343 réponses à ce sujet

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

AuraofMana wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...
I said Baldur's Gate, not BG2.. different games, donchaknow.

Also, what happend was I was walking through the first open area after picking up Imoen and got sniped before I had even seen the mob. There was no opportunity to tank even if I had a tank with me.

Okay, well my solo Mage character was imported from BG1 so it's obviously doable. I never did try soloing though since BG1 isn't really a great game TBH. It was filled with a bunch of random locations with random people I didn't care about giving random quests that were not interesting... and then I get a bunch of random NPC's that join my party that I don't care about (except Minsc, who is awesome). I didn't like it the first time and only finished it years later because of BG II.

I'm sure it is doable. Never doubted it. I just got frustrated and for one reason or another never played  a second game to try again.

I'd try now,but I loaded it up not long ago and got thrown off by how ancient the graphics are. heh. That and it doesnt work with a wide screen well.

[Lukertin]

soteria wrote...

I don't know. You ever play Frogger? Or, to move away from video games, you play any sports? The basketball hoop never moves, but it's a remarkable person who can consistently land a 3-point shot. I think it's certainly possible for a static mechanic to be challenging and remain challenging for some time, but possibly not in an environment that allows you to manipulate time. It would be one thing if you could pause the game and just look/think, but being able to issue commands while paused totally eliminates a certain challenge. Whether that challenge is interesting or fun is another question.

That's a bad analogy.  Frogger is a repetitive script, and as a game, serves no purpose other than to kill time.  It has no other redeeming qualities.  No, it isn't remarkable that a person can consistently land 3-pt shots.  It takes lots of practice to learn the mechanics, and once you have that down, you can do it repeatedly time after time.  That's why everyone in the NBA can sink 3-pointers all day long without breaking a sweat--because they figured out how to do it, and just repeat the same motions.  If all basketball was was a couple of guys standing around in a court throwing 3pters that would be the most boring game ever made.  But it isn't.

[Pocketgb]

AuraofMana wrote...

Another problem with Dragon Age is that... well we all know Bioware is terrible at balancing classes. Balancing isn't as huge of a problem in SP games as do in MP (which gets me worried about TOR). However, because Bioware had been restricted to the DND system (which is a good thing, tbh...) in the past, there wasn't that much problem. As soon as Bioware ventures out and makes its own IP (ME and DA), the balancing is horrendous. Look at Mass Effect, the adept is completely OP. ME2 fares somewhat better but suffers from different balancing problems. Dragon Age has OP Mage characters where things like CCing, among other things, equals easy victory, even on Nightmare. This escalates in Awakening where everyone dominates.  Then Bioware tries to provide a challenge in Golems of Amgarrak and it becomes one of the hardest fights. There is never a middle ground where there should be an approriate challenge. This feeds to the the depth and difficulty problem these games suffer from.

Simply put, Bioware doesn't like the restrictions DND puts in its games, but at the same time cannot design a gameplay system to match the balance and complexity that is DND (DND has been out there for a while and played by many, so this is reasonable, but doesn't make the problem go away). While Bioware is known for its storylines, balancing games is not Bioware's strong point, and stepping away from DND has shown this very clearly. I am hoping this problem doesn't escalate to the point where it makes the game unbearable. The next step in Mass Effectifying Dragon Age 2 further lowers the complexity which doesn't bode well. For me, Bioware's latest ventures (this, lack of support and patching, Awakening) has me troubled.

MARRY ME


Although I don't think I'm terribly concerned with things being 'dumbed down', largely because they've definitely shown they can't handle 'too much'. I don't see too much of a difference between a game with little depth and a decent amount of balance vs. one with a lot of depth and little balance.

KalDurenik wrote...

And yes im also worried about TOR... Bioware is not known for their AI or Balance...

Well apparently the "Warhammer Online dudes" are designing the PvP side of things. So if you knew how things went in WAR then you'll know how things will go with ToR.

And, well, you'll know they'll go terribly. That game was far from balanced. I'm very worried about ToR.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 27 novembre 2010 - 11:27 .

[Sir JK]

AuraofMana: I think you got what I was trying to explain but missed the point I was making. Yes, spellcasting adds a lot to the Baldur's Gate series and for some reason, despite being very similar, not to Dragon Age. It essentially boils down to the spells.

What the spells in Baldur's Gate (and indeed D&D) does is that it provides a myriad of ways to approach a problem. Given that you pick a combination of many spells that you stick with to the next rest, this provides thousands if not millions of combinations to try. Not all of whom will be effective. Remove the possibility of building spell combinations to that degree and most of the complexity goes with it. As you point out yourself, all the really difficult fights in that game either includes spell-like abilities, spellcasters or something so tough that it is nigh unbeatable without a mage or two.

This I think is the core of why DAO is less difficult than BG I & II, the underlying principles are the same but the spellsystem is much much toned down. Giving us far fewer options to handle every fight. Like you said... all that is needed is to figure out the optimal techique for the party and all fights play the same.



Perhaps moving further away from the principles of the classic crpg is key to providing more depths for the game? To tone down reliance on spells and provide for other fundamental mechanics. Perhaps increase the value of positioning? So that it becomes so valuable that a good positioning affects how the combat plays out?

Perhaps it's a good idea to remove the hitpoints system and replace it with something else? After all, unlike in a tabletop game, the computer can actually do the more advanced calculations required for more realistic models without slowing anything down.



Putting more focus on the passive and active abilities of non-mages I think is another idea. To allow warriors and rogues to handle situations that in the past were exclusive to mages.



Something to think about I think.

[Marionetten]

Shinian2 wrote...

Someone earlier in this thread was talking about how 'perfect' Baldurs Gate was.. Well thats pretty subjective.

I liked it, but I gave up playing my preferred class, a mage, because I kept getting one shotted by random mob archers at the start of the game. Rerolld a fighter and finished the game.

I'm all for accessability if it means my chosen character is able to survive his or her first level.

Low level mages in Baldur's Gate rely heavily on wands, potions and scrolls... and yes, the protection of party members. This is one of the biggest reason as to why I loved playing a mage in it. You start out being more or less useless and as such you're forced to rely on your wit rather than brute strength. This, I think, teaches you a lot about how to play a spellcaster. You're not supposed to wade in and hurl spells around like a maniac. You're supposed to sit back, observe and make smart decisions. Sometimes the smartest decision is to let your warrior friend handle it. Not especially heroic, I know. While I admit it isn't for everyone I found it immensely rewarding and to date that pitiful low level mage remains the most fun I've had in any BioWare game to date.

Dragon Age: Origins had none of it. As a mage I never felt vulnerable other than the occasional holy smite hurled my way. Once I became an arcane warrior the game practically encouraged me to wade in and hurl spells around like a maniac. I was a juggernaut of destruction with no need for a party. A one man army. While entertaining at first it quickly grew stale and I've yet to finish Awakening because of it.

The magic system does need an overhaul to make it more interesting and involving. Mana and incessant spell spamming is as unimaginative as it gets. Unfortunately, I don't think BioWare is going to change it. Especially not with their whole new "press a button and awesome happens" philosophy. Spell preparation? Totally not awesome.

Modifié par Marionetten, 27 novembre 2010 - 11:54 .

[mopotter]

AuraofMana wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...
I said Baldur's Gate, not BG2.. different games, donchaknow.

Also, what happend was I was walking through the first open area after picking up Imoen and got sniped before I had even seen the mob. There was no opportunity to tank even if I had a tank with me.

Okay, well my solo Mage character was imported from BG1 so it's obviously doable. I never did try soloing though since BG1 isn't really a great game TBH. It was filled with a bunch of random locations with random people I didn't care about giving random quests that were not interesting... and then I get a bunch of random NPC's that join my party that I don't care about (except Minsc, who is awesome). I didn't like it the first time and only finished it years later because of BG II.

mopotter wrote...
Hard - at
dictionary.com  there are 59 definitions for the word hard. 41
adjectives;  9 adverbs; 3 nouns  and 5 idioms.    Hard can be gotten
through eventually.  I occasionally play on hard but not till I've
played on casual and normal for 5 or 6 times.    I hate games that will
take 10 or 15 plays before you can beat the battle.   As long as DA2 has
different choices I'll be satisfied.

I'm inclined to think
that even if BioWare had a setting that was impossible for 4 out of 5
players, that 5th player would manage to finish it and complain that it
wasn't impossible.     Depth of the story and the characters is far more
important to me than the difficulty, as long as there is more than one
difficulty choice. 

That is some hyperbole right there. The games we are referencing do not require 10 - 15 plays before you can beat the battle. Even 5 - 6 may be too much.
I can't believe you are defending this. Anyone can see Dragon Age is so easy it's a joke even on Nightmare, thus the argument of difficulty options is pointless. In addition, the problem with the difficulty is the lack of complexity, and by raising stats and enemy numbers can only do so much. While storytelling is important, the lack of difficulty will ruin the entire experience if it reaches a critical level.

Well, I may have misunderstood the post.  Wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood something.  

The ending of DA took me 4 tries on normal with my mage and I wouldn't call that easy.  I tried 3 different styles with 3 different companions and paused a lot to try and figure out a way to survive.  Finally just went back to a previous save, made a LOT of health and lithium potents and finished it.   This is not fun.  It's a pain in the butt.   If it hadn't had a good story I'd have tossed it and never gone back.  But with the good story I played the other choices and went down to easy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

A good example of a fight like that in DA:O is the rotating statue with the faces. Unfortunately, the bugginess makes it my least favorite fight in the game by a mile, but if you take the time to figure out the "puzzle" it's actually an interesting fight.

That fight could also be trivialised by staying off the platform and always pulling the enemies toward you.  If you never stood near the faces (except to run up and strike the anvils whenever you ran out of enemies), they'd spawn, and then stand there doing nothing until you pulled them.

Any time you can choose (and prepare) the ground on which the fight takes place, the fight is easier.

[AlanC9]

Lukertin wrote...
That's why everyone in the NBA can sink 3-pointers all day long without breaking a sweat--because they figured out how to do it, and just repeat the same motions.  If all basketball was was a couple of guys standing around in a court throwing 3pters that would be the most boring game ever made.  But it isn't.

You sure you mean 3-pointers?

[soteria]

Sir JK wrote...

EDIT: Soteria. While the basketball analogy isn't bad, I don't think the ability to manipulate time is the only cause. Another one is the logistical part of the game. Inventory management and stat-allocation matters a great deal more than many active decisions does. There is really only one approach to most situations and the success of that approach is pre-determined (by you). There is a tactical level, but it is to a extent eclipsed by the number allocation. Couple together with the ability to manipulate time is perhaps what causes the problem.

Well, that's true, but can't we balance the game to give stats less effect? One thing I've found while making my videos is that playing with worse stats/gear forces me to play more tactically. I remember beancounter501 commented that when he took his all-warrior group to the Broodmother, he just meleed her down with little effort. If Bioware had balanced stats and gear better, that wouldn't have been possible.

Or, couldn't we implement mechanics that prevent you from overpowering a fight with high stats? I can think of examples of what I'm thinking of from several games. In World of Warcraft, a mage was required to spellsteal a shield from a certain boss in order to succeed (it reduced incoming damage by ~90%). In Chrono Trigger, you had to cast fire spells at ogres to reduce their defenses, or you'd only deal ~20% damage. You couldn't ignore the tactical situation with high stats in either case.

We probably can't do anything about time manipulation (other than not letting you issue commands while paused) but I do believe we can fix or mitigate the stat issue.

[Monica83]

Anyways a nice rpg must make you feel inside the world on your are playng.. this is happened with bg saga no i give a list of what dragon age dragon age2 and bg2 features have...



Baldurs gate 2:



Many many classes..

Eccellent spell system

Detailed world with great differenc from one at another location...

A lot of item some magic some useless but nice to discover..Like books when you find it you can learn a lot of the world you are playng...

Great main plot

Nice and different depth sidequests

Party with personal sidequests..

Great characters with interact...

A great number of different ennemy and creatures..to meet and discover..

Nice investigation quests

..i can go on a lot of bg2 features but i stop here..



Dragon age origins:

Good class system but not so great

Low spell selection

Nice plot

Streamlized sidequests

Nice creatures ability

Great companion

Good information of the world of game..

Nice companion interaction...

Nice romance options...



Dragon age 2:

Schematic dialogue system..

Jerk animations that remember a trash C serie japanese game..

Less Character customization...

Static classes....

VO character..

-I don't mention forced to be human because its not a stepback per se if the story tells the legend of hawke and hawke its supposed to be human i't not a proble,-

Ridicolus teleport fighting gameplay

Example....

Warrior charge! *teleport* Strike

Rougue: Stab stab stab *teleport* stab stab stab *teleport*

Static inventory of companion...

Streamlized classes as hell...

Upgradable skills...

Shorter than origins..

Very Short development time (this mean less content)

Nice texture on graphic but for what i seen seems to much minimalistic and the ambient its not so detailed ((this in the demo ii played i don't know if the final game is different))



So for me.. Da2 its a broken game..

[Nerivant]

Monica83 wrote...
Dragon age 2:

Jerk animations that remember a trash C serie japanese game..

Ridicolus teleport fighting gameplay

Nice texture on graphic but for what i seen seems to much minimalistic and the ambient its not so detailed ((this in the demo ii played i don't know if the final game is different))

So for me.. Da2 its a broken game..

There are a lot of ways I could approach this, so I'm going to use the easiest.

You, as you said, have not played the final game.

Also, what is a "static class?"

[Monica83]

Static classes is when you are forced to be in the same manner when you replay the game..



In origin i can be a warrior archer.. or a two wield one.. or a heavyweapon one.. or i shield and sword one...



In da2 i will be forced to make warrior strenght based one... Havyweapon or shield and sword.. and this is a great stepback...



so less choice much more static bioware decided to cut off class features in order to keep them distinct selecting the whorse way to do it...



If they wanted to keep class distinct why don't add new skills whitout remove nothing?

[Nerivant]

Monica83 wrote...

Static classes is when you are forced to be in the same manner when you replay the game..

In origin i can be a warrior archer.. or a two wield one.. or a heavyweapon one.. or i shield and sword one...

In da2 i will be forced to make warrior strenght based one... Havyweapon or shield and sword.. and this is a great stepback...

so less choice much more static bioware decided to cut off class features in order to keep them distinct selecting the whorse way to do it...

If they wanted to keep class distinct why don't add new skills whitout remove nothing?

But this is all assumption. You can't know that the classes only have one way to play them without playing through the game yourself.

[Monica83]

No this is a fact... Just see how in origins they are... and read what the devs days about dragon age 2 ones.. Simple theu cutted half warrior ability only to add them to the rougue.. this make things much more static and not only distinct..

[Nerivant]

Monica83 wrote...

No this is a fact...

Sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble believing this.

[The Masked Rog]

I actually think distinct classes is a huge leap forward, even if these means you can't have a dualwield warrior. What was the difference between a DW rogue and warrior? In combat, none, only in some out of combat skills. This made it very difficult to draw a line between a rogue and a warrior combat wise, because you could have very similar rogues and warriors.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I think they are making it so that each class plays very differently - but the options on how to play within the class themselves are different. From their perspective they probably viewed a lot of the variety DA:O offered as redundant. And I kind of agree with them. Granted, I'm not a fan of class systems in general, nor am I a fan of linking weapon styles to combat roles - but as long as they're using a class system, I don't have a huge problem with what they're doing with DA:2.

If I want to tank or deal AOE damage, I play a S&B or 2H warrior. If I want to DPS a single target, I play a DW or ranged rogue. If I want to mess around with magic, I play a mage. I understand that folks who liked playing a DW Warrior or Archer Warrior would be disappointed at the change, but I was never one of those people. To be frank though, I've never - not back in BG1-2, or NWN, or any tactical CRPG, played it for the combat. The combat has always been the weak point of these games for me.

If I wanted a tactical or strategic challenge, I played the Total War games or Paradox Interactive titles.  If I wanted a more visceral and dynamic combat experience, I played a shooter or a flight sim.  That isn't to say I hate CRPG combat, it's just not my priority or the driving force behind why I enjoy the game.  I still have fun with it, but I'm by no means dedicated to any particular CRPG combat system as a result.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[Monica83]

Well this is different.. i think the best way to make a distinct class is add unique ability imagin that:



What they did in da2 the cutted half ability of a warrior and merged them in to the rogue..In this way you don't make nothing you only broke a class in order to complete another one..



The best thing when you have to make a distinct class is not remove but add...

For example i see better a rogue with others ability:



Take D&D 3.5 for example they are warrior and rougues they are similiar for something but they are also distinct without be static...



What i suggested to do:



Add new ability for the rogue:



Like: Disarm,Poisoning weapons,Better trap system,Better stealth system, Add the knifes at the weapon database for example or.. give them better interaction skills... The Way bioware selected is worse because in this way you don't implemente or improve nothing you only cut here and paste here and this is not good because you broke a class and you make the game much more static..

[Nerivant]

Monica83 wrote...
Take D&D 3.5 for example they are warrior and rougues they are similiar for something but they are also distinct without be static...

My Warrougagebardidanarianeror wants to have a word with you.

4e would be better for a diversity argument.

[Monica83]

4ed its the worse D&D ediction ever created you have very very less customization of your character so less opportunity to roleplay...

[The Masked Rog]

But they have added new abilities. Each class has 6 skill trees. 2 skill trees for class weapons in warrior and rogue means 3 entirely new trees, which supposedly are filled with talents aimed at making each class adept in a certain field. Plus you can unlock another complete tree by specializing. Seems to me they added a lot of stuff, since in DA:O the specialization tree was just four abilities.

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

4ed its the worse D&D ediction ever created you have very very less customization of your character so less opportunity to roleplay...

I dunno. 4ed was the first edition I was able to make my friends understand and enjoy. It was much, much more simple and fun to us than D&D3.5 because there were less calculations to make, we just created a backstory and roleplayed much more easily. We even had 2 mages at one point in the group and the way they were roleplayed made them feel very, very distinct.

[Nerivant]

Monica83 wrote...

4ed its the worse D&D ediction ever created you have very very less customization of your character so less opportunity to roleplay...

Why do you keep chaning the subject? We're talking about class diversity, which 4e is ahead of 3.5e in. And it's DnD, you can customize your character however the hell you want.

Are you really going to complain that DnD doesn't allow enough character customization?

[upsettingshorts]

People going back and forth about which self-limiting class systems give them more roleplaying freedom makes my skill-based system loving head spin.

[Monica83]

We must whait to try the finished game to have a better knowlege about this anyways the way bioware choice to follow made me be very worryed this is not the bioware i know and i don't recongise it at all