127 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesX]

I have no problem with the spell count.



I ever only use maybe 15 spells tops in BG and NWN

[K3m0sabe]

dbankier wrote...

K3m0sabe wrote...

Dragon Age's system is extremely simple when pitted against past Bioware fantasy rpg's, namely the Baluster's Gate franchise.

At least get the name right if you're going use BG as basis of comparison. The difference here is that low level spells are supposed to remain useful throughout the game, since their power scales as you increase your level and attributes. There were some spells that did this in AD&D, like Chromatic Orb and Magic Missile, but many of them became utterly useless as you gained power, as they were resisted, saved against or just didn't work at all.

Starting the discussion with references to typos is not the most constructive way to argue, it just passes off a petty attitude.

If i recall correctly, in Dragon Age your spell selection is limited to your talent tree within the mage class, seeing as you can only fully develop 2 such talent lines, the spell selection is very limited and extremely specialized.

Such constraints make for a less "fleshed out" experience for a mage in Dragon Age when compared to a mage in Throne of Bhaal for example, the mage battles there were epic to say the least.

I'm sure the spell lines will be fleshed out a bit more with the DLC, but any major changes would necessarily involve upping the level cap so as to the PC having more talent points to spend on extra spells, unless such spells were unique skills granted by items or quests.

[akcorr]

SnipeyMcGee wrote...

Gotta say I think the DnD point reeks of bias. While the DnD system is in-depth, it's also sluggish for most PC Games unless you hide or change a decent portion of it's key features. I love Baldur's Gate series (my favorite of the Bioware games), but I did not love it's combat. It was alright, but in comparison to what most modern gamers expect a little convoluted and tedious. I like complexity, I just don't like the DnD system for combat.

I totally agree!

[Herr Uhl]

K3m0sabe wrote...

If i recall correctly, in Dragon Age your spell selection is limited to your talent tree within the mage class, seeing as you can only fully develop 2 such talent lines, the spell selection is very limited and extremely specialized.

You get a new spell per level and three starting spells. That brings it to being able to fully developing about 5 if you reach level 20...

Might be wrong, but that is the last I heard at least.

[SheffSteel]

Can we be sure of what the reviewer meant by "MMORPGish" in this context? If not, that opinion is a bit meaningless.



If it just means that the reviewer is sick of Kill X number of creature Y and bring me the organ Z as proof, then it's nice of them to point out that those quests exist, but it hardly sinks the game for me... not when I know there are also larger side quests (e.g. origin specific, race specific).



Another point: I think there will be more than 64 spells in DA:O. I could be wrong, and the character creator might have shown the complete list, but I don't remember seeing blood magic listed... and I thought there were common spells in addition to the Nature, Entropy etc groups which each contained 16. Am I mistaken?

[endaround]

K3m0sabe wrote...

dbankier wrote...

K3m0sabe wrote...

Dragon Age's system is extremely simple when pitted against past Bioware fantasy rpg's, namely the Baluster's Gate franchise.

At least get the name right if you're going use BG as basis of comparison. The difference here is that low level spells are supposed to remain useful throughout the game, since their power scales as you increase your level and attributes. There were some spells that did this in AD&D, like Chromatic Orb and Magic Missile, but many of them became utterly useless as you gained power, as they were resisted, saved against or just didn't work at all.

Starting the discussion with references to typos is not the most constructive way to argue, it just passes off a petty attitude.

If i recall correctly, in Dragon Age your spell selection is limited to your talent tree within the mage class, seeing as you can only fully develop 2 such talent lines, the spell selection is very limited and extremely specialized.

Such constraints make for a less "fleshed out" experience for a mage in Dragon Age when compared to a mage in Throne of Bhaal for example, the mage battles there were epic to say the least.

I'm sure the spell lines will be fleshed out a bit more with the DLC, but any major changes would necessarily involve upping the level cap so as to the PC having more talent points to spend on extra spells, unless such spells were unique skills granted by items or quests.

No you have spell selection wrong.  You don't pick a spell school then have to stay with in it.

[DPB]

K3m0sabe wrote...

Starting the discussion with references to typos is not the most constructive way to argue, it just passes off a petty attitude.

Yes, you're right, that was rather harsh. Sorry about that.

SheffSteel wrote...

Another point: I think there will be
more than 64 spells in DA:O. I could be wrong, and the character
creator might have shown the complete list, but I don't remember seeing
blood magic listed... and I thought there were common spells in
addition to the Nature, Entropy etc groups which each contained 16. Am
I mistaken?

I believe the 64 spells doesn't include those you gain from specialisations.

Modifié par dbankier, 28 octobre 2009 - 06:33 .

[dtsazza]

If anything, the fact that the story is great and the combat is (possibly) lacking is a good sign that Bioware's gone the right way with this RPG - it's not supposed to be primarily about the combat, it's about the storyline.



OTOH, I also agree that I find it unlikely that the fights are more restrictive than D&D games, where fighters just hit attack, and there were potentially more spells, but no direct interaction and as many have said, most became useless. Playing a mage or sorcerer in e.g. NWN2, I always find I tend to use about a half dozen spells anyway (one good AOE damage, one good single-target damage, some buffs, a heal etc.). Whether resistances in this game will require you to vary spells as you might have done with Flame Arrow vs. Cone of Cold vs. Lightening Bolt in D&D is a different question.

[Xetirox]

willtraverse wrote...

64 spells doesn't seem so limited to me. The older D&D based games must have had quite a lot of magic.

Yeah, but a single mage is only going to learn about a third of them at most.

Regardless, I say let D&D's ruleset (and especially its terminology) stay on the tabletop where it belongs. Now, I enjoyed the combat in Baldur's Gate, but trying to fully grasp the system when starting up and not knowing a damn thing about the rules is daunting, even moreso when none of the documentation even tries to explain it. Now, it is a simple enough system when figured out, but measuring and presenting everything in terms of die rolls that you will never see (from damage ranges to THAC0) only makes things unneccesarily confusing.

dtsazza wrote...
If anything, the fact that the story is great and the combat is (possibly)
lacking is a good sign that Bioware's gone the right way with this RPG - it's
not supposed to be primarily about the combat, it's about the storyline.

If any aspect of the gameplay is lacking, then I don't consider that a good sign at all. Don't care how good a game's storyline is, and if a game is all about the story, then a developer has their priorities seriously messed up.

Modifié par Xetirox, 28 octobre 2009 - 06:41 .

[Staylost]

Right, you get something like 25 talents in total when all is said and done, or 25 spells. That is like six spell lines total. For sorcerer types from BG or NWN, this isn't too bad. For wizard types like me, this is the END OF THE WORLD!!!



*Jumps off a cliff.*

[Chikkenstorm]

Choosing a fighter in NWN2 was probably the biggest regret of my gaming-life. Gosh, that was boring. I was only hoping for more than 1 enemy attacking me, so I could atleast use my whirlwind attack.

No, I don't miss DnD either.

[Herr Uhl]

Staylost wrote...

Right, you get something like 25 talents in total when all is said and done, or 25 spells. That is like six spell lines total. For sorcerer types from BG or NWN, this isn't too bad. For wizard types like me, this is the END OF THE WORLD!!!

*Jumps off a cliff.*

Good thing I usually played sorcerer <_<

[Koralis]

Staylost wrote...

willtraverse wrote...

K3m0sabe wrote...

Take the mage's spells for example, the limited spell list is a big let down from the variety one could find with the D&D system.

64 spells doesn't seem so limited to me. The older D&D based games must have had quite a lot of magic.

Except for that you can only cast so few of them due to talent restrictions. If you could cast all 64 then it would be different.

In the D&D games I never had more than a dozen different spells memorized anyway.  You wanted 3 fireballs, not 1.  You wanted 5 Magic missiles, not 1. etc, etc.    While there were some spells that may have been conceptually nice, you never memorized them because that'd mean you'd be ditching a slot that you needed for something more generally useful.  That's completely ignoring the spells that are ok when you get them, but become utterly worthless 4 levels later.

So, if you end up getting 18+ spells that you can use at any time that retain their usefulness the entire game, you're actually in a lot better shape than when playing BG and NWN.

[Staylost]

Yeah, but you are ignoring the fact that many DA:0 spells may also grow to be useless. You may end up having to invest in three spells you'll never use just to get that wonderful fourth one.



Saying that spells became or were useless in BG is not a good argument for DA:0 since we don't know if it will be even worse there until we play.

[Varenus Luckmann]

Haha, oh wow. Burn't.

[Chikkenstorm]

You may find one spell useless, but atleast they won't be very weak at level 10. You'll still be using flame blast (or w/e it's called) at level 19, while you may have gotten it at level 2. Big difference with the spell levels in DnD.

[Staylost]

Chikkenstorm wrote...

You may find one spell useless, but atleast they won't be very weak at level 10. You'll still be using flame blast (or w/e it's called) at level 19, while you may have gotten it at level 2. Big difference with the spell levels in DnD.

This is kind of speculation, right?

Have you played the game?

Look, I think mages will be awesome in DA:0 and I'm not really complaining, at least not seriously, because I haven't even played the game. But you can't just make up facts about how DA:0 will be and then compare it to BG.

[Baldurs Dragon]

K K Slider wrote...
But The Witcher is fantastic.

Btw the combat system was awful!!
Zero tactics, SO BORING, just u alone bashing (clicking) everything for hours and hours

[DPB]

Staylost wrote...

This is kind of speculation, right?

Well, the developers have said that they designed the magic system with the intention that all spells would remain useful no matter your level. Hence the scaling with your attributes.

Modifié par dbankier, 28 octobre 2009 - 06:50 .

[phoenixds24]

Staylost wrote...

Chikkenstorm wrote...

You may find one spell useless, but atleast they won't be very weak at level 10. You'll still be using flame blast (or w/e it's called) at level 19, while you may have gotten it at level 2. Big difference with the spell levels in DnD.

This is kind of speculation, right?

Have you played the game?

Look, I think mages will be awesome in DA:0 and I'm not really complaining, at least not seriously, because I haven't even played the game. But you can't just make up facts about how DA:0 will be and then compare it to BG.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the devs have said spells will gain strength as you level, so low-tier spells won't ever be useless.  They won't be as strong as your upper-tier spells, but they'll still be useful, and probably won't cost as much mana.  Whereas some DnD spells really were useless as they had no effect on creatures with higher HDs.

[Baelin Firestorm]

I respect some critics, but I don't allow them to determine what I'll enjoy. I've played more than a few great games that some critics rated poorly and was let down by other games that reviewers rated as fantabulistically awesome.

Critics matter, but caveat emptor is the golden rule.

[Staylost]

dbankier wrote...

Staylost wrote...

This is kind of speculation, right?

Well, the developers have said that they designed the magic system with the intention that all spells would remain useful no matter your level. Hence the scaling with your attributes.

Well, I'll love it if it is true. (I'll probably love it either way)

But my overall point is that you are forced into using spells in groups of four, so that is a bunch more constrained than BG.

Anyway, I have a feeling you guys are correct, I'm just not a fan of bashing another game for a new game's improvements before the new game even comes out.

And for the recored, D&D spells also got stronger as you got higher in level... (the far majority at least) so that isn't really a difference...

Modifié par Staylost, 28 octobre 2009 - 06:56 .

[Sebiale]

I wouldn't know what to do with 64 spells...

I still think 87% is harsh, anything less than 90% for a BioWare game is just odd. I imagine that combat will be rather similar to ME, but with swords instead of guns, I really enjoyed ME combat.

[endaround]

Actually many didn't. Sleep went from being great to worthless (don't know about 4ed). Low level illusions spells, conjuring spells, etc tended to have lose usefulness as opponents got tougher. Only pure damage type spells tended to scale.

[willtraverse]

Sebiale wrote...

I imagine that combat will be rather similar to ME, but with swords instead of guns, I really enjoyed ME combat.

No need to imagine...that combat definitely won't be like that. You should check out some gameplay vids.