95 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ztemplarz wrote...
One of three classes you can play is nearly useless

I agree warriors are kind of weak, but I wouldn't call them useless. You obviously can't be talking about rogues, who throw great DPS and are pretty defensible to boot.

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.  

Again, this has nothing to do with the loot system. The loot you get is the loot Bio thought you needed. More loot drops wouldn't have given you better equipment. You'd just be making more loot runs to the merchant to end up with the same stuff.

 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.

Actually, you shouldn't have put points into CON. But I consider that a problem with the system; a good system shouldn't have dump stats.

As for your general point, you disagree about how rogues should play. OK, but you really didn't need that much text to get your point across. Incidentally, how do you feel about female melee combatants?

[AlanC9]

ztemplarz wrote...
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.

It sounds like you want rogues to be both more useful and less useful. If anyone can bash a locked chest then all parties will get the loot in it. Could you pick one, please?

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.

This would probably be a better thread if you had just stuck to a straight-up Arcanum/DA comparison.

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.

I'm replaying BG1right now. Combat is far simpler than DA. There are a lot of complicated rules, but what you actually do with them is simple.

[ztemplarz]

"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."

Key there is "that the game world cannot properly respond to".  In all the RPGs I mentioned, the game world DID support that, but it was NOT put in DA (doubtlessly because of all the additional required scripting).  And I don't know where the concept of "absolute morality" came from in regards to the D&D universe, since while yes, they do have "alignments", there is less true "morality" in D&D than there is in DA, since in D&D there is a whole legion of gods, some of greater or lessor strength, but none Zeus or Odin like, compared to DA, where there is nominally only The Chantry and nominally The Qun, and sort of the Tevinter Imperium and Dalish and dwarven Paragons (say sort of because technically the Qun isn't supposed to be a religion, from what I gathered, and neither are the Paragons, while the "gods" of the old Tevinter Imperium are supposed to have been... well, I guess that would be a spoiler so I will stop).  And "evil" does not need a conventional system to name or define it- you can be just as evil as a Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, or atheist, the only question is how "evil" a moral/religious system labels you.  One might more strongly oppose bloodshed than say thievery, but someone that tortures creatures for enjoyment is evil regardless of the society they belong to.  People murder each other in every society, and have throughout history- to prevent my ability arbitrarily in a game which is supposed to offer you the ability to ROLE PLAY, is to deny one of the basic functions of the game.  I do not believe it is a deal breaker, because I seldom play "evil" characters period, but if that was my intent or desire it would be.  And even playing as a "righteous", advocate of "justice", there were NPCs that I would have liked to kill "for the greater good" and "security", that I could not.  So am I supposed to be happy that the game forces me to let a character live that I know full well is contributing to unhappiness and despair in the city?

Already conceded cosmetic containers existed in other games, point was frequency and content vs DA, and unfortunately not a quantifiable value (unless SOMEONE counted them- will have BG back soon enough and be able to see from there). 

"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.  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."

Hence using quotes on "luck"- different attributes in each game, which doesn't lend itself to neat comparisons.  But I do know that even if my only moderately skilled rogue continuously attempted a lock in those other games, by probability it would eventually become unlocked (or jammed) unless it was an ungodly difficult lock, which required master level.  Goes back to the Shadow Thieves room full of locked doors- some opened with one attempt, others a dozen.  And same thing in Arcanum or FO- persistence payed or jammed.  The same went for pick-pocketing.  You could try 12 times and fail and then get it on the 13th attempt (yes, this was accomplished through reloading, but sometimes I REALLY wanted to know what they had).  From what I've seen in DA, if you fail, you will never succeed (barring advancement of the skill), which means that the gradient is much steeper.

"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?"

Because me selling 3 guns to a pawn shop owner makes me more money than selling 1 gun.  On average, a pawn shop will give you 30% of an item's retail value, so they can sell it at less and still make a profit.  So if a gun retails at $500 new, then I can expect $150- 3 guns means I have enough to buy 1 new gun.  Pretty simple math, really.  My exact point is that Bioware DIDN'T balance the "loot value" properly, and INTENTIONALLY gave you too little "loot" to make the game "more challenging".  And I am arguing it from a RP perspective- he had a sword and armor, yet somehow now he doesn't.  I will concede that armor would not always survive unscathed (unlikely), but weapons certainly should.  As to inventory limits, do it like all those games did- weight allowances.  Compare this to the current system that arbitrarily sets a base number, with no consideration for the items weight or size- which one seems more "reasonable"?  One that is based of your literal ability to carry weight and imposes penalties on you for being overloaded, or one that says 100 gems is the same as 100 swords?  If you want to offer an RP solution to that, rather than offering a 7 gp "backpack" expansion (which is signficantly more expensive than most items in the game), allow the purchase of, I don't know, a pack animal (donkeys used to be really popularly used for such purposes, or so I believe, and it doesn't even have to be an attack donkey). 

"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."

Perhaps I did encounter a glitch, but I beat that quest several times (in 3 different ways) and don't recall anything of significance FOR doing it.  One was everything was peachy solution, and other two were less so...

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

I played through most of BG 1, but no, most of my BG playing was on 2 (wasn't a big fan of only 3 playable classes, amongst other things). 

"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."

I didn't even go into level scaling, which was something else I should have brought up.  While yes, it was completely possible to encounter a much higher level opponent, my situation I offered was under the assumption of DA level scaling, meaning the rogue is of roguely the same level as your warrior.  But even in BG (or any of the other games, for that matter), if you were properly prepared, you COULD defeat a group of significantly higher level than yourself (careful use of divine magic plus scrolls, plus attack tactics, etc).  It would be extremely hard, but it was possible.

"I agree warriors are kind of weak, but I wouldn't call them useless. You
obviously can't be talking about rogues, who throw great DPS and are
pretty defensible to boot."

Nope, WAS refering to rogues.  Don't really understand this concept of DPS, but I was talking about using rogues as thieves, as opposed to dexterity based fighters.  My entire contention is that they AREN'T made for use outside of combat in this game, but are almost exclusively geared that way.  I wanted to enjoy the benefits of playing a thief, not a lightly armored fighter that can pick locks.

"Actually, you shouldn't have put points into CON. But I consider that a
problem with the system; a good system shouldn't have dump stats.

As
for your general point, you disagree about how rogues should play. OK,
but you really didn't need that much text to get your point across.
Incidentally, how do you feel about female melee combatants?"

I put very little into CON and DEX- breakdown was prob 60% STR, 20% CON/DEX (because of skills that required, and typically CON is important to a fighter since they have to absorb damage and punishment). 

As to female melee combatants, I truthfully don't care, since it IS a RPG, and I am not going to say that if some chick wants to play as a 2H reaver, that she can't.  But I HAVE served in both the Marine Corps and Army, and CAN say that, in general, women can't and don't pull their weight as much when it comes to the physical aspects of service.  There are a few standout examples I can think of, but the vast majorities pt standards and performance are well below mens.  In the Marine Corps, I was a squad automatic rifleman, and carried a SAW (M249).  Empty it weighs 17lbs.  I had to have 600 rounds of ammunition for it, each box weighing approximately 5lbs, so another 15lbs.  My body armor weighed ~30lbs, my kevlar ~5lbs.  So with NOTHING ELSE (which I of course DID have, since there were always radios, batteries, MREs, etc), I was walking and running around with at around 60-70lbs of gear for sometimes 24 hours, in 100-130 degree heat (obviously not continuously, but those scenarios did happen).

"It sounds like you want rogues to be both more useful and less useful.
If anyone can bash a locked chest then all parties will get the loot in
it. Could you pick one, please?"

No, I don't want them to be more and less useful, I want their CORE abilities (thievery) to work properly and to be fully exploitable.  And I don't want the silliness of a guy wearing a leather jerkin effectively fighting an equally skilled warrior in full plate.  So yes, in a sense, I do want them "less" useful. 

"I'm replaying BG1right now. Combat is far simpler than DA. There are a
lot of complicated rules, but what you actually do with them is simple."

But it isn't AS simple.  Some mage defenses only protected against physical attacks, others against magic ones, some combinations.  Some spells would dispell illusions, but not enchantments.  Others would simply buff attributes or will saves.  To some extent DA has this, but fighting a high level mage, or as one, just isn't the same.  I remember having these gargantuan battles where my mage(s) were duelling and I would just hope that I had enough spells prepared, or that he would fail his save, because the battle could go on and on with contigencies and everything else.  In DA it seems to pretty much be reduced to spamming certain spells (fireball, cone of cold, chain lightning, drain life) and chugging potions.  I suppose that is more on account of the high vs low magic setting, and a lack of an existing enemies to draw from.  It's much diff to fight trolls vs yuan ti vs mind flayers vs vampires vs umber hulks vs monks, and on and on.  As opposed to a few diff classes with essentially the same abilities (darkspawn really not being much different than humans, besides uglier).  And while Arcanum didn't have nearly as complicated rules, there was still a pretty substantial degree of diversity in opponents (though I didn't consider the combat mechanics in either FO or Arcanum to be their selling points). 

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Of course, games are no longer as good as back then. We no longer have a smart mainstream audience. All we have are energy drinking adrenaline junkies that love those CoD games.



I think gaming companies are too scared to go outside of the mainstream because that isn't were the money is.



Also, I was pretty upset about the lack of a bad vs. good character. I mean in Fallout you were known by how evil you were. People talked to you differently, and some didn't even give you quests if you were too evil.



I doubt any rpg game is going to surpass Fallout 1 or 2; however, Fallout: New Vegas might go back to its roots, so there is hope !

[Harcken]

The one thing that destroys a lot of replayability for me is the way DA classes are structured. I love to have lots of variety in games, especially between classes, but in DA, I can't be a paladin, I can't be a berserker, I can't be an uber shapeshifter. Sure, there are "specializations" for all those, but half of the 4 abilities gained are passive, and the other two are some nonsense passive ability that never gets used. A warrior is always a warrior, a rogue a rogue, and a mage a mage. Perhaps the one exception to this is the arcane mage, and that's only because said spec is just plain overpowered.



Please, please, please, change the class system in DA2 allowing for much more variety and differentiation between say a "Templar" and a "Reaver," or an "Assassin" and a "Thief."

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

I hate the "let's kill everything that moves" type of evil. Sorry.

[AlanC9]

[quote]ztemplarz wrote...
Key there is "that the game world cannot properly respond to".  In all the RPGs I mentioned, the game world DID support that, [/quote]

Note that I said "properly". If the lame BG Reputation mechanic was good enough for you, we have nothing to talk about here.

[quote]
And I don't know where the concept of "absolute morality" came from in regards to the D&D universe, since while yes, they do have "alignments", there is less true "morality" in D&D than there is in DA, since in D&D there is a whole legion of gods, some of greater or lessor strength, but none Zeus or Odin like[/quote]

That's not an argument. It doesn't matter how many gods there are if they're all part of the same moral system.

[quote]
,And "evil" does not need a conventional system to name or define it- you can be just as evil as a Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, or atheist, the only question is how "evil" a moral/religious system labels you.  One might more strongly oppose bloodshed than say thievery, but someone that tortures creatures for enjoyment is evil regardless of the society they belong to.[/quote]

Really? The Romans didn't have any problem with a lot of things that we'd call torture, sometimes just for entertainment. You're free to call the Romans evil if you like, but they didn't think they were.

[quote]
Already conceded cosmetic containers existed in other games, point was frequency and content vs DA, and unfortunately not a quantifiable value (unless SOMEONE counted them- will have BG back soon enough and be able to see from there).  [/quote]

Frequency is obvious as soon as you're looking at a screen. As for content, check the DSimpson walkthroughs over on GameFaqs. A lot of containers only have "minor treasures." I'm not familiar enough with the IE to know if such treasures are random or not. In BG1 it doesn't matter anyway, since there isn't anything particularly good in the shops no matter how much money you have. Ankheg plate excepted.

[quote]
Hence using quotes on "luck"- different attributes in each game, which doesn't lend itself to neat comparisons.  But I do know that even if my only moderately skilled rogue continuously attempted a lock in those other games, by probability it would eventually become unlocked (or jammed) unless it was an ungodly difficult lock, which required master level.[/quote]

I'll have to take your word for that. My bad for thinking Bio hadn't botched the implementation; in PnP you get one shot -- unless my DMs were doing it wrong, which is of course possible.

[quote] From what I've seen in DA, if you fail, you will never succeed (barring advancement of the skill), which means that the gradient is much steeper.[/quote]

Yes, that's correct. I prefer this mechanic -- in effect, just give the player the final result of all the die rolls. The equivalent of the D&D 3.5 "Take 20" rule.

[quote]
Because me selling 3 guns to a pawn shop owner makes me more money than selling 1 gun.  On average, a pawn shop will give you 30% of an item's retail value, so they can sell it at less and still make a profit.  So if a gun retails at $500 new, then I can expect $150- 3 guns means I have enough to buy 1 new gun.  Pretty simple math, really. [/quote]

So you'll be able to buy a new item that's as good or worse than what you've already got. What, you think your party isn't well-equipped relative to the darkspawn? You want to move up a tier, so you're talking many more item drops to afford the higher-priced stuff.

[quote]
 And I am arguing it from a RP perspective- he had a sword and armor, yet somehow now he doesn't.[/quote]

But that's not the argument you're actually making. You keep talking about how this should be making your characters more powerful. But I see now that you don't actually mean that -- you're talking about the feeling of gaining more power through loot rather than the substance of power.

[quote]
Perhaps I did encounter a glitch, but I beat that quest several times (in 3 different ways) and don't recall anything of significance FOR doing it.  One was everything was peachy solution, and other two were less so...[/quote]

Either there's a bug or you flatly overlooked the items. Check the wiki entry on the quest for details.

[quote]I played through most of BG 1, but no, most of my BG playing was on 2 (wasn't a big fan of only 3 playable classes, amongst other things).  [/quote]

Huh? BG1 had eight classes.

[quote] While yes, it was completely possible to encounter a much higher level opponent, my situation I offered was under the assumption of DA level scaling, meaning the rogue is of roguely the same level as your warrior. 
[/quote]

What you said was "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 didn't realize that you actually meant that if you had been playing some parallel-universe version of those other RPGs that had DA's scaling, these things would have been true.

I can only respond to the arguments you make, not the ones in  your head.

[quote]
But even in BG (or any of the other games, for that matter), if you were properly prepared, you COULD defeat a group of significantly higher level than yourself (careful use of divine magic plus scrolls, plus attack tactics, etc).  It would be extremely hard, but it was possible.[/quote]

Completely doable in DA too.

[quote]Nope, WAS refering to rogues.  Don't really understand this concept of DPS, but I was talking about using rogues as thieves, as opposed to dexterity based fighters.[/quote]

DPS = damage per second. Raw offensive output. 

You shouldn't say "useless" when you mean something more like "too good at things I don't want them to do, while not very useful for things I do want them to do." That's just not what "useless" means. Though of course I was being a bit disingenuous before.

[quote]As to female melee combatants, I truthfully don't care, since it IS a RPG, and I am not going to say that if some chick wants to play as a 2H reaver, that she can't.  But I HAVE served in both the Marine Corps and Army, and CAN say that, in general, women can't and don't pull their weight as much when it comes to the physical aspects of service.  There are a few standout examples I can think of, but the vast majorities pt standards and performance are well below mens.  In the Marine Corps, I was a squad automatic rifleman, and carried a SAW (M249).  Empty it weighs 17lbs.  I had to have 600 rounds of ammunition for it, each box weighing approximately 5lbs, so another 15lbs.  My body armor weighed ~30lbs, my kevlar ~5lbs.  So with NOTHING ELSE (which I of course DID have, since there were always radios, batteries, MREs, etc), I was walking and running around with at around 60-70lbs of gear for sometimes 24 hours, in 100-130 degree heat (obviously not continuously, but those scenarios did happen).[/quote]

Once again, you seem compelled to pump out useless data. I only asked for your opinion.

[quote]
No, I don't want them to be more and less useful, I want their CORE abilities (thievery) to work properly and to be fully exploitable.  And I don't want the silliness of a guy wearing a leather jerkin effectively fighting an equally skilled warrior in full plate.  So yes, in a sense, I do want them "less" useful.  [/quote]

No you don't, but yes you do. Gotcha.

More seriously, the rogue concept you favor has been dying out in RPGs for a long time. People don't like playing characters who take a back seat during combat.  Note that in D&D 3.5 rogues aren't that far from how they work in DAO - against targets that can be SAd they throw tons of damage, just like DAO rogues.

Actually, I'm not certain how well a warrior does 1-on-1 against a rogue of similar level; my impression is that the rogue is slightly weaker until the late game, when the whole system starts breaking down. There are a couple of duels in the later game, but since I don't have any appropriate saves with a warrior I can't check it. I guess we could poll it over on the Gameplay board.

As for complexity, I'm thinking of BG1, since that's what I'm playing at the moment. But I don't think BG2 is all that complicated either. All the spell battles come down to is remembering to Pierce Magic (etc.), then Breach. If this was in DA it wouldn't matter -- you could just set up a couple of  tactics and Morrigan would do it automatically.

I'm done for the night. But I imagine this will continue.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 avril 2010 - 08:46 .

[Lowenhart]

To the OP, I know i am sometimes fairly poor at this myself but you need to shrim down your posts a bit its simply to long and replies like a novel read each one, why dont you outline your points and give a few base lines as to why you think so youll have plenty of chances to defend or expand the arguements should someone challenge them, isnt it whole point of posting in a forum and not sending a readers letter?

Modifié par Lowenhart, 25 avril 2010 - 01:28 .

[simpatikool]

Up until DAOs release, I was extremely nostalgic. Looking forward to a romp through DAO and hoping for the same sort of experience I had playing BG II or Ice Wind Dale. (IWD still tops my favs)



I though DAO was absolutely wonderful. However, a few months later, my bloodlust so to speak has been satisfied, and though absolutely enjoyable, DAO just does not have the staying power entertainment wise that Fallout 3 has.



Fallout 3?Oblivion lack the great story telling that DAO has. DAO lacks the open world story/questing that Fallout 3/Oblivion has. I don't know which is better, but I know I enjoy both. The problem is, when it comes down to replayability. Fallout 3?Oblivion last longer. DAO and in the same contaxt MA are just a linear story. The party tactics and control over the battlefield and your minions is amazing. Its a lot of fun. You can attempt all sorts of weird builds.



What do I miss the most? Rolling up a party of dudes and dungeon crawling.

[Gecon]

Havent tried Arcanum, but DAO is definitely better than BG1 and FO2.

Better graphics of course, much better party interaction, much more fun rulesystem than FO2 at least (and definitely competing with BG1), and finally more and better story. Oh, and not to forget : much much much much easier to mod.

[nikki191]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

I hate the "let's kill everything that moves" type of evil. Sorry.

grr im evil for the sake of it<-- is extremely boring

[Kagrenac]

I´ve played the BG-series and I totally agree with ztemplarz. In all of his points. In addition I want to mention some other things that makes DA not as good as BG2 to me.
 
Firstly it was the lack of information given to the abilitys and spells. If any stats improves from any ability i want to know how much. Or how much damage a spell does.

Secondly: Loot...it feels so wrong when I am at high-level and find dragonbone weapons and armors in every corner. Aren´t the dragons supossed to be rare? The people even thought there were no dragons at all anymore untill the "dragon age" begun. Where are all these bones from? They should have been so much more rare. Even if you are a level 345 Warrior...God, even the KING of Ferelden is wearing "only" red steel.
And the magical items should be more rare too if you´d ask me, more rare but more powerful so you can feel the diffrence. A magical item that gives me 1% resistance from a spell is such a waste. And yes this item exists, its a necklace. dont recall whats its name.

Thirdly: There are some areas in the game you can visit only once. Think about  the noble dwarf origin. If you search for the shield of aeducan you can enter a room, a grave. But afterwards if you travel in the deeproads again you cannot enter this room anymore. Even if its only a little pointless room, why did they cut it from the game if it WAS there? there are so much more areas like this, they just cutted things down you could explore otherwise.
Or what about the tower of magi. If you haven´t played the mage origin you dont know what the tower looks like before all this evil happened there. And afterwards the tower remains the same, you can wait as long as you want, they wont rebuild anything or even carry the dead out. Why didn´t Bioware just replaced it with the tower of magi from the mage origin after a period of time. They even had the "clean tower", no need to redesign anything. They cut down so much content to explore.

4th: day / night circle...even BG1 had this feature. even if it was only 2D it feels like a step backward in DA compared to BG1

These were just a few very minor points but the things that seperates very good games from genius-superior games are many minor details. And DA is a very good game while BG2 is still the top notch of single-RPG.

[Nukenin]

Lowenhart wrote...

To the OP, I know i am sometimes fairly poor at this myself but you need to shrim down your posts a bit its simply to long and replies like a novel read each one, why dont you outline your points and give a few base lines as to why you think so youll have plenty of chances to defend or expand the arguements should someone challenge them, isnt it whole point of posting in a forum and not sending a readers letter?

User thegreateski presented a plausible condensation of the OP's points, but was somewhat angrily dismissed by the OP as a troll.  Perhaps the OP feels they have a lot to say, and don't want to see their verbosity summarized as a bullet list o' pith. 

[AlanC9]

Kagrenac wrote...
Even if its only a little pointless room, why did they cut it from the game if it WAS there?

Because going there would be pointless? Whether the PC is a dwarf noble or not, Bhelen would already have the shield. There would be nothing there.

Same thing with fixing the mage tower. It's a bunch of scripting work that would give no useful gameplay. By the time the tower's cleared you've been through it.

4th: day / night circle...even BG1 had this feature. even if it was only 2D it feels like a step backward in DA compared to BG.

Day/night cycles bind the game system to real time, unless the cycle is set so long that in practice you end up advancing the clock by event anyway. Imagine going through the Tower of Ishal and not getting through it for a couple of days, for instance. Being able to rest in Chateau Irenicus was stupid enough, but people don't call BG2 on silly stuff like that.

[AlanC9]

Nukenin wrote...
 Perhaps the OP feels they have a lot to say, and don't want to see their verbosity summarized as a bullet list o' pith. 

In fairness to the OP, that condensation made his argument seem like a bunch of personal preferences masquerading as an argument, rather than just a bad argument. Even a bad argument deserves to be taken seriously if it's presented in good faith.

Edit: of course, in the end these things are reducible to personal tastes.  But if we don't think the question of what makes one RPG better than another is worth discussing, what are we doing in this thread?

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 avril 2010 - 04:43 .

[Kagrenac]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kagrenac wrote...
Even if its only a little pointless room, why did they cut it from the game if it WAS there?

Because going there would be pointless? Whether the PC is a dwarf noble or not, Bhelen would already have the shield. There would be nothing there.

Same thing with fixing the mage tower. It's a bunch of scripting work that would give no useful gameplay. By the time the tower's cleared you've been through it.

4th: day / night circle...even BG1 had this feature. even if it was only 2D it feels like a step backward in DA compared to BG.

Day/night cycles bind the game system to real time, unless the cycle is set so long that in practice you end up advancing the clock by event anyway. Imagine going through the Tower of Ishal and not getting through it for a couple of days, for instance. Being able to rest in Chateau Irenicus was stupid enough, but people don't call BG2 on silly stuff like that.

If you feel it would be pointless going there just dont go there? There were so much pointless rooms in BG but i enjoyed that I could explore them even if its not neccesary. It just feels so empty if you have 10 doors and you can enter only 1 or even none.

[Tonkarz]

It seems to me, ztemplarz, that you are mostly complaining that DA is different to the other games you mention. I have played both the BG the Fallout series, so I am familiar with those games. Also, I'm only replying to your first post at this point, having not yet read any further.

Yes, it could be said that there are no strictly "evil" characters. You haven't explained how this is a bad thing, which I think is probably something that you'd need to do in order to consider this important.

Also, it is true that you can't randomly kill anyone you like. Again, so what? Sure, you can't play as a remorseless serial killer, but you can't play as a totally straight laced paladin-esque character either. Or for that matter, any other character that is outside the scope of the game. Of course the other point is that you can't play as a serial killer in Baldur's Gate or Fallout 2 either. Yes, you can kill everyone, but the NPCs rarely ever react to this sort of behaviour or even acknowledge it. Spawning some guards or bounty hunter encounters do not count when you can go to the next area and talk to a shop keeper like everything is fine.

Your next point is about searchable containers everywhere. Once again, you've made a minor point and not explained how it makes the game any worse. You've just pointed out a difference between the two games. In fact, a point could be made that these makes DA a superior game. After all, why encourage the player to spend time looting random barrels and crates for the occasional tiny reward when you should be encouraging them to experience the fun parts of the game? There is no reason to do this.

Your point about locked chests is a bit unimaginative. You assume that a chest would only ever be locked if it contained something valuable to you, the player. The correct assumption is that items under lock and key are valuable to someone else, which doesn't necessarily mean they are valuable to you. Also, what is in the container isn't limited to what shows up on the loot screen. For example, there are almost no food items in the entire game though it logically must exist in the setting. Also, the usual caveat about assuming that any differences automatically make the game worse appplies here.

As for not being able to bash open chests and doors, you've made another minor point. How does this actually make the game worse? Once again, you don't say. As for a 7 foot warrior not being able to knock down a door or a persistent lockpicker not being able to pick a given lock being unrealistic... well so what? This is meant to be a game, not a simulation. A better game is not one that encourages the player to spend 3 minutes on one lock. A better game is not one that encourages reloading until the items in the chest don't break.

Thieving is another activity that in previous games encourage the player to just reload until success or until the player gives up. By making the outcome less random,  this behaviour is not encouraged and thus the player spends more time doing fun things. This makes DA a better game, at least in this area. As for the other problems you have with the system, they are fairly minor. Planting evidence on someone would only be important if the game acknowledged it, and this would always be part of a quest where the behaviour can be scripted. Only one item from each mark? Big deal.

Stealing from merchants is another minor matter. It might be a nice feature, but ultimately it's just something you can't do. It's absence doesn't make the game less fun. Remember, this is not a simulation.

Your next point is that there are fun things you can do as a thief in previous games that you can't do in DA. Well the obvious response is that there are fun things you can do as a thief in DA that you can't do in those previous games, like kicking enemies in the balls.

As for apparently disappearing loot, another huge "So what?" is in order. This isn't a simulation. This is a game. Making players work to get better equipment makes eventually getting that equipment all the sweeter to the player as long as "working" to get the equipment is fun in itself. As far as small rewards go, the only point I'll make about that is it's related to working towards decent equipment, which I've already addressed.

Your complaint about combat mechnics is a bit dumb. Of course you shouldn't be able to sleep through combat. It would just be tedious if you could get through combat without thinking and only clicking once on each enemy in turn.

So, in conclusion, you exaggerate minor points, assume that any differences are bad, like and enjoy tedium and seem to feel that the more the game is a simulation the better. Honestly, if you like tedious simulation then your probably going to have trouble finding a game to enjoy because most games are designed with a view to cutting these elements out.

P.S.: I'm beginning to suspect that ztemplarz is a troll, but I've already typed this post so meh.

Modifié par Tonkarz, 25 avril 2010 - 05:00 .

[ztemplarz]

"Note that I said "properly". If the lame BG Reputation mechanic was good
enough for you, we have nothing to talk about here."

Well, I actually didn't mind it.  It's much the same as someone having diplomatic immunity, and in that game universe, it makes perfect sense (in that religious factions have all sorts of authority, and many have nothing against "dropping charges" against unsavory characters provided they donate massive sums of coin to that sect). 

"That's not an argument. It doesn't matter how many gods there are if
they're all part of the same moral system."

For that very reason it IS an argument.  When you only have one principal way of defining evil, ie the dictates of the Chantry (which is essentially their version of Christianity), then it is very easy to define evil in that setting since there are no legitimate, authoritative alternatives.  While there might be a "moral system" in Faerun, it is NOT illegitimate to worship Bane, or Tyr, or Mystra, which all have conflicting value systems.  If a king decides to throw his lot in with Bhaal, he can choose to run his nation according to the temple of Bhaal's dictates, whereas in Fereldon, there is really only the Chantry- if the city elves claimed they were returning to the worship of their old gods, they would be at least imprisoned, probably massacred, whereas in Faerun you can have 20 sects in the same city.

"I'll have to take your word for that. My bad for thinking Bio hadn't
botched the implementation; in PnP you get one shot -- unless my DMs
were doing it wrong, which is of course possible."

Never played the PnP version, so wouldn't doubt it.  As I understood it, the DM had lots of leeway in how he/she chose to implement the rules, so it was probably just their thing, but perhaps not.

"So you'll be able to buy a new item that's as good or worse than
what you've already got. What, you think your party isn't well-equipped
relative to the darkspawn? You want to move up a tier, so you're talking
many more item drops to afford the higher-priced stuff."

Yes, to the last part.  Me selling 6 guns to a pawn shop allows me to buy a REALLY nice pistol, to replace my current, okay pistol. 

"But that's not the argument you're actually making. You keep talking
about how this should be making your characters more powerful. But I see
now that you don't actually mean that -- you're talking about the feeling of gaining more power
through loot rather than the substance of power."

Eh, really not so sure what the argument here is.  I'm saying that if they had something in the fight, they should have it afterwards.  I don't think Arcanum was the only one that used this mechanic, though it was the only one of the 3 I mentioned, but items got damaged through use.  If you didn't take care of your equipment, it could break irrepairably.  And that system gave you an incentive to finish someone quickly.  If my sniper blew their brains out with 1 shot from across the screen, their equipment was typically in pristine condition.  If, on the other hand, my sword and board fighter slugged it out with them for a while before being able to put them down, it was typically rather beaten up.  It was a system that made a lot of sense to me, if not perfect.

"Either there's a bug or you flatly overlooked the items. Check the wiki
entry on the quest for details."

Hmm, checked the Wiki and see that at least 1 item was supposed to happen for sure... really don't remember.  It might have been that I just sold it because it didn't help any of the party that I had...

"I can only respond to the arguments you make, not the ones in  your
head."

Fair enough.  My basic assumption was that the two that met would be of same level, though I did not state that explicitly.  And not familiar with the newest ruleset, only what was in BG2. 

"Once again, you seem compelled to pump out useless data. I only asked
for your opinion."

Except, when people ask for my opinion, I give them the basic supporting arguments, so they understand how I came to that opinion.  You might not, many people don't, but I do.  I don't like just making independent statements and leaving them standing like that.  And the data isn't useless, since it supports my basic conclusion.  I could provide more, through comparative statistics and scientific studies, but used personal observations and self reference to make a point.

"More seriously, the rogue concept you favor has been dying out in RPGs
for a long time. People don't like playing characters who take a back
seat during combat.  Note that in D&D 3.5 rogues aren't that far
from how they work in DAO - against targets that can be SAd they throw
tons of damage, just like DAO rogues."

Right- all the games I referenced utilized that definition of a rogue (or at least the application of rogue abilities).  Some people don't like that, while I do because it creates a set of balances where you assume certain disadvantages to gain definite advantages in other areas- that is one of the things I liked about the D&D ruleset in BG2.  Picking a rogue meant you had to be much more careful during combat, but you had a better chance of killing mages, for instance.  Being a paladin was pretty useful when you were fighting undead.  Having a well diversified group had real tactical advantages, but it was still possible to have a party of exclusive fighter classses.  In both FO and Arcanum, it was an open class system, which also had it's plusses.  I COULD be a thief fighter, I just wouldn't be as strong or have as high of a constitution, for instance.  For every ability I chose to have that didn't apply to my "selected" specialization, I had to accept that it would make me weaker in that regard.  Same concept of multi-classing or dual-classing in D&D, but more flexible. 

DA doesn't really give that opportunity, nor does it as effectively distinguish between rogues and warriors.  To be honest, I think that DA would be better off going to an open class system as well, perhaps just segregating mages from that pool, what with the Circle of Magi being part of the universe.  Though in reality, that shouldn't be a good reason either, because while it is obvious in the game that apostates are rare, they do exist.  So for an apostate to have fled the tower and then decided to become a dagger-wielding assassin, is not incongrous with the game setting. 

[gingerbill]

I thought the OP's post was good but i completely disagree , i think DAO is better than the other games. Not by alot as i think fallout's and baldurs gates were excellent , think i prefer KOTOR and ultima 7 to baldurs gate as well , though its too close to call.



Personally i love evil characters but they have to be crow barred into RPG's on the computer so i think DAO is better of without them , they make little sense fitting into a party off to do specific tasks. The only type of evil psychotic characters that work in RPG's on the computer are made up nonesense characters that never exsist in real life , a comic book type villian that might be intresting and fun but make no sense.



the loot system i agree leaves me wishing for better , but bioware themselves have explained why they went with the system they did and it does make sense the reasons they gave.



I love the combat system in DAO as well , its far superior to BG and any other RPG , ok mages are too powerful but its much better than the ' D&D cross your fingers a spell works/resists or its time for a re-load' every other fight.

[Glottisthedriver]

My two cents (Have played all those games and many, many more).

I like the fact that the characters in DA seem a bit more mature and nuanced. Indeed, I wish they were even more mature and nuanced. I thought Loghain was in many was a better, more interesting villain than any in those previous games. I thought DAO had a good story and was well told. I like the contrast between the intelligent, subtle threat posed by the politics of Fereledan, and human weakness, and that of the absolute, mindless malevolence of the Darkspawn. (DAA kind of ruined this).



That said I do certainly agree that I would like to see a more "realistic" less "WOW-ized" to (borrow some terms from previous posts) system of loot and inventory.



I am also willing to trade a little (not a lot) of dialog for full voice acting. Voice acting is one of the first things I miss when I go back to play an old school RPG like Planescape, Fallout etc.

[ztemplarz]

gingerbill wrote...

the loot system i agree leaves me wishing for better , but bioware themselves have explained why they went with the system they did and it does make sense the reasons they gave.

Where?  Do you have any links?  I would love to read that...

[imran shah]

Why DA isn't as good as Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, or Arcanum cuz its better

[AlanC9]

Kagrenac wrote...
If you feel it would be pointless going there just dont go there? There were so much pointless rooms in BG but i enjoyed that I could explore them even if its not neccesary. It just feels so empty if you have 10 doors and you can enter only 1 or even none.

I'm saying that the feature is worthless, not that it's of negative value. If more useless areas came in without trading off anything else to get them I certainly wouldn't object to those areas being there. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.

[Nukenin]

AlanC9 wrote...

[…]Edit: of course, in the end these things are reducible to personal tastes.  But if we don't think the question of what makes one RPG better than another is worth discussing, what are we doing in this thread?

The title of the thread isn't "What makes one RPG better than another", it's "Why DA isn't as good as Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, or Arcanum".  That's what we dwarves refer to as "fightin' words", so I of course came to this thread for the comedy.

As for "what makes one RPG better than another", the answer is simple.  Gnomes and Returning Throwing Weapons.  Thus Baldur's Gate and Arcanum are automagically better than Fallout 2 and Dragon Age (though the latter will be redeemed somewhat with the eventual addition of gnomes to the canon) through virtue of gnomes alone.  While Baldur's Gate II featured returning throwing weapons, the original BG does not, and this is trumped anyway by the fact that in Arcanum all throwing weapons are returning.

Therefore, in conclusion, Arcanum is the best of the four.

(Actually, Returning Throwing Weapons was just a contrivance thrown in to ensure Arcanum would come out on top.  It's nowhere near as important an element as Gnomes.)

[Giggles_Manically]

I only played fallout 3 and DAO, but DAO is way better. The simple reason is I only played FO3 twice and willl not be picking it up again, but I have done one and a half playthroughs and started a new origin and am really looking forward to it. FO3 after only a few playthroughs loses its appeal, but I am looking forward to many more in DAO. Oh and FO3 after getting some of the better weapons was no fun, yet every fight in DAO is still fast and fun for me.



Overall my 50 bucks has been better spent on DAO then FO3.

ENCHANTMENT!