127 réponses à ce sujet

[Achromatis]

Off the bat I have to say the lack of DD combat 'negative' is a positive for me. I loved NWN, for a few hours, until I started going though the "oh **** that was a wasted feat point" or "Ive been playing as the wrong class this whole time" crap. And while that isnt a problem for people whove been playing with that ruleset for years its a real turn off for someone new to it like me. Having to spend days researching classes and rules just to play a game is BS.



The only way I see DAO as downgrading is with magic(maybe, duno how fledged specializations are) and people wanting to play as a classic wizard. Casters were the only class I could play NWN as and not feel like my choices were useless.



The Witcher is more fun if you dont use Pause, and instead of hitting the same monster over and over try to swap between them to chain your combos. Im also playing it to pass time lol, I only ever got to act 3 before.

[Koralis]

Staylost wrote...
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...

Up until those spells hit their "max."  Most D&D spells didn't continue to scale indefinitely, because the game system expected you to replace spell X that you got at level 3 with spell Y at level 10.   Then there were other spells that were simply jokes at upper levels... like Cloud Kill.  OOooo... yeah, instant death to rats.  A pity there are no more rats that I'd want to exterminate in quantity! 

And that's all ignoring the fact that the saves basically made it so that low level spells were only useful for casting buffs eventually since all offensive use would be saved against (excluding Magic Missile... no save


Not that there's anything "wrong" with the D&D system, I'm just pointing out that the huge selection of spells was really somewhat of an illusion because over time they become non-useful, so you'll not use them anyway.  By tying spell effectiveness to Spellpower in DA:O, even a low-level Sleep spell would continue to be useful at the end of the game.


In DA:O you don't "need" to take spells in groups of 4, it's just that the spells get progressively more powerful as they go up a line so most people will at least seriously consider it (though at the cost of flexibility in having other effects.)   There's nothing stopping you from being a generalist and taking all of the 1st rank spells. 

Modifié par Koralis, 28 octobre 2009 - 07:19 .

[Ingrimm22]

Xetirox wrote...
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.

Couldn't agree more with this. Games are about gameplay not about story. If games have good stories and character developement, than fine but, let's face it, most of the time you will fight in Dragon Age, because it's the only way to progress in the story, hence if the battle-engine is lacking, the game is flawed no matter how good the story is. No story, regardless how good, will ever justify the tedium of really bad game mechanics, on the other hand, there are loads of really good games with REALLY bad stories. Just a very recent case in point: Borderlands.

Modifié par Ingrimm22, 28 octobre 2009 - 07:26 .

[Staylost]

Koralis wrote...

Staylost wrote...
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...

Up until those spells hit their "max."  Most D&D spells didn't continue to scale indefinitely, because the game system expected you to replace spell X that you got at level 3 with spell Y at level 10.   Then there were other spells that were simply jokes at upper levels... like Cloud Kill.  OOooo... yeah, instant death to rats.  A pity there are no more rats that I'd want to exterminate in quantity! 

And that's all ignoring the fact that the saves basically made it so that low level spells were only useful for casting buffs eventually since all offensive use would be saved against (excluding Magic Missile... no save


Not that there's anything "wrong" with the D&D system, I'm just pointing out that the huge selection of spells was really somewhat of an illusion because over time they become non-useful, so you'll not use them anyway.  By tying spell effectiveness to Spellpower in DA:O, even a low-level Sleep spell would continue to be useful at the end of the game.


In DA:O you don't "need" to take spells in groups of 4, it's just that the spells get progressively more powerful as they go up a line so most people will at least seriously consider it (though at the cost of flexibility in having other effects.)   There's nothing stopping you from being a generalist and taking all of the 1st rank spells. 

All good points except for the last one. Taking only level one spells isn't exactly what I call a reasonable choice. If you want stronger spells you must take them in groups of four.

[hexaligned]

Chikkenstorm wrote...

Still I don't believe the side quests are that MMORPG'ish, since all the other reviews praised the side quests.
Unless there will be hundreds of signposts along every road, we'll be fine.

Not all reviewers have been praising the sidequests, right now it seems like the biggest thing that isn't going to meet (or exceed) my expectations.  I'm not going to be nitpicky though, as long as they are a vast improvement from ME I'll still be happy.

[Seiphiroth2008]

DnD rule have change since NWN 2 ... DOa have more spell that the new Dnd rule ...

[Zilod]

K3m0sabe wrote...

The negatives pointed out in the magazine review rank as my top concerns as well, especially the combat.

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

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. In a game where a big portion of the play time is spent fighting, then that would be a negative point.

Of course this a minor annoyance, i hated the KotOR combat system and it still ranks as my favourite Bioware RPG.

mmm dont agree that much, the number of spells doesnt look that low... we have 20 spell lines for 4 spells each
(whitout including eventual bonus spells)... thats a pool of 80 spells + spell combos

D&D have waay more spells but how many are the really usefull ones? and how many are just updates? (as various heals)

also in D&D, untill 4th edition, warriors, and generally pure melee classes, had not much to play with while DAO offers quite a few skills/moves for these classes

of course we have to see the "quality" of all these skills and spells, but judging just on number in no way we can say that the DAO system is not deep or dumbed down

[Serpent-eyes]

I've never played DnD or any of the other Bioware titles besides Jade Empire. I don't understand why this particular reviewer is so nitpicky when DA:O is a brand new IP for Bioware.

Oh well, as long as they have a great story and the characters are likeable, I couldn't care less if I only had five spells to choose from.

[Naelven]

Chikkenstorm wrote...

Damn, I haven't got the new issue yet.
But the 'message board quests', they don't take up a huge load of the game, do they? If not, I could hardly call that a con. And quests like that are just realistic, I bet a farmer really would want to get rid of the wolves!

I agree.  Plus in such a story heavy game, a couple of quests that aren't so epic in nature will make a good diversion and will probably help to balance the whole experience out.

[Oriflam88]

Well I'm not worried, just because one reviewer thinks that DnD rules would have been better doesn't mean it's true...



I mean, we all enjoy different things when fighting in a RPG, some are like "eh I can't swing my sword I'm just clicking on icons this is boring" in front of BG, and for others it'll be like "wheres's the strategy here ? I'm just clicking non stop this is boring" when playing the witcher...



Chess have simple rules but it's still an amazing game... imho the more a ruleset is complicated the more it's messed up. I played for hundreds of hours at BG with a sorcerer, and I was only using 15 spells or so out of a billion, and it was still the most amazing time I ever had with a video game.



Anyway, this review is still a bit weird beacause I read on some previews that the fights require some thinking, even in normal...



Blood mages will be awesome !

[K K Slider]

Baldurs Dragon wrote...

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

It was much more rewarding at the higher difficulty levels.  I found it...very thereputic.

[Chikkenstorm]

Just for the hell of it, I looked up some more scores from this magazine (also from other issues). This game is:

- As good as Need For Speed: Shift

- As good as Risen

- Worse than WoW: Wrath of the Lich King (88%)

- Worse than the Batman game (90%)

- Worse than Bioshock (93%, one of their best games ever I think)



So 87% is low. And just because we got ourselves a too old BG fan, who can't get over the modernisation of hardcore RPG's. I'm still thinking about sending them a letter, since this is ridiculous.

[K K Slider]

If it's as good as Risen, then I'll be very happy indeed.  

[CastorKrieg]

Message boards quests are of MMORPG quality ----> of course they are, who ffs advertises epic quests on the damn board? The Witcher had the same thing, it was REALISTIC:



Peasants are scared of A, can some hero kill A



What did they expect? Some epic storyline starting from a message board in some God-forgoten village? Rotfl.



As for D&D ruleset - I hated it in BG. I hated weapons described as 1k4 or 2d6, I hated effects lasting 1d8 turns, I hated armor rating going down instead of up. DA:O got normal numbers, that one can understand and play with instead of learning the whole D&D ruleset. World of Warcraft has the same problem, developers are streamlining a lot of things for newest expansion because, as they said, one needed to use "math spread-sheet" to get the most of their characters, and they never intended this.

[M_arc]

87% is a great score!

those side quests are obviously always less interesting than the main quests, I don;t mind doing them actually. I like the satisfaction from things like grinding and farming, as long as I get nice items or lots of money.

[valleyman88]

CastorKrieg wrote...
Message boards quests are of MMORPG quality ----> of course they are, who ffs advertises epic quests on the damn board? The Witcher had the same thing, it was REALISTIC

Realistic does not mean fun. The review focused on the combat system for it's criticism, the message board quests are only discussed in three sentences.

CastorKrieg wrote...
As for D&D ruleset - I hated it in BG. I hated weapons described as 1k4 or 2d6, I hated effects lasting 1d8 turns, I hated armor rating going down instead of up. DA:O got normal numbers, that one can understand and play with instead of learning the whole D&D ruleset. World of Warcraft has the same problem, developers are streamlining a lot of things for newest expansion because, as they said, one needed to use "math spread-sheet" to get the most of their characters, and they never intended this.

Actually, do we know anything at all about the DA:O numbers yet? I haven't seen any numbers.

[PaladinXR]

Who cares? You know, no matter what game it is, some people aren't gonna like it, or they'll put way too much emphasis on something they shouldn't. I suppose when you look at a Bioware game, you have to rate it doubly hard, both on what is out now, and what Bioware has done in the past. If anything, the game will probably average out to about 90-92%, most likely due to the fact that it doesn't have utterly mind boggling graphics (The graphics are great, but they're bleeding edge), it isn't World of Warcraft (come on, you know everyone who gives it a 95 or below will mention WoW or some other MMORPG in their review), and it doesn't use DnD rules.



As for me, I usually play as a fighter because I like getting in the thick of the action, which makes a streamlined mage system better (IF i want to switch to my mage to selectively cast, I'll know which spells to use). I remember playing NWN2 recently and just thinking, "Wow....I don't know which spell to use!" But from what I could see, for the most part, you went through your highest tier spells, then resorted to going down the line as each spell got lower and lower. And when selecting spells to memorize, about 87% were just too specific to actually warrant memorization (Yes, it would be nice to learn Stone to Flesh or some other debuffing spell, but honestly, I'd rather give my mage another Greater Fireburst).

[Eshaye]

valleyman88 wrote...


- The combat system isn't bad, but the reviewer considers not using the D&D ruleset the Achilles' heel of the game. He finds it's much simpler and lacking in variation compared to D&D.

LOL that's a plus to me, I was never a big fan of D&D rules.. I used them because I had too, but heh less is more imo. 

[mcwebber]

i beat witcher but i found it to smooth i know that sounds wrong but i need a game with great storyline and as your character becomes stonger so do enemies so skill become a big issue hopefully d o will accomplish this without d@d rules

[NewYears1978]

The mere fact hat they scored DA:O the same as Risen..disqualifies the review..

[SheffSteel]

I'm glad that Bioware ditched the D&D rules for several reasons, and magic is one of them.
Previous D&D based games from Bioware etc (and by this I mean the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights games) all suffered from the same flaw, if you wanted to be a mage, and wanted to increase the difficulty: Because you got more XP than someone playing on Normal, you ended up being able to cast 5th level spells at a time when the local shop was selling 3rd level spells and (if you were lucky) you'd found one level 4 scroll. No fun whatsoever. You were more or less obliged to play as a sorceror (or resign yourself to not using those high level spells... yeah right). Sorcerors get to pull spells out of the aether when going up a level. In addition, they don't have to pre-select their spells but can cast any combination of the spells they know (overall daily limits permitting) giving you much greater tactical flexibility. Once I tried playing a sorceror, I never went back.

I agree with those posters who say that in DA:O you won't get the same choice of spells to cast, at any given level, as you would in older games. However, I think that's good on balance, because DA:O's approach to magic is more closely related to the sorcery than mage style system, and of the two I think sorcery worked better.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 29 octobre 2009 - 05:29 .

[ArcanistLibram]

It's an original property. I don't see why it should use the D&D rules, especially now that the game has moved on to 4th Edition.

[Sabriana]

I never was fond of D&D combat rules, mostly because they kept on confusing me early on (in BG). Trying to learn them gave me headaches at times as well. Someone here called them 'daunting', and I whole-heartedly agree.



As far as the review goes, I appears the reviewer made up his mind very early on, and on top of it, seems very sold on D&D rules. Personally, I'm looking forward to the new engine, because I feel that the D&D rules became worse and worse with each edition. I also harbor a gripe toward WotC, and their 'my way, or the highway' attitude.

[SheffSteel]

And don't get me started about character creation!



If there's one thing that puts off new players, it's having to make a bunch of fairly complex decisions before you know the firsst thing about the rules or the game world. To be fair, plenty of the old games had auto-creation or pre-generated characters, but I very much like the simplicity of just choosing Warrior/Mage/Rogue and specialising much further down the line.