62 réponses à ce sujet

[Smaaen90]

PoopyStuff wrote...

Smaaen90 wrote...

Mr. Woo - You and your team equals to or greater than awesome.

Moving on, despite the fact that you seem to obviously hate, nay, detest this game, you sure put in a lot of effort into flaming and whining on the forums of said game. This was mentioned by an earlier member of the community, they don't die.

They fall unconscious, and thus cannot take part in the fight till it's over, rendering them useless for the duration of that fight. If everyone in your party, including you, should have the misfortune of falling unconscious - Well, then the darkspawn or what other creature(s) who fell you have the chance to have their way with you, thus you have to load.

If you somehow should miraculously survive after one or more party members hit the ground, they get up and have an injury which you have to cure. The fact that their hp regenerates fast after combat is simply to save time as the game is as big as it is. They don't come back from life, they don't get magically resurrected by some divine force, they wake up. If they had died and then revived, they wouldn't have any form of injury as revival, well, look it up =)


If you really do dislike this game and this little thing is what's holding you back from playing it, well, please, I beg you. Uninstall it and never come back. Ye won't be missed, yer amongst fanboys/ladies here.

Best regards,
Smaaen

I can't believe I'm entertaining this..

What happens when a person his another car at 200 miles per hour instantly.
Do they often fall unconsious?

What happens when someone gets decapitated in combat
do they often fall unconsious?


It's not hard to explain...
People. Die.

The don't get up, brush themselves off, reset some bones back into place, and continue their journey.

If the healer in party dies, it makes it even tougher to get things back to normal.
If the healer is lucky enough to survive, then after some prepartation, the party can be put back together... Even after someone or a few die.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?


If two people had a "fight to the death" (gasp, you mean actual consequences for fighting), then one of those or perhaps both would fall, and DIE.

Why this is absent in what is supposed to be an RPG is astonishing to me...

The war with the dark spawn could be over in a day.    Just make sure one dude survives among the thousands that are fighting, and you win.

0 deaths on your side.

or do darkspawn get up after being "unconsious"
haha

Firstly, there are no cars in Dragon Age, so that is a moot point. Stop being silly and a douche on purpose, you're doing a fine enough of a job un-intentionally.

Your party members don't get decapitated, not ever. So again, moot point. The darkspawn gets decapatatied when a a finisher is in place. And they don't just get up and brush it off, they are weakened due to an injury which you have to remove yourself, or carry on with it. Your choice. The fact that they dont die, but rather fall 'unconscious' is a good thing. If I had to backtrack from the caves leading to urn of sacred ashes (saying more will spoil), too a town just so I could revive someone, then move all the way back up there, it would just be tedious.

So hard to comprehend? No, it is not. Why is it so hard for you to let the silly thing go, they don't just stand up and brush it off with no worry at all. They have an injury, yes, it's not internal bleeding or a collapsed lung. But an injury nevertheless.

Two people have a fight to the death? Why are you comparing such things-- if everyone in your party dies = game over, load. If they don't they can "revive", or rather, wait for them to come too (which is sped up to avoid an hour waiting). Only other "to the death duel" is at the end and once you "win", the other fighter yields, as in give up before death (can't say more due to spoilers).

How could the war be over in a day just based on that reasoning? Make sure one survives an you win, 0 deaths on your side? You really ought to play the game, there are loads, loads of people who die. Heck, even before you complete the first part (Becoming a Grey Warden) there are loads who die.

And no, the darkspawn doesn't get up, they get killed and done in, for real. -- As said before, there's no telling what would happen to the party if you all "die" (lose consciousness)


Remove the douche-stick from your arse, you're quite frankly obnoxious. If you don't like the game due to the simple fact that they won't die for real, well, sucks to be you. - This is getting rather lame, you obviously haven't played the game, or rather skipped through it all with eyes closed, or just completely ignorant overall.

Tell you what, make your own game, the coding, graphics, modules, mapping, all of it. Then, when you or your party members die, they die for real. Durr.

-Take care, this post is getting ridiculous. Best regards,
Smaaen

[curly haired boy]

saw this in the "recent topics" list when i logged in...



in real life, people don't come back from the dead, whether you take them to a priest/temple, drop a sparkly feather on em, etc.



frankly, if you're playing a game with MAGIC and hoping for a suspension of disbelief or "realism" then you're going to be disappointed.

[Caralampio]

Companions (and the hero) fall so frequently that if the game were as the OP wishes it would be a total drag.



Imagine being in the middle of one of those "can't get out until you're done" areas and have a character die. I think one would prefer loading a prior savegame every time it happened.

[Mallissin]

I agree with the OP's sentiments, that perm death would be an interesting option but it should be seperate from the rest of the game.



Sort of like how Mount And Blade allows you to choose whether you can save the game anytime you want or only when you quit. Choosing the later has it's rewards.



Perhaps the death option in DA could just give all the characters more health/mana/damage.

[Draconus Kahn]

Stanley Woo wrote...

We create games that we think are fun, and that we think will be fun for a goodly number of other players. The fact that you specifically don't care for our choices, our marketing, or our way of doing things does not mean the game is objectively bad or otherwise inadequate. it just means you disagree with us, and that's fine.

But please don't act like your definitions, opinions, and preferences are "right," "better," or the only ones here. You represent a small part of our gaming community, just as the "fanboys" represent a small part of our gaming community.

You don't like auto-regen in combat, great! then perhaps a game like Dragon Age: Origins isn't your cup of tea. At no time did we promise you would like it or indicate that it played like Baldur's Gate. Despite the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" line, the two games are different and they do play differently. Besides which, when we use a line like "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate," we have a certain idea of what it means: deep, meaningful dialgoue, intricate storyline, dynamic, sympathetic characters, and full of fun role-playing goodness. You also have a certain idea of what it means that may be different from ours. Just because we disagree does not mean Dragon Age: Origins has a "horrible flaw" or is an "abomination."

don't like the game? you're entitled to your feelings and preferences and opinions, but your outrage that the game has failed you, as if you were entitled to have your preferences catered to, is, in my opinion, misguided and a little silly.

Everytime someone goes down and gets up only to get full health is a reminder I'm playing a video game.

You are.

And knowing this before a fight means I don't have to worry about 'death', so fights become less important.

Yes, because it's a videogame. Character death has no consequence whatsoever in real life, just as the lack of a real patient in Operation has no bearing on whether real people live or die in surgery. the lack of real property in Monopoly doesn't change the rules of the game or the fact that it is a game. The fact that you can save your game at any time doesn't negate the importance or impact of combat in an RPG.

ROFL!

Well said.... If this guy (OP) had even played the game, I think he would change his tune.

Play it on the hardest setting..... Then tell a friend to take a picture of you....

Have fun crying in the fetal position, and rocking yourself in the corner next to your rig hehe.

[FiliusMartis]

In real wars, people clinging to life are often found among dead bodies, and sometimes they survive the injuries if tended to promptly and effectively. Spoilers aren't allowed here, but I will say this: there is sufficient plot and lore reason for a downed character to not necessarily be killed. Furthermore, I'll point out that there's a particular rogue talent in which he pretends to be dead in order to get enemies to leave him alone-- clearly, they're not checking your pulse. However,if you want more penalty for falling in battle, disallow yourself use of injury kits.

[Jon Jern_]

I love these forums.

[tpowl]

Hi.



I know everyone is entitled to his opinon but, is this type of derogatory remark really necessary?

[BomimoDK]

I reeeeaaally don't want to get into this discussion. But behind the idiotic rage and the general failure to communicate, OP has a valid point. The game WAS advertised as a new BG. I bought the game and expected a lot of those mechanics... a recreation of the mental state you adopted when playing BG. Safe yo say it wasn't ever invoked.



I like DA as it is now. it's a ****ing brilliant game. But it was a HUGEASS ****up to use Baldur's Gates name so casually in the marketing. The biggest praise of Baldur's Gate was the combat diversity, the grave feel of consequences when a compannion got chunked, the diversity of creatures.



We did not get that. The storytelling aspect stayed beyond true to baldur's gate. That's a fabulous achievement. But the combat was more than lacking. For me, the unique aspect of BG was the combat... Planescape had the same kind of interaction and storytelling and IWD had more casual combat and the same general feel of adventure. What BG had going for itself was the insanely challenging combat, the intricate details. If you want to beat Firkraag or Aec'letec, you'd have to go in, die, study what went wrong, die again, figure out the proper precausion, use the precaution and finally bring the ****er down. It is also the impression i got when Laidlaw on the making of DVD says "Dragon age is about that moment when everything comes to a crashing halt, you cut down the last darkspawn and you go: YES! i won this one, now i've got 400,000 more to go!"



That was the feel the epic strategic battles in BG evoked. The same feeling DA only evokes a fraction of (though it's more than sufficient i guess). There's no achievement in bringing down Gaxxkang or the Revenants. I can assure you there's prestige in going on a No-Reload run in BG 1+2 and at the endgame... 50+ hours invested in your level 30 character, you walk right in, facing certain doom. a boss that has faceplanted and skullcrushed greater characters than yours... and you win. Even dreaming of Demogorgon on a No-Reload at Max level is pure insanity. The prestige... it's so luring... like a sirens call.



That's what Dragon Age missed, It's what i imagined when i heard Spiritual Successor... What they seemed to mean by it was the story, interaction and depth... ME, Witcher, NWN... all the modern titles have that. Why then advertise it as a "ye olde RPG"?



That's what OP meant. did i make sense?

[BomimoDK]

Icewind Dale is very much closer on the combat side (it's basically the same) the epic encounters are however totally missing and it's just mob chewing. On the epic bosses side Dragon Age DOES get closer, but you just don't feel mortal in any way what so ever.
It just takes a lot of the juice if you get me.
PS:T is the best bid on a game that does the story aspect better than DA:O.

So where is DA:O then? well, it's a damn fine mix that has it all... except for the same feeling of accomplishment when you survive a battle. Well, it still has it, just not to the same level.

I'm babbling... but i DO try to make sense.

So, yeah the Mike Laidlaw quote that i so charish on the 400.000 to go just wasn't as awesome as most of the old guys thought. I still get a tickle when i hear that quote.

from 0:30-0:45 and 1:50-2:06
and Specifically 3:58-4:19 where it very much hints at "feeling like you accomplished somethin" which the difficulty level just isn't allowed high enough to invoke. I play at hard.. it's hard, but no mortality gives no sense of accomplishment.

4:20-4:35 which is going on ALOT at the BG forums. specifically in the No-Reload community. I don't see that with DA:O. Again i blame the low sense of mortality vs accomplishment.

In this video: from 0:27 on, we've got that excact quote which caused most of my dissappointment in the actual combat as it turned out. It impled SO MUCH and it ended up falling flat to my expectations. The hype of their marketing combined with "BG successor" and my experience with that games combat (which i personally think was what is emphasized the most in that game) led to me experiencing a "Molyneux" I got very dissappointed when it sunk in. I love the game, its lore and all the work they put into it. But the combat was way to subtle, no mortality and all that just led to me being rather "meh" when i first got it. It had like three or four High points which were the Dragons, Revenants and Gaxxkang. I am eternally thankful of these battles and i accept the homages that they are to us fans of the old. But the game was NOT what i and many others were led to believe and to our excuse even Combat gameplay videos would not have shown us this since it's all in the details.

This is why we're Dissappointed. Yelling and screaming profanities is no excuse, but those things are the reason. I like the game as it is now... but i wish they got proper marketing right from the beginning. On many fronts it was adequate, but we were not sufficiently educated on what the combat was all about, it got way hyped and fell flat.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 12 octobre 2010 - 06:23 .

[BomimoDK]

It does captivate you, maybe the battles are frivolous compared to BG but they are satisfying and fullfilling. A dissenting voice could maybe say that BG's battles are tedius now, compared with those of DAO.

I think it's the exsact opposite. Unexciting cannonfodder and just waltzing through 95% of the games enemies becomes tedious real quick. DAO does that. At least 50% of BG's battles are there for a proper reason with dialogue attached that explains just why you need to die. Or they are set piece battles.

The pace in this game is lower than anything i've seen. and the rythm is really out of pace too. You play for 12+ hours to complete each quest. Each quest equals to a 20 min storyline or so. I believe that's what they're working at rectifying. We have to remember this is a love child between old and new.



usually new is better. But in this case, it's not if you come for combat. So, i changed my attitude and i grieve for the combat but i play for the experience as a whole.