn't have to take everything that was dropped by fallen enemies, but you COULD.  I usually ONLY took the valuable items, because I knew that iron short sword was only going to get me a few gp, whereas that scroll of major healing would be worth MUCH more.  You could become "rich" in BG or Arcanum if you played right, as in very carefully and didn't spend much, or had a thief that knew no fear, but in general, you had enough to get what you needed.  If you attack groups which have robbed hundreds of people, you would expect to be able to take that accumulated treasure.  If you exterminate a wealthy and powerful religious cult, you would expect to find a lot of significant value.  It doesn't in any way detract from the setting to allow an adventurer that is exploring ancient unmolested ruins and defeating bands of criminals or saving rich individuals to make a decent living. 

Time for another break...

[Taritu]

It's not as good as those games (except Arcanum, whose gameplay was mighty messed up), imo, but that's a mighty high bar. It's still a damn good game. And none of them are as good as Planescape:Torment, imo.



But that's what it is in the end.

[I Valente I]

it seems you are not taking into account the things that DA:O does, that these 10 year old games do not. It is an unfair argument to only highlight the ways Dragon Age has failed to imitate games from the 90's, and ignore in the countless ways it has improved on the genre. You can't honestly tell me that you prefer playing a warrior in Baldur's Gate where you just stare at him as he constantly misses his foe( you said you don't like playing warriors, but your argument is why DA is not as good all around, not just for you.)



I also find BG2 more enjoyable, but not for any of the reasons you listed, which are mostly superficial. "I can't kill anyone I want" really? That's in your argument? Who cares? I thought you were going to talk about the important stuff like side quests or the linear maps, or the WOW-ed combat system. No, my friend, your argument is not substantial.

[AmstradHero]

ztemplarz: If you're calling me a troll, then I won't post in this thread any more, because I was merely raising a reasoned disagreement with your comments. If that's "trolling", then you're obviously not interested in a discussion.

However, I'll assume you weren't and state that you haven't really added much to your original argument, and I'll reiterate that many of the "issues" you've identified exist in those games except the "murder everyone in sight" and maybe "high level heavily armoured warrior not instantly shredding thieves to bits."

I'm not sure why you think thieves are useless. They're extremely effective in combat if used correctly, and are the only ones that can lockpick/pickpocket.

Also, some people believe that not having character being entirely reliant on their gear is a good thing, not a bad thing. Yes, I quite like gettng big bits of loot occasionally, but I'm happy to know that I'm increasing in power because of my own skill and not because I came across some overpowered item. I feel more heroic through prevailing due to my character's skill rather than a magcial macguffin.

Day/night cycles did exist in BG/BG2, but for the most part, there was no real effect that this had on thieving - there might have been one or two stores where shop owners were absent at night, but from memory, the majority of people were awake day and night - because you possibly needed to talk to them.

I also don't consider being able to kill anyone I want "roleplaying". Why? Because it doesn't add anything to the roleplaying aspects of the game. It is pretty much going to result in me either breaking the game entirely (e.g. killing a main plot NPC) or forcing me to get "back on track" via some arbitrary method (e.g. making donations to increase my reputation to stop the flaming fist from trying to kill me everywhere).

I guess my main issue with your argument is that most of the criticisms you're levelling at the game can be equally levelled at the others you've mentioned.
In BG2, you HAVE to save Imoen. What if my character didn't like her and doesn't really care? Tough. 
What was my motivation in Arcanum? Some guy declares I'm a messiah and so I have to run around with him? Surely my character would just dismiss him as a complete nutjob and go about his/her business.
Some of the thieves in BG/BG2 could slaughter your warrior with backstabs.

I'm all for critical analysis, there are examples that can be pulled from your favourite games that showcase most of the same weaknesses you're arguing DAO has.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 25 avril 2010 - 01:20 .

[Terra_Ex]

Each of the games listed have their own strengths and weaknesses. You can systematically rip apart any game in this way. The market, consumer expectations & technology have all changed, adapted and evolved drastically since these titles were first launched - games like BG2, Fallout 2 and Planescape simply don't get made anymore. All the games listed were and still are fantastic titles, but tbh, some of the points you've cited as criticisms apply to at least some extent to the holy trinity of titles you've put on a pedestal.

I have huge respect for DA for actually coming anywhere near close to BG2/Planescape, no rpg has managed that for at least a decade, sure the battle system is a streamlined homage to wow but it did enough to stand apart from the aforementioned and is great in its own regards, thats my opinion anyway.

Modifié par Terra_Ex, 25 avril 2010 - 01:38 .

[ztemplarz]

No, it was "ski" that I was calling a troll, for offering no arguments, and only poorly and inaccurately paraphrasing what I had said with obviously loaded language to intimate I was incompetent. And while there are other reasons I prefer the other games to DA, I didn't have the patience to write them all down, merely the ones that really stood out to me the most when attempting to replay it as a rogue. I actually DON'T often play as a rogue, tend to prefer the tank, though I will tend to experiment a lot more after my first playthrough, even if it's years later. First did BG as a paladin of Helm, then a druid, then a sorceror, then a monk, then a rogue. Did Arcanum as a simple warrior, then a gun slinger, then a charismatic inventor, then a elven mage, then a half orc warrior. FA? Can't remember.

Those issues might not be completely exempt from those games, but the difference is in terms of degree, and in that case, the distinction is stark.

ROGUES in DA aren't useless, just mainly thieves. I can't selectively steal anything of value, I'm left to the gods of chance and miserliness instead. I can't really pilfer the house of some sloppy noble who should have invested more in property security, whether that be guards, locks, magic or a combination thereof. I have skills that only partially work- I don't see why that should satisfy me. And to make them the only ones that can defeat locked items is stupid, because it IS low fantasy, meaning it's not a magic lock, just a lock. And if I have a sledgehammer or axe, I should be able to get in.

I'm fine with not having a character which is dependent on their gear, which is why I played a sorceror, monk, druid, and kensai in BG. If you want to make my naked, buff paladin fight an equally naked, lithe monk, there is a good possibility he will lose, because he isn't trained for that. But when my paladin is properly armored and armed, that monk should have very slim odds (pun intended;)

And the day and night cycles might have made less diff in BG, but they made HUGE differences in Arcanum- you could be a practical apprentice thief, and assuming you found them sleeping, could steal all sorts of stuff.

As to the kill everyone argument, the big factor was always scale. I never committed full scale genocide (that I remember...), but the fact is, sometimes I would attack someone because they had spoken badly or had acted against whatever faction/group I belonged to, which generally isn't an option in DA. That I can play a blood mage that can't experiment or an "assassin" that can only accept contracts, of which, many are nominally working for my enemy anyway, detracts from the role-playing. Where was the contract that said, "Kill this child in this manner so that this family will begin feuding with this family" because someone was trying to advance their agenda? How come as a blood mage I HAD to attack other blood mages if I encountered them, rather than simply saying, "Hey!! I'm one of you! Let's work together!"?

Technically, yes, you do have to save Imoen. In reality though, you could essentially just play all the side quests and leave her there to rot. And once you "freed" her, you could dismiss her, if you didn't want her in your party (which I did, at one point). Hypothetically, I think you COULD even kill her, though I never had that desire and so don't know for sure... And in Arcanum, you could go tell Virgil to kick rocks within the first few minutes of the game if you wanted to, it would just make it a bit more difficult to figure out the central story if you did so (and I did that as well). I did largely go about my business besides that, but what ends up being the hook is the fact that you have someone sending assassins after you, which is always inconvenient, whether you are a highway bandit or a justice-seeking gun slinger. And yes, thieves COULD kill my paladin if they got that lucky backstab in, but that is exactly what they would have to be- lucky. That's why in BG it paid high dividends to scout your path ahead of you with a rogue or use a mage/cleric with detect traps and far seeing (or something to that effect). Different fantasy setting, but provided NUMEROUS ways to skin a cat (instead of one).

I invite further examples of said weaknesses, but also footnote that statement with, I never said any of those other games were perfect, only better examples for me of what an RPG should be. I can see a lot of reasons why people would like DA that even neatly coincide with why I don't. But my point is that since it advertised itself on "assuming the spiritual mantle" of BG, that compared to that benchnote it doesn't meet the standard. If it had not sold itself as that, it would be less of an issue for me. Truthfully, I might be just about done with RPGs, since they commercialize them too much now for broader appeal and so I don't think "classical" RPGs are going to see a comeback. People want cut scenes and don't want a complex combat system full of buffs, debuffs and a plethora of governing rules in terms of casting time, AOE, etc. People consistently complain about inventory management, hence NO inventory, like in ME2. People don't want to read text, hence tons of cut scenes and fewer dialogue options. People DEMAND OMG graphics that animate things at rates faster than their eyes can process, so more development time and resources are spent on making things shiny. I can and do still play 2D games with more satisfaction because of the quality of the story, the number of choices, the multiple solution paths, etc. I've played through ME once fully, and then 2 other times partially. ME2 once. DA, once fully, 3 partials. DAA, once. I've played BG, FO, KOTOR, Arcanum all, at least 4 times fully. They came out nearly 10 years ago, yes, but the difference is I still replay them while I have no desire to replay ME or DA.

But yes, I actually did not mind watching my character miss and miss and miss.  The reality of fighting is, that unless you have very unequally matched opponents (like kid off the street versus Anderson Silva), there are more blows thrown than landed.  And even of the landed ones, most tend to be ineffective or not heavily damage inducing (the jab being the most common punch, while also the weakest).  While certainly "medieval" combat depended on the time, combatants and technology, there are MANY legitimate accounts of skilled warriors fighting 1 on 1 for hours before one could be defeated. 

My more substantial arguments?  In Arcanum and BG you could min max your character, which you can't do in DA, and it had profound results.  Try playing with and intelligence of 4-5 and see what happens....  You might be able to crush any enemy with your fists, but navigating through the storyline will NOT be easy!  Conversely, you could play an absolute physical wimp like Raistlin who could challenge the gods themselves with his magical might... which you can not do in DA.  While there are a few places where you can use persuasiveness, I can think of plenty of instances in DA where I was sitting there practically screaming at the screen, "Hey!!!  How about my master orator say something OTHER than THAT!" and being forced to see plot twists come about that I imagined shouldn't have happened given who my character was (I will only say Alistair, as one particularly poignant example).  Whereas in Arcanum or FO or possibly to a lessor extent in BG, you could see TRULY intelligent dialogue options, resplendent with multi-syllabic words, that argued in clear, powerful lines of reason.  Not in DA- instead, it says (persuade) and provides a simple one-liner which tends to suffice provided your speech skill and cunning is high enough. 

You COULD hack a system and turn it on the enemy.  You COULD scout and enemy camp, prepare your assault and annihiliate them with very situation specific tactics, whereas in DA you pretty much had to use the same techniques over and over again without any real alteration (by and large).  That has also been a pretty consistent complaint, that the combat system is repetitive and that there isn't enough variety in terms of enemies (hurlock, genlock, ogre, undead, revenant, mage, blood mage, fighter, rogue, or something to that effect).  In Arcanum, there were TONS of different enemy types and the same in BG.  Not so much in FO, but that was kinda a given, what with the setting. 

Speaking of challenges, where were the brain teasers, the logic puzzles??  Probably too many people complained about them, so they minimalized it (I can think of literally a handful in DA). 

And I said this before, but what happened to haggle and gamble?  Are you telling me in all the taverns of Fereldon, gambling is prohibited?  And that my dumb fighter is going to get as good of a price at the market as my savvy thief?  Yet more ways that DA prevents my characters from being commercially successful. 

So yes, I do have plenty of other arguments for why it doesn't measure up, but I just wrote the ones that were most immediately on my mind initially.

Modifié par ztemplarz, 25 avril 2010 - 02:42 .

[TheMadCat]

I Valente I wrote...

it seems you are not taking into account the things that DA:O does, that these 10 year old games do not. It is an unfair argument to only highlight the ways Dragon Age has failed to imitate games from the 90's, and ignore in the countless ways it has improved on the genre. You can't honestly tell me that you prefer playing a warrior in Baldur's Gate where you just stare at him as he constantly misses his foe( you said you don't like playing warriors, but your argument is why DA is not as good all around, not just for you.)

What exactly has DA:O done to improve the RPG genre? It's a good game and I enjoy it, but nothing in it is revolutionary or innovative. It's created with a bunch of tried and true aspects coupled with fairly simplistic systems.

[AlanC9]

Well, some of the stuff is revolutionary for BioWare. Nothing they'd done before has as many different possible endings, for example. The BG saga has one ending with different cutscenes, ME the same with three, KotOR has LS and DS endings (same for HotU minus the terminology), NWN 1 no choices at all. And I guess integrating the cinematic stuff into a traditional RPG experience is new. But "revolutionary"? No, not really.

[attend]

Yes, but I bet fallout will allow you to play it without breaking your computer.

[bobyevil]

bah if they made it like baldurs gate or fallout you would find people that complain it's too similar...it might not be perfect i agree but it was fun and the story i liked and according to me an RPG only needs a nice story and decent mechanics to be enjoyable.. but hey if the devs never tried anything different we would still be playing pong so long live trying out new **** and learning from it!

[Nukenin]

Related posts:

• Why Arcanum isn't as good as Ultima VII, Fallout 2, or Baldur's Gate
• Why Baldur's Gate isn't as good as Pool of Radiance, Ultima VII, or Fallout 2
• Why Fallout 2 isn't as good as Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance, or Ultima VII
• Why Ultima VII isn't as good as Wizardry, Bard's Tale, or Pool of Radiance
• Why Pool of Radiance isn't as good as Temple of Apshai, Wizardry, or Bard's Tale
• Why Bard's Tale isn't as good as Temple of Apshai or Wizardry
• Why Wizardry isn't as good as Temple of Apshai
• Why Temple of Apshai isn't good

I thought Temple of Apshai was pretty fun, though the graphics on the PET version were rather crude compared to the Apple II version.  Stupid hi-res graphic-capable Apple II's!

btw, Arcanum is available unencumbered from Good Old Games now.  It's a worthy addition to any RPG fan's library, as are any of the games mentioned above, including that young upstart Dragon Age.

As for the OP, stay hydrated and keep cool!  That's a lot of rage spilling out!  

[AlanC9]

As for the OP's manifesto -- I guess that's what to call it -- once again it illustrates that people can like the same games for completely different reasons.  The OP is also factually wrong about several issues. Edit: actually, most of them.

Not having many "evil" characters is true, for instance, but it doesn't bother me.

Although any good/evil scheme that doesn't count Zevran as evil strikes me as being utterly worthless. ztemplarz, it's not enough to do evil, you have to advocate it too? Or do you mean that Zevran doesn't push for the more evil quest resolutions, details of which which we can't get into on this board.

Moving along....

ztemplarz wrote...
Additionally, in any of the games I mentioned in the title, you could ATTEMPT to kill ANYONE!  It doesn't mean it was always a good idea, since in some cases it would result in broken quests, or "This character was central to the main story, you must reload to continue".

Yep, one of those classic RPG design issues. My own take is that this feature has always been worthless, and I was glad when Bio dumped it after BG2. RPGs are about the player acting in the game world. Any player action that the game world cannot respond properly to should not be permitted. Full stop.

This doesn't necessarily mean that being "evil" -- quotes because there's no absolute morality in DAO -- shouldn't be possible. But it's got to be a more thoughtful kind of evil than gutting random merchants.

On to loot...

In all the RPGs I mentioned, if you saw a chest or barrel, it was nearly always "functional", as in you could open it. 

This is utterly untrue in the case of the BG games. Many barrels and boxes were purely cosmetic; the streets of the cities were full of them. Hence the introduction of tab key highlighting so you could tell which were usable and which were not.

Additionally, if it WAS locked, then there was almost invitably something WORTHWHILE in it, otherwise why would it have been locked.

Again, untrue. The BG games have many locked containers with only minor treasures.

.  Because of DA's system of advancement, you don't have "71%" lock-picking mastery, but either "25/50/75/100%", which doesn't seem to be much affected by your dexterity or "luck" attributes,

The attribute is cunning, which has nothing to do with luck. And you most certainly do have 71% lock picking mastery, since the skill points taken add on to cunning. No different from BG lockpicking, except where the numbers come from.

 For anyone that's familiar with lock picking, it is largely a function of your persistence and patience- some people are just good at it, but it often breaks down to who is willing to spend whatever time it takes to open it.

Did it work like this in any of the games you mention? Certainly not BG. Moreover, would you really want it to? It would essentially mean that any character with lockpicking would be able to open everything in the world.

And yep, no day/night cycle and no involved pickpocketing system. You think they'd be worth adding. I don't. Maybe day/night might be worth it depending on the zots, but I'm finding that detaching the system from real time works pretty well.

And continuing on the "loot" vein, how is it possible that I just killed 12 bandits, yet all I have to show for it is 1 gold piece and a couple potions?  Were they not attacking me with bows, knives, and swords?  Didn't they have on armor?  Am I to believe that my blows were SOOOO powerful that they literally disintegrated their weapons and armor?  In all those other games, if you killed someone, you would find whatever they attacked you with and whatever armor they were wearing.... I know, CRAZY!!  That's why in DA I'm constantly debating whether I should buy components that cumulatively cost more than the products they make because the products they make are only sold in a few places vs trying to save my few meager coins so I can buy some okay armor.

You really need to think this through. Why do you think you'd get better items for your party if the enemy dropped more loot? Bio knew how much loot they were giving out when they set item prices in the shops. Those prices are set according to how much loot they know you'll get. If they built the game with more loot dropping they'd have set higher prices; you'd be in exactly the same place.

Though I can see wanting everything enemies carry to drop as an RP matter. But what to do with inventory limits in that case?

yet you SAVE THE EARL OF REDCLIFFE'S LIFE AND LANDS, and your reward is.... nothing.  That's right, zero.  An absolutely amazing set of armor and powerful mage's staff?

Huh? Sounds like you hit a bug, or maybe just didn't notice the very nice magic item you're given. Or up to three depending on how the quest went.

While I think that in general, DA's combat isn't too bad, and is at least moderately interesting, I'm just really perplexed by the fragility of everyone.

Did you actually play BG1? Or did you come in at 2?

  In the other RPGs, if I ran into another heavily armed and armored fighter, I could reasonably expect a tough fight, but if I found a "rogue" by his lonesome, he had best make an expeditious peace with his gods.

I'm starting to think you never played the BG games at all. The threat of an enemy depends entirely on his level, not his class. You can find plenty of 1st and 2nd level fighters in splint or plate mail, and they do not give tough fights.

But I'll agree that DA:O enemy scaling sucks.. Scaling generally does.