457 réponses à ce sujet

[StuartMarshall]

Gameplay:

1. Fallout 3

2. Dragon Age

3. Mass Effect

4. Oblivion



Story:

1. Mass Effect

2. Dragon Age

3. Fallout 3

4. Oblivion



Fun factor:

1. Fallout 3

2. Dragon Age

3. Mass Effect

4. Oblivion



Just my opinion. BTW I think Dragon Age was the most polished and refined work of the four but was just lacking in a few areas, such as basically knowing where every single enemy is on repeated playthroughts, etc., but if the world expands via a big expansion pack and the like, it could change things.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Actually Ultima 5 had NPCs sleep at night and eat during meal times and other things, I think that was the first game I played where the NPCs had a schedule, and I love it.



I get around it in DA:O by just assuming my character only goes to Calenhad docks at night and I'm only exploring every where else during the day :-P



They are really two different types of games though. The more I think about it, I want more RPGs that don't scale items or equipment, but are also open. I guess these games would have a lot of complaints from people saying they are too hard. Its easier just to code the monsters to be whatever level your character is (roughly) and to lock the areas you don't want visited away until they are done the easier areas. :-( Ulitma 5 didn't do that.

[tebb23]

I love DA, but I think Oblivion is the better overall game. I absolutely despise the fact that when you beat DA, the game is over, that in itself makes it less of a game. It is a freggin RPG, why end the game? People freaked out when they beat FO3 and the game ended, this is just as bad. It is also considerably shorter with far less quests and after the "origin" story every single quest is almost the exact same thing for everyone. Oblivion was also made almost 5 years ago and the graphics and game play are still strong now.

I loved both games, they both have lots of good and bad factors, but to me it is Oblivion as the better game. 

[Anduin335]

Oblivion felt too much to me like it was trying to be an MMORPG. The problem is that an MMO without other people isn't any fun to me. I prefer dragon age much more. Oblivion was a game that will keep me from ever playing that type of game single player again. The sort of FPS with role playing stats type game. I just feel that formula works better as an online game otherwise it feels empty to me.

[MarloMarlo]

Dark83 wrote...
Almost everything you do in DA:O is related to the story - fight darkspawn. In Oblivion, you basically have one prod to go along the main quest, and you can completely ignore it for a hundred hours without ever being nudged back
to it. As a "driving force" it's like a kitten on a bicycle. It's there, but it's going nowhere.

That there are more things for you to do besides the main quest in Oblivion than in Dragon Age doesn't exclude Oblivion from the Story Driven Club. The faction side quests had stories, too, and they were better than Dragon's Age's side quests. Compare Oblivion's Mages Guild to Dragon Age's Mages Collective, for example. Even some of the random quests you might find just wandering around aren't worse than what you get from the Chantry Board or Blackstone Irregulars.

Almost everything you do in Dragon Age being related to the story just means that it's more focused, not that one is story driven and the other isn't. And kittens on bicycles are awesome. They don't have to go anywhere and I don't want them to if it's away from me!

[Akka le Vil]

I really /facepalm when I see countless people saying that Oblivion was worse than DAO because of the "horrible level scaling".



So, for the third time :







DAO HAS NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF LEVEL SCALING THAN OBLIVION !





There is countless ways to argue that one is better or worse than the other, but level scaling is NOT ONE OF THEM.

Both have level scaling that is nearly identical for a similar amount of hours. In both case, you play for about forty hours and then realize that everyone is always exactly the same strength compared to you.



The difference is only that in Oblivion, as loot is logical, you SEE the gear improving massively, while DAO has a more "hidden" scaling - it's not visual, it's just the stat. But in the end, until you reaches the very high level (where scaling reaches a plateau in DAO while you can level up to the max in Oblivion), it's virtually THE SAME !

[Few87]

DA is better than oblivion because DA is a quality RPG and oblivion is an awfull FPS.

[Kealvis1]

To be honest I find both of the games to be fantastic. And even though they are both RGPs I find it difficult to choose which of them that are the best since they are both so very different. I remember using hundreds of hours of roaming the land of roaming Cyrodil beautiful country-side looking for hidden quests and treasures and it was great. And now I am deeply involved in my Dwarven Commoner campaign against the dreaded Archdemon and its Blight.



One of the game is open for exploration, treasure-seeking and random questing. The second game is all about the story, the choices and great character-development. They are so alike but still different. I love the both of them and I just can't choose a favourite.

[Solica]

Crysis > Little Big World?

Ninja Gaiden > Worms?

Mario bros > Grand Tourismo?



Bioware and Bethesda games are different categories of games, despite being called "RPG" and not directly comparable. This is obvious to me at least. And I like both genres.

Dragon Age is one of Bioware's stronger titles. Oblivion is one of Bethesda's weakest.

[TileToad]

Akka le Vil wrote...
DAO HAS NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF LEVEL SCALING THAN OBLIVION !

And that's indeed a very bad development in current RPG's which should be discouraged with relentless prejudice.

[purplesunset]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

I'd recommend Risen to most RPG's fans but be fairly warned: it's real tough in the beginning. I must have reloaded a hundred times until I got among the levels...

Hush you...mentioning a game like that  is strictly verboten.

[Lord_Valderin]

IMO they are both Great games.. I have been a fan of The Elder scroll's series since Elder scroll III morrowinds (1st Xbox) and enjoy the Open world aspect of the game.. Dragon age Origins I enjoy fore the storyline & dialogue and standard game play, plus I was a Huge Fan of the Knights of the Old Republic (1st Xbox) that I played it alot. their both different games but in my opinion I don't think ones better than the other their both very fun games and both have replay ability..

[Tianwyn]

I'm not sure if I think Oblivion or DA is better . . . they both have strengths and flaws. I do not, however, agree that TES4 is a FPS. I had a great time roleplaying my character, and she remains one of my favorite PC's. The main quest is pretty hack n' slash, but the Thieves and Assassins quests were really fun.



I think that, graphically, the setting in Oblivion was better than that of DA, in that it was more diverse, and of course you aren't as restricted.



Characters (well, at least allied characters) in DA are better because they have more interaction with the PC. DA also gives the PC a background, which I like.



So . . . for me, they're different, but about equal in terms of me liking them.

[Dark83]

SheffSteel wrote...

Hmm. The bits of Mass Effect that were good were very good, but the bits bouncing around in an indestructible Weeble-car were never good.

Truth.

My obsessive nature caused me to visit every random planet, which burned me out of ME.

...but now I have to do it all again anyways to import into ME2.

[Sam -stone- serious]

If we want to get a bit more technical on the matter we could say that Elder Scrolls 3 was also the better game compared to Oblivion. It was much more hardcore, had more attention to detail (for the time) and just worked better than oblivion. Wish there was someone who could remake it with the oblivion engine.



Of course a modded Oblivion is a tremendously awesomely awesome game (sorry console gamers) that rectifies all the wrongs of the original Oblivion but its PC territory only (not that this is a bad thing).

[Veracruz]

Zygax wrote...

They are both good games. I think Oblivion is the better RPG, and DA is the better action game.

 I'm sorry but I don't see how Oblivion can be better RPG than DA. Is it because it's a sandbox game? Because the freedom to move it supposes would be the only advantage. I didn't feel the "role" in Oblivion. Had lots of fun with it but more in a sense of FPS (First Person Slasher) with some nice bits of story here and there (in a very big and too often empty world).

If we could mix DA and Oblivion styles... that would be something.

[feroxthegreywarden]

Veracruz wrote...

Zygax wrote...

They are both good games. I think Oblivion is the better RPG, and DA is the better action game.

 I'm sorry but I don't see how Oblivion can be better RPG than DA. Is it because it's a sandbox game? Because the freedom to move it supposes would be the only advantage. I didn't feel the "role" in Oblivion. Had lots of fun with it but more in a sense of FPS (First Person Slasher) with some nice bits of story here and there (in a very big and too often empty world).

If we could mix DA and Oblivion styles... that would be something.

I'm basically with the guy you quoted in saying that rpgs in the style of Oblivion do feel much more like an rpg in my sense then a game like da:o

In da:o, I don't really feel like my character IS my character, i feel like i'm moving 4 chess pieces around. In games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, I feel like I AM the character. I also very much prefer the open sandbox game because I enjoy making my own story, rather then following the story in an interactive movie.

I still loved kotor 1/2, mass effect, and da:o in their own right.. but I will never be a bioware fanboi or someone who feels like da:o is how rpgs really should be.. I think its because I grew up with the rpg itself and saw many different styles rather then just seeing the baldurs gate style games one after another over the years.

for me its about immersion... and DA:O provides very little of that to me.

[Dex1701]

Mavkiel wrote...

Comparing this game to Oblivion is flawed imo.

Try comparing this game to Morrowind, and you might have a much harder time. Oblivion really was a step down in everything but graphics from morrowind. No real depth in the plot, guilds etc

Also the dlc content really has left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems very poorly done. It comes off like "pay me 5 dollars for great loot"(Shale being an exception, then again it was cut from release). I dare anyone to say that thought hasnt crossed your mind. Infact, the selling point of the next dlc seems to be looting a set of armor and a sword. Now for those who want to compare this to the dlc content from Oblivion/Morrowind, feel free. Those dlcs left me with a feeling of having fought for my loot.

I agree to a point...all of the loot DLC with little content is a bit frustrating.  I never, ever felt as though I had to fight for loot in Oblivion, though.  Once you get to a certain level common bandits and robbers have some of the best loot in the game.

tebb23 wrote...

I love DA, but I think Oblivion is
the better overall game. I absolutely despise the fact that when you
beat DA, the game is over, that in itself makes it less of a game. It
is a freggin RPG, why end the game? People freaked out when they beat
FO3 and the game ended, this is just as bad. It is also considerably
shorter with far less quests and after the "origin" story every single
quest is almost the exact same thing for everyone. Oblivion was also
made almost 5 years ago and the graphics and game play are still strong
now.

I loved both games, they both have lots of good and bad factors, but to me it is Oblivion as the better game. 

I've already made it clear how horribly bland, repetitive, and tedious I found Oblivion (I loved Morrowind, though).  However, I don't get the complaints about the game ending when it ends.  Bethesda is one of the only companies that makes RPGs that don't end when the main quest is complete.  Why is it that so many people (I'm assuming they're new gamers that haven't played many RPGs besides Bethesda's) insist that every RPG play this way just because Bethesda's do?  Makes no sense to me at all.

Akka le Vil wrote...

I really /facepalm when I see countless people saying that Oblivion was worse than DAO because of the "horrible level scaling".

So, for the third time :



DAO HAS NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF LEVEL SCALING THAN OBLIVION !

The difference is that the way the two games flow isn't the same.  Because of the way you revisit areas so much in open-world games like Oblivion they need to be very careful about things like level scaling.  You have to admit that it's rather odd for the muggers in a certain area to gradually get more and more powerful to the point that they're godly...godly muggers.  In DA:O you move from area to area and clear them out, so you don't notice the level scaling as much.  Bethesda did a much better job in Fallout 3 by locking and tethering the level scaling.  In Oblivion is was just ridiculous and made advancement in the game feel like a treadmill.  In DA:O it's not noticeable because you don't see the same enemies getting more and more godly as your character does.  Don't get me started on the loot scaling in Oblivion, though...to me that was the worst aspect of the entire game.

TileToad wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
DAO HAS NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF LEVEL SCALING THAN OBLIVION !

And that's indeed a very bad development in current RPG's which should be discouraged with relentless prejudice.

I dare you to try to make an RPG with exploration and freedom without level scaling.  Without any level scaling at all players are forced to complete areas in a certain order, and people will definitely complain about that....a lot.  It's a tradeoff that we have to live with until someone comes up with a better way to handle it.

[Kimberly Shaw]

I dare you to try to make an RPG with exploration and freedom without level scaling. Without any level scaling at all players are forced to complete areas in a certain order, and people will definitely complain about that....a lot. It's a tradeoff that we have to live with until someone comes up with a better way to handle it.

How can you say that you're not forced to complete areas in a certain order in DA? The ONLY freedom you have is which order to conscript your help from. Games existed without scaling for a long time, and they were great and people didn't complain. DA is linear in my opinion, except for the conscription quest order. So you have scaling and a linear order, which is the worst of both worlds.



I guess their are people that would complain that they are forced to level up before they can enter certain areas or be killed, but to me that is the whole point of RPGs, some areas are very difficult until you're powerful. Some areas are easy if you're powerful. Let me try to go to the difficult places and beat them early if I have mad skills, and reap the rewards for my difficulty. Let me go back to easy places when I'm powerful and flex my muscles a bit by making cannon fodder. I guess that's the kind of RPGer I am. A pity designers are catering to 14 year old console players who cry to mommy that they get killed everytime they play the game and need the game to dumb down to their level so its always the same difficulty no matter if they just start out or are the most powerful person on the planet. Drives me crazy!!!!

[Sidney]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

How can you say that you're not forced to complete areas in a certain order in DA? The ONLY freedom you have is which order to conscript your help from. Games existed without scaling for a long time, and they were great and people didn't complain. DA is linear in my opinion, except for the conscription quest order. So you have scaling and a linear order, which is the worst of both worlds.

So the only freedom you have is the freedom to do pretty much anything. The three main quests can be done in any order, all the optional quests can be done in any order, all the DLC can be done in any order and even once you get the Landsmeet quest you can still do any side quests. The intro and conclusion might be linear but beyond that nothing is so really what about 4 hours of of my 60 hours of game play is linear?

[feroxthegreywarden]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I dare you to try to make an RPG with exploration and freedom without level scaling. Without any level scaling at all players are forced to complete areas in a certain order, and people will definitely complain about that....a lot. It's a tradeoff that we have to live with until someone comes up with a better way to handle it.

How can you say that you're not forced to complete areas in a certain order in DA? The ONLY freedom you have is which order to conscript your help from. Games existed without scaling for a long time, and they were great and people didn't complain. DA is linear in my opinion, except for the conscription quest order. So you have scaling and a linear order, which is the worst of both worlds.

I guess their are people that would complain that they are forced to level up before they can enter certain areas or be killed, but to me that is the whole point of RPGs, some areas are very difficult until you're powerful. Some areas are easy if you're powerful. Let me try to go to the difficult places and beat them early if I have mad skills, and reap the rewards for my difficulty. Let me go back to easy places when I'm powerful and flex my muscles a bit by making cannon fodder. I guess that's the kind of RPGer I am. A pity designers are catering to 14 year old console players who cry to mommy that they get killed everytime they play the game and need the game to dumb down to their level so its always the same difficulty no matter if they just start out or are the most powerful person on the planet. Drives me crazy!!!!

anyone who thinks that DA:O is anything but linear in the strongest sense of the word.. does not have much rpg experience, thats for sure.


as for level scaling.. its ALWAYs a bad idea in every game.. period.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Don't get me started on the loot scaling in Oblivion, though...to me that was the worst aspect of the entire game.

Also agree with you on that with Oblivion, but I do find item scaling in DA:O to be its worst feature too. Eg if you do the Shale quest early on, your helmet of honnleath is Gray Steel (Tier 1). This is one of the best helmets in the game, and yet its Tier 1 because you did the Shale quest early. If you waited until level 15 to do it, it would be Tier 7. There is no way to get the helmet to gear up (vendor tricks don't work). I cannot STAND being punished for doing a quest early, it drives me kookoo banana crackers. Items like that should either always drop at their intended level (Codex items should be Tier 6 or higher IMO always) or level up with the player. Items in DA:O fall under 3 scaling methods:

1) Drops at a set level regardless of your level, cannot be increased by vendor sell/buy back (eg warden keep armor).

2) Drops at your level (scaling), can be increased by vendor sell/buy back (most items).

3) Drops at your level (scaling), cannot be increased by vendor sell/buy back (helmets).



Why the game has THREE different codes for item scaling is beyond me, and needs to be fixed.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Sidney wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

How can you say that you're not forced to complete areas in a certain order in DA? The ONLY freedom you have is which order to conscript your help from. Games existed without scaling for a long time, and they were great and people didn't complain. DA is linear in my opinion, except for the conscription quest order. So you have scaling and a linear order, which is the worst of both worlds.

So the only freedom you have is the freedom to do pretty much anything. The three main quests can be done in any order, all the optional quests can be done in any order, all the DLC can be done in any order and even once you get the Landsmeet quest you can still do any side quests. The intro and conclusion might be linear but beyond that nothing is so really what about 4 hours of of my 60 hours of game play is linear?

I disagree with you strongly, but can't go into it because of spoilers. A lot of content and areas are not open simply because you haven't done something before, even though if it were not linear you could go to those areas.
I guess what you and I call linear is different, to me DA:O is a fairly typical linear RPG game and could have been easily designed without scaling in my opinion. Side quests do not count, as by definition in almost all RPGs you can do them in any order you choose. Although side quests in Lothering don't really count do they? Can't exactly do those in any order?

[Lord Phoebus]

There are very few games I buy that I don't finish, heck I stuck it out with Lionheart from BI, but Oblivion was one of the few. It was just pointless and boring as hell. The enemies were incredibly weak, it was loaded with pointless mini-games, the main quest was dull, FPS controls suck for melee combat, the leveling system was completely broken, there were no tactics whatsoever. It was a complete and utter waste of time and that reviewers liked it just show that the main stream gaming media has no sense of what is an RPG.



A sandbox RPG is only fun if it makes use of freedom to add interesting personalities and side quests and give your character an impact on the world, this is where Fallout 1 and 2 (3 is another abomination by Bethesda) and Baldur's Gate and the old Darksun RPGs got it right. They made the areas interesting and what you did in those areas mattered. Oblivion was souless and sterile by comparison.

[Sam -stone- serious]

While i agree that Oblivion out of the box was a very sterile and soulless game on the PC with the mods it has become a force to be reckoned with. Now i normally judge games right out of the box but in RPG games (PC ones) the moding is a big part of said games and can "make" a game with a lot of potential provided the template of the game has quality. Oblivion had indeed all the quality you could ask for in order to be moded and it did get moded. So much so that now stands easily as one of the greatest RPGs of PC gaming,



DAO on the other hand doesnt have much room for moding. Look at it, it has little interactivity with the world, every piece of it designed to be passed through without much input from the player himself apart the places Biowares -wants- to lead you through. No real tools to play how you like. Take Baldurs gate 2 for example. When you face a locked chest you could a. Pick it, b. smash it, c. use magic on it. In DAO all you can do is lockpick it. Example number two. In Baldurs Gate when you face someone you dont like you can pretty much do ANYTHING you like to him. Attack him, pick pocket him, set him on fire, disintegrate him, mummyfie him, polymorph him and a MIRRIAD other things without restriction whatsoever even on key characters and you had consequences for everything you did.



Now i dont expect the game to be like BG2 (never did) but i did expect it at least to have this kind of freedom. If i wanted to cone of cold someone and then crushing prison him "just because" then for ****s sake LET ME do it. Did i assasin someone important in the game and nobody knew? Then please CHANGE the game to accommodate his loss as was done by many games in the past. Did i save a whole village from some beast attacks? Then let them show me their gratitude or whatever by any means necessary. Built me a statue, give me money each month, let me in one of their houses as a base, ANYTHING.



This is why i feel no need to replay the game again. It has nothing really to offer me any more. I shall await moding and new DLC with open arms but the template is limited and that gives me the idea that the game will be short lived in our memories.