211 réponses à ce sujet

[Arppis]

moilami wrote...

Annie_Dear wrote...

I think it was to stop people from stripping their companions off their armor in order to sell them

*cough Naked Alistair at Landsmeet cough*

WIll have to remember try all naked team in Landsmeet with nude mod (just for lols, not for gear sale.)

The joining was so hilarious with all naked team with nude mod that I laughed madly and maybe better than ever in any so called cRPG.

Hahaha, that would be awesome. Especialy having this confident & cocky look on the face.

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

Modifié par Arppis, 06 mars 2011 - 10:27 .

[Lumikki]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

Anyways, my idea is that if the DLC isn't worth your time or money then just don't buy it, cause the original game is good enough (at least that goes for armor, I may disagree with some of the prices for gameplay DLC.)

That's the hole point. Yes, everyone is free to choose do they buy something or not.

How ever, is the orginal game good, if it has deliberately made less, so that company can sell the stuff, what they have taken off seperatly. This means player buying the game, doesn't anymore get "full" good game, more like stripped-down basic version, what can made full game only by buying the DLC stuff.

It's little like different do we get from DLC addional story as continue to story or do we buy game features back what has been taken off.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 mars 2011 - 10:39 .

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

moilami wrote...
What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

I have no problem with the first, DA:O, but game after game more and more is taken away by Bioware from their RPGs, why?

Look at Neverwinter Nights, lots of classes, lots of options for builds, lots of spells and abilities, armor and weapons did matter for the simple fact you could not hurt some monsters without being prepared, i mean it offered challenges to the player, right now DA2 is just a hack and slash fest.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 06 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[Arppis]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

moilami wrote...
What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

I have no problem with the first, DA:O, but game after game more and more is taken away by Bioware from their RPGs, why?

Look at Neverwinter Nights, lots of classes, lots of options for builds, lots of spells and abilities, armor and weapons did matter for the simple fact you could not hurt some monsters without being prepared, i mean it offered challenges to the player, right now DA2 is just a hack and slash fest.

I see, so you would like the game to have some other variation than just tactics? Like in mythic tales where you couldn't kill Medusa without a mirror? Wouldn't be a bad idea. I find it quite interesting to have some monsters which only have 1-2 weakneses.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Arppis wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

moilami wrote...
What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

I have no problem with the first, DA:O, but game after game more and more is taken away by Bioware from their RPGs, why?

Look at Neverwinter Nights, lots of classes, lots of options for builds, lots of spells and abilities, armor and weapons did matter for the simple fact you could not hurt some monsters without being prepared, i mean it offered challenges to the player, right now DA2 is just a hack and slash fest.

I see, so you would like the game to have some other variation than just tactics? Like in mythic tales where you couldn't kill Medusa without a mirror? Wouldn't be a bad idea. I find it quite interesting to have some monsters which only have 1-2 weakneses.

Who doesn´t remember trolls? they could only be killed with fire for example, or a boss that you needed better arrows or swords because his skin was too tough, and mosnter abilities should also be something more dangerous that a player needed to be aware, i like games that pose a bit more of challenge that´s why i play RPGs.

[Naitaka]

*cough* fire and acid *cough*

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Dave of Canada wrote...

RyuKaiser wrote...

Look at the difference in game sizes. DA:O was 20 GB. This game is about 5 or 6. I think that should tell you just what to expect from the game, both in options, looks, and length.

Yeah, no.

We already know of the length and options and we've seen the looks. Unless 40-50 hours is considered short nowadays.

Really who cares about time? Tell me how long a game is without cut scenes and filler combat. 

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Naitaka wrote...

*cough* fire and acid *cough*

Ah right

[nomzy]

I'm not really that fussed about it. I mean not once did I change Morrigans armor except for the upgrade you get from her personal quest. Hell, most of the other gear didn't look all that great 'till you hit end game, and even then there wasn't that much. All this means now is that I don't have to fidget about with armor I loot and compare it to companions armor, just mine. Meh, I don't really care either way, it's not a deal-breaker for me.
I like being able to pick what weapons they use though. :3 double standards.

[Cadaveth]

Arppis wrote...

What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

They removed all these annoying stat-fiddling which was present in D&D -era cRPG s since they're so confusing and make people stop playing after few hours (the quitting has nothing to do with first few hours of combat...). Besides that, weaker story with filler combat and endless trash mobs come to mind. They were in BG-series, but nothing as bad as the cluster**** of The Temple Of 1000 Cultists or Derp Roads. It also tells something that  you could breeze through the game on hardest setting just by flinging same spells and chugging potions when needed.

I wouldn't call Baldur's Gate -series deep, per se.

[Arppis]

Cadaveth wrote...

Arppis wrote...

What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

They removed all these annoying stat-fiddling which was present in D&D -era cRPG s since they're so confusing and make people stop playing after few hours (the quitting has nothing to do with first few hours of combat...). Besides that, weaker story with filler combat and endless trash mobs come to mind. They were in BG-series, but nothing as bad as the cluster**** of The Temple Of 1000 Cultists or Derp Roads. It also tells something that  you could breeze through the game on hardest setting just by flinging same spells and chugging potions when needed.

I wouldn't call Baldur's Gate -series deep, per se.

Yeah, the game customization has been simplyfied in the DA2. But there are skill trees now for every class. That makes it up, mixed up with the gear that is. But yeah, there is more "filler combat" which I find enjoyable at times and annoying at other times. Doesn't still take deepness out of it.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...


But complainers are just the vocal minority!

Anyone thats vocal is a minority even if they just offer support.

[VienxInq23]

Not having being able to equip/re-equip items/armor is just plane lazy on the development part. It's less they have to do/deal with. DAO didn't really have a a good items system. I mean you really didn't have a good choice and the items sets were lame. The Warden Commanders set I liked but not to much else. I know it's all speculation intill we can actually play the game but it seems they revamped the combat system and gutted the game a good deal. This seems like it will be the trademark game of Bioware/EA if all turns out as planned.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

rwar wrote...


another reason are games are more streamline these days. simplier, faster, straight forawrd,  easier to pick up for causal gamers, etc.  can't imagine gamers that normally plays action games would like to spend too much time managing your parties' equipment.

Why not? Most of the high budget RPGs today play like poor to mediocre action games. So why would someone who plays RPGs not play good action games or better yet why would someone who plays an RPG with poor action combat not want to manage parties? If someone buys an RPG like DA 2 they probably arent buying it for the combat. 

[Arppis]

VienxInq23 wrote...

Not having being able to equip/re-equip items/armor is just plane lazy on the development part. It's less they have to do/deal with. DAO didn't really have a a good items system. I mean you really didn't have a good choice and the items sets were lame. The Warden Commanders set I liked but not to much else. I know it's all speculation intill we can actually play the game but it seems they revamped the combat system and gutted the game a good deal. This seems like it will be the trademark game of Bioware/EA if all turns out as planned.

Armor sets look pretty bad in most games. I did like the Dragon Plate armor (I wore it trough the Awakening) and the Warden Commander set.

But I kinda like the armor sets I have seen in this new game. They look good, but ofcourse, let us see what the higher level armor look like. Most likely they will be pink or something riddicilous like in most games.

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Arppis wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

moilami wrote...
What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

I have no problem with the first, DA:O, but game after game more and more is taken away by Bioware from their RPGs, why?

Look at Neverwinter Nights, lots of classes, lots of options for builds, lots of spells and abilities, armor and weapons did matter for the simple fact you could not hurt some monsters without being prepared, i mean it offered challenges to the player, right now DA2 is just a hack and slash fest.

I see, so you would like the game to have some other variation than just tactics? Like in mythic tales where you couldn't kill Medusa without a mirror? Wouldn't be a bad idea. I find it quite interesting to have some monsters which only have 1-2 weakneses.

Who doesn´t remember trolls? they could only be killed with fire for example, or a boss that you needed better arrows or swords because his skin was too tough, and mosnter abilities should also be something more dangerous that a player needed to be aware, i like games that pose a bit more of challenge that´s why i play RPGs.

Let's face it. Games like Baldur's Gate 2 would never be made today. Let's just be happy we got to experience them when we did.

[VienxInq23]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

RyuKaiser wrote...

Look at the difference in game sizes. DA:O was 20 GB. This game is about 5 or 6. I think that should tell you just what to expect from the game, both in options, looks, and length.

Yeah, no.

We already know of the length and options and we've seen the looks. Unless 40-50 hours is considered short nowadays.

Really who cares about time? Tell me how long a game is without cut scenes and filler combat. 

Time does matter in an RPG. In the #2 Cast it was stated that the game is shorter than DAO. DAO was a 30hr game with doing a few sidequests. If DA2 is shorter than that  it was misleading of Mike Laidlaw in the interview () to state that DOA took place over 2 years and the story of DA2 is over a decade inferring that DA2 is a longer/bigger game .

Modifié par VienxInq23, 06 mars 2011 - 12:35 .

[Arppis]

Less tighter story then.

But I have to admit, if they would remove Hawke's dialogue and could make the game longer that way. I would say: do it.

Modifié par Arppis, 06 mars 2011 - 12:38 .

[LordPaul256]

Arppis wrote...

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

Always?  There's been one game! 

Cadaveth wrote...

They removed all these annoying stat-fiddling which was present in D&D -era cRPG s since they're so confusing and make people stop playing after few hours (the quitting has nothing to do with first few hours of combat...). Besides that, weaker story with filler combat and endless trash mobs come to mind. They were in BG-series, but nothing as bad as the cluster**** of The Temple Of 1000 Cultists or Derp Roads. It also tells something that  you could breeze through the game on hardest setting just by flinging same spells and chugging potions when needed.

I wouldn't call Baldur's Gate -series deep, per se.

Correction:
....since they're so confusing and make me stop playing after few hours....

A lot of us liked the tactics involved in choosing between weapons and armor with different effects.  There's much more deliberation when you're choosing between two +3 swords that offer either fire damage (trolls, vampires, etc.) or one that makes you immune to charm and confusion.  In games like Dragon Age I tend to choose the one with more damage almost every time.  I mean, you get Starfang, and you're set for the entire game.  It's a whole set of tactics removed. 

Well, I'm sure you're an expert BG player who both quit after a few hours of not being able to figure out the incredibly complicated system of 18 = near max, 8 = average for stats and the tedium of choosing between two very clearly defined weapons & who somehow got through the entire game flinging spells without ever resting and chugging potions (???) whenever you needed more spells.

Finally, per se is Latin for "in itself."  It doesn't mean "exactly."

[Arppis]

LordPaul256 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

Always?  There's been one game! 

Sorry English isn't my primary languange. And that was just a typo there...

I ment to say that the first game is very deep, it had enough backstory and lore to explain how things work. To me that's deep. Plus the gameplay had enough flexibility in terms of dialogue and character abilities. It offered me a great experience in all of it's aspects. Even Awakening was awesome.

Modifié par Arppis, 06 mars 2011 - 12:54 .

[PhrosniteAgainROFL]

The OP is way too paranoid..

[Arppis]

PhrosniteAgainROFL wrote...

The OP is way too paranoid..

Maybe some Zyprexa to calm his troubled mind?

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Arppis wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

An RPG was something alot more
deep from what Bioware is doing now, and sure hope they start to tag
their games as Action Adventure because thats what they are becoming.

moilami wrote...
What is so diffirent compaired to Baldur's Gate for example?

Dragon Age games always were pretty deep imo.

I have no problem with the first, DA:O, but game after game more and more is taken away by Bioware from their RPGs, why?

Look at Neverwinter Nights, lots of classes, lots of options for builds, lots of spells and abilities, armor and weapons did matter for the simple fact you could not hurt some monsters without being prepared, i mean it offered challenges to the player, right now DA2 is just a hack and slash fest.

I see, so you would like the game to have some other variation than just tactics? Like in mythic tales where you couldn't kill Medusa without a mirror? Wouldn't be a bad idea. I find it quite interesting to have some monsters which only have 1-2 weakneses.

Who doesn´t remember trolls? they could only be killed with fire for example, or a boss that you needed better arrows or swords because his skin was too tough, and mosnter abilities should also be something more dangerous that a player needed to be aware, i like games that pose a bit more of challenge that´s why i play RPGs.

Let's face it. Games like Baldur's Gate 2 would never be made today. Let's just be happy we got to experience them when we did.

Yeah unfortunately you´re right, i have nothing against Dragon Age, but i am just sad to see a company like Bioware deviating slowly from those games, not many companies create solid RPgs because of the mass console users, but what the heck i still have games like Guild Wars 2, The Witcher 2, Skyrim and more that are deep enough in the aspects i like so no worries. :happy:

[PinkShoes]

So...?

Bioware is a COMPNAY. They wanna make money obviously. Even if they did no big deal dont buy it. Simple.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

PinkShoes wrote...

So...?

Bioware is a COMPNAY. They wanna make money obviously. Even if they did no big deal dont buy it. Simple.

Yes as i said there are plenty of other alternatives, so to each his own.

/thread