123 réponses à ce sujet

[andar91]

FedericoV wrote...

andar91 wrote...

So I was right! Maybe....  I suspected that each tree would be for an element, but doesn't that kind off cut crowd control and healing a bit short?  Or are there simple less of those spells.  I love hurling lightning and fire as much as they next mage, but I love paralyzing/putting to sleep/debuffing/confusing/healing/protecting too. I hope they haven't been cut down to nothing.

As far as I can tell, each spell tree serves a different tactical purpose. So, you'll use fire for raw damage, ice for controll, etc. etc. etc.

Ah, I see what you're saying.  Peter did say that each of the elements focus on different things.  He said fire was raw damage over wide areas but random, cold was shortest range with smallest area but can freeze or slow, lightning ingnores friendly fire and is very fast and can stun but only deals moderate damage, and earth has high impact and...he couldn't say much about earth.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

JohnEpler wrote...

Alodar wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Thank you for the nice review.
DA:O looked Baroque...eh?
Hmm, guess the art direction team never heard the phrase "If it ain't Baroque don't fix it?"

You're fired. Clean out your locker.

You can't get rid of someone who makes a Boroque pun --- they always come Bach ...


Alodar

I got a whole stack of these pink slips. You want one too, Alodar?!?

Hey Alodar, you know what this means don't you? If we were fired, then somehow, at one point, we must of worked at Bioware. Yep, that's going on my resume now!

[themageguy]

i wonder what else the earth spells do?

So 4 of the 6 branches are primal, what were the other 2?

[FedericoV]

I thank Ilmater for the ressurection .

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 03:21 .

[Itkovian]

See, I don't understand why it's an action RPG.

From what I understand, the rules remain there, if somewhat altered (lide armour is a % based reduction now). There is still an attack stat that is compared to the target's defense stat, which determines if the attack hits its target, and damage is still determined by equipment and character stats. Abilities are determined by chracter abilities.

The only change making it more "action-RPG" that I know of, following previews, is that combat is faster paced and longer does the the shuffle-shuffle-strike thing. But how does that make it an action RPG?

Sure, on console you need to press a button to do a normal attack, but on PC right-click still does auto-attack (which are faster, I imagine). So functionally it's the same, you just need to push a button more often for console.

I mean, this still isn't like Fable, where you swing your sword and you will absolutely hit whatever target is there, or like Oblivion where character skills only define the damage and you need to rely on your own aiming to hit your target (which, ok, you need to do for area effect attacks... but you had to do the same in DAO for attacks like the 2-handed sweep).

So, unless I am mistaken and they did do away with attack and defense stats, I don't think the change is really that drastic. The whole action-RPG part sounds more like marketing than an actual fundamental change to DAO's classic-RPG mechanics. It's basically the same basic mechanics only faster and spruced up.

That hardly warrants comparison to Diablo or Fable, IMO.

Itkovian

[Lord_Caledore]

Thanks for the write-up! It's nice to hear someone's hands-on approach, and so far, I like what I hear. The new graphics give me pause, but gameplay sounds like an improvement over DA:O...visceral, engaging, responsive...those adjectives you used for it are exactly what I'm hoping for!



I'm hoping we get more and more of these hands-on write-ups of people who have tried the game in the next couple weeks.

[Brosef84]

[/quote]



I liked Origins LotR looks:crying:. The new DS look more comedic than scary.

[/quote]

Origins had no distinct art style of its own and did not resemble LoTR at all, even the developers have clearly stated DA:O is not a good looking game.  I for one am very glad they are leaving behind the muddy browns and bland scenery and adopting a fresh, new art style.  Definately an upgrade in the art department because DA:O was not a good looking game.

[Brosef84]

[/quote]



I liked Origins LotR looks:crying:. The new DS look more comedic than scary.

[/quote]

Origins had no distinct art style of its own and did not resemble LoTR at all, even the developers have clearly stated DA:O is not a good looking game.  I for one am very glad they are leaving behind the muddy browns and bland scenery and adopting a fresh, new art style.  Definately an upgrade in the art department because DA:O was not a good looking game.

SRRY: double post
[/quote]

Modifié par Brosef84, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[Shadow Warior]

Thanks for the review FedericoV

I understand that you can pick whatever spell you want if you have enough magic, so you can get lightning bolt and jump to inferno, am I correct?

Are all of the spells upgradeable?

[FedericoV]

Itkovian wrote...

See, I don't understand why it's an action RPG.

From what I understand, the rules remain there, if somewhat altered (lide armour is a % based reduction now). There is still an attack stat that is compared to the target's defense stat, which determines if the attack hits its target, and damage is still determined by equipment and character stats. Abilities are determined by chracter abilities.

The only change making it more "action-RPG" that I know of, following previews, is that combat is faster paced and longer does the the shuffle-shuffle-strike thing. But how does that make it an action RPG?

So, unless I am mistaken and they did do away with attack and defense stats, I don't think the change is really that drastic. The whole action-RPG part sounds more like marketing than an actual fundamental change to DAO's classic-RPG mechanics. It's basically the same basic mechanics only faster and spruced up.

That hardly warrants comparison to Diablo or Fable, IMO.

Itkovian

Consider that I played DA:O on the PC and the DA2 demo on the consolle as allready mentioned before. So, having to push a button for each attack, the experience resulted more similar to action RPGs and less to the cooperative and tactical gameplay of DA:O. And if you push a button, something awesome happens ! Sorry, I could not resist...

The game felt like they removed in good part the chess-like approach to combat of DA:O, wich was the strongest link between DA:O and BG in terms of gameplay. So, I used the term action-rpg because I wanted to make it clear that DA2 has not a lot to do with BGish classical gameplay (that's what a lot of people wanted to know one month ago, now is given for granted ).

For sure, the game is more action oriented, the pace is faster and the animation are deliberately exagerated. I know, the rule system is still there running underground, so it's still a classical RPG at the chore but it looks and it plays like an Action-rpg in many ways (at least, the demo on the consolles).

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[FedericoV]

Shadow Warior wrote...

Thanks for the review FedericoV
I understand that you can pick whatever spell you want if you have enough magic, so you can get lightning bolt and jump to inferno, am I correct?

I'm not sure to understand your question here. But if you're asking me if you can select any spell you like regardless of your charachter, the answer is no. You have to choose the spells while levelling just like DA:O to use them in battle.

Are all of the spells upgradeable?

In the demo only a limited number of spell was upgraded but I do not know if the final game will be like that or not.

[AlanC9]

IIRC there's a toggle to make consoles work by auto-attack, unless that's changed. I wonder how the console play would feel with that toggle set?

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC there's a toggle to make consoles work by auto-attack, unless that's changed. I wonder how the console play would feel with that toggle set?

Not exactly a toggle. You have the "attack" order on the radial menu, which makes the character autoattack unless the situation changes.

[Shadow Warior]

FedericoV wrote...

Shadow Warior wrote...

Thanks for the review FedericoV
I understand that you can pick whatever spell you want if you have enough magic, so you can get lightning bolt and jump to inferno, am I correct?

I'm not sure to understand your question here. But if you're asking me if you can select any spell you like regardless of your charachter, the answer is no. You have to choose the spells while levelling just like DA:O to use them in battle.

The question was if you have the necessary requirements for the spell, example for inferno you need 40 magic, can you take inferno  (after you levelled up and you have a point to spend on a new spell) if you have 40 magic or do you have to fill all the fire branch ( go, flame blast»flaming weapons»fire ball» and then inferno)?
thank for the answers

[FedericoV]

Shadow Warior wrote...

The question was if you have the necessary requirements for the spell, example for inferno you need 40 magic, can you take inferno  (after you levelled up and you have a point to spend on a new spell) if you have 40 magic or do you have to fill all the fire branch ( go, flame blast»flaming weapons»fire ball» and then inferno)?
thank for the answers

Thanks for the clarification: yes, you can skip a spell if you have the requirements, but we should see how the req works (maybe they are not only stat based but counts upgrades too...).

[RogueWriter3201]

FedericoV wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Nice review, but last comment isn't true. DA2 is NOT a better game than DA:O under EVERY aspect. The wrong word here is every aspect, because example player has less races to play, that is aspect what was better in DAO. I'm sure if we look other character development choises too we see that DA2 is more limited. My point, DA2 may be better game in MANY aspect, but not every.

Yes, but the last comment was not supposed to be true or to be false. It's only my opinion. I understand your point but for me it was not an issue since I never play elfves or dwarves (was it for me those kind of races would not be in the setting from the beginning). Honestly, Origins were a real good way to understand DA's setting. But as a game feature, they were mostly a waste of resources in my eyes since they have not any kind of lasting effect if not for the Noble origin (wich sounded as the standard one). Imho, you can't tell a story that is good for every race and every charachter. If you focus on story driven gameplay like Bioware, having less choice at the beginning means more depth in the rest of the game (at least, I hope so).

Though you covered this topic in great depth, I just felt I needed to touch on it once more. I have always been of the same mind in regards to what I felt was a waste of time and resources, including the other races. Now, before I get stoned by the masses here, let me speak. For anyone who played *all* the races it's clear that the two races that recieved the most attention story and character development wise was the Cousland and Aeducan Origins. One had a central villian tied in *very* closely to the game's overall plot and also was the only Origin which permitted you the option to become a Prince/Princess while the later was deeply tied into the fate of an entire City and it's people's way of life for better or worse.

For all the other Origins, there were some small variations and even secondary characters that were incountered later as part of quest plots, but nothing in the scope and magnitude of the Cousland Origin. To me, it would have simply made the most sense to center the game on the Cousland Story, mainting the ability to choose sexes (obviously) while allowing said Cousland PC to be any class, and doing so would have worked in the context of the story while not crapping on the Lore. Case in point, I love playing a Mage, and despite the fact that the Circle Tower sub-plot is interesting, it in no way possesses the intregal depth and complexity of the Noble Origin.

Had the Cousland origin been the sole starting point the story could have easily been set (for Mages) that Bryce Cousland fought alongside Mages during the War with Orlais and, despite being an ardent Royalist, did not agree with the manner in which they were subjugated by the Chantry despite being a believer in the Faith himself. So, when his child was born and showed signs of The Gift, Bryce and Elenor hired a hedge Mage (Could have been Jowan in this version) to train thier child outside the authority of the Chantry. And, unlike what happens with Isolde and Connor in Redcliff, M!Cousland or F!Cousland are made the better for it. Could have added some great complex aspects to the PC's view of the Chantry and the Tower and even with said PC's relationship to Wynne upon the elder mentor learning that her "Brave and Good," companion was, in fact, trained *outside* the Tower.

That said, though I would have prefered a single starting point, I feel Mr. Gaider and company did a great job with storytelling; none the less, I *do* feel that time and talent was wasted allocating them to Origins that felt outside the central story, especially the Daelish Origin which was not even touched upon in great detail until Witch Hunt. So, in closing, I think it has been, easily, the *best* decision in regards to Dragon Age's new direction. Thank you for the Review and for sharing your observations about you time with the game and it's mechanics.

[Addai]

Good review, OP, though I am still waiting to read one from someone who doesn't share your opinion that DAO was a very flawed game.

[FedericoV]

Addai67 wrote...

Good review, OP, though I am still waiting to read one from someone who doesn't share your opinion that DAO was a very flawed game.

I would never say that DA:O was a very flawed game. In many ways it was a brilliant CRPG (especially the story, the NPCs, the main quest design and the writing wich I loved and regarded greatly). My main concern was the gameplay,  I mean, the combat system. It was not bad, but it was only ok. No more and no less. And I expected something more from a game that was marketed as the spiritual successor of BG.

You know, I loved BG1 & 2. They are my favourite games of all time. I'm replaying BG2+Tob right now thanks to Good Old Games (never played it in the original english language) and Dear Lord... it's really a brilliant game for its time. So much fun. I love everything of it (except the "you must gather your party before venturing forth" ).

My problem with DA:O is that it was not a BG clone (wich I would love even now) but it's not something completely different and good on its own. In my view, DA:O lies somewhere in between BG2, action rpgs and mmo. The game does not have personality in terms of gameplay. It's not bad but it does not excel in any department. It does not have the tactical/cooperative feel of BG. It does not have the accessibility/pace of an action rpg. And it does not have the addictivity of an MMO. The end result is a little bit flat and at the long term boring. You know, 10 years has passed and I can still remember some of the most memorable fights in BG2 or Diablo 2. When I think to DA:O, no battles comes to mind. Maybe just the first Ogre Boss. I just remember a never ending stream of Darkspawn.

So I appreciate the decision made by the dev team. Since they cannot make a real BG sequel (because they are not interested in such a game for the time being and because maybe it would not be a good investment in terms of expected sales), it's better that they do the game that they want to make and follow their intuition and ideas. I hope that a better game will be the result of it.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I feel the need to explain my position .

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:05 .

[Addai]

FedericoV wrote...
The end result is a little bit flat and at the long term boring. You know, 10 years has passed and I can still remember some of the most memorable fights in BG2 or Diablo 2. When I think to DA:O, no battles comes to mind. Maybe just the first Ogre Boss. I just remember a never ending stream of Darkspawn.

Well yeah, like I said, you think it's a very flawed game.  LOL

I don't mean to criticize your review, it is well done.  Just waiting to hear a similarly honest reaction to DA2 from a DAO player who likes it the way I do.

[FedericoV]

glenboy24 wrote...

Though you covered this topic in great depth, I just felt I needed to touch on it once more

Thanks for the reply! What to add? Simply put it's well reasoned and I agree with everything you say. For me the only solution to the problem that would allow the coexistence of sorydriven background and different origins would be to make a game with multiple protagonist that share a different but in some way connected plot. A game with multiple point of views like George Martin's "A song of Ice and Fire" series. I seem to understand that it's the direction they have taken with TOR solo part in some way. I imagine that it's unreasonable for a single player game in term of budget (at least with voice over and everything) but a man can dream .

[FedericoV]

Addai67 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
The end result is a little bit flat and at the long term boring. You know, 10 years has passed and I can still remember some of the most memorable fights in BG2 or Diablo 2. When I think to DA:O, no battles comes to mind. Maybe just the first Ogre Boss. I just remember a never ending stream of Darkspawn.

Well yeah, like I said, you think it's a very flawed game.  LOL

I don't mean to criticize your review, it is well done.  Just waiting to hear a similarly honest reaction to DA2 from a DAO player who likes it the way I do.

I don't take it as a critic, but as an occasion to expand my point of view. And I also wanted to express how much I loved the narrative and rpg part of origins. Simply put, combat has not worked for me!

[jackkel dragon]

This review tells me that I will enjoy this new direction. I'll be burned at the stake for this, but this is how I would have designed DA2, only it's being done by those more experienced than I.



Thank you for the review, and excuse me while I hide in a bunker with my laptop and try to survive the nostaliga fallout (aimed at me for this post.)

[AlexXIV]

Nice review. It sounds like my kind of game. I just don't know why it can't be a spiritual successor of BG. I mean, it is 'spiritual successor' and not same-same. You still have a party, not solo character. You still have deep a fanatsy story, you still have deep characters. So I do actually think that DA is a game in the spirit of BG etc. Just that it is 10 years after. I mean do people really want non-voiced characters, 2D graphics, uncomfortable, slow combat systems, etc.? If so they can still play the old games imo.

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Though you covered this topic in great depth, I just felt I needed to touch on it once more

Thanks for the reply! What to add? Simply put it's well reasoned and I agree with everything you say. For me the only solution to the problem that would allow the coexistence of sorydriven background and different origins would be to make a game with multiple protagonist that share a different but in some way connected plot. A game with multiple point of views like George Martin's "A song of Ice and Fire" series. I seem to understand that it's the direction they have taken with TOR solo part in some way. I imagine that it's unreasonable for a single player game in term of budget (at least with voice over and everything) but a man can dream .

I totally agree with you, and I really want a future DA game to do this.  Have you played Suikoden 3?  They went the multiple protaganist/POV route, and I think they did it fairly well.