130 réponses à ce sujet

[TwoThe]

There are many things that I feel are great about this game, and there are many things that are bad.

I personally like the huge world that was created for the players, that not only is "just sufficient" for the story, you just feel that there is much more in the background and that you are only one small part of an epic tale. The downside is for once, that this feeling makes your want to know more, explore more, see more... but you can't. I cannot walk around the Void, I can't see Orlais, I can't visit the forgotten Thaigs. This might be added with a DLC, but for now it makes the game feel incomplete, like you are rushed through a story that could have been much longer.

The other bad thing are the frequent immersion breaks. Why did you create such a complete and complex world, but then fail on the most basic things? E.g. the "Kill the Spiders" quest in the mage staring area: after finishing the quest I accidentally clicked again on the quest-giver and she told me that she checked the cave, and there are no more spiders left. I just thought: "Wow... in 2 seconds, not bad." You could have just made her walk through the door and come back later. Things like this happen very often: characters just vanish, dialogs repeat the same phrase over and over, characters are just standing around for gameplay reasons but without any explanation (like the enchanter Dwarf just before the end) and the time of the day never changes.

The story itself is nice, not the most exciting one but it has its moments. I personally stopped to play this game after a few days, because the story got so boring/annoying at one point (where Alister confesses his through heir in Redcliff, what a cliché, and I was still annoyed that I was given no choice to say "Never in life!" to Duncan) , but continued a few weeks later just to know how it ends. There were extremely well written stories with nice choices and extremely bad ones, either boring ones or those where I either was not given a choice at all (even if my character did make choices) or all choices obviously lead to the same ending. This resulted in an average experience for me, and in remembrance to KOTOR: I know you guys can do much better. But the end, after my character sacrificed himself in an heroic attempt to rescue the world, listening to the speech that was hold for him, really captured me (I didn't cry, there.. was something in my eye!) and the fact alone that this ending was possible and the detail that was spent on it, rescued a lot of my believe in the Bioware-team. 

Speaking of choices: I very much like the fact that I as a player can have an impact on the world and really see and feel what I have done. On the other hand I have noticed many points in the story, where you just merged all the paths through brute force again, just to be able to continue the main story properly. I agree that you cannot write every possible story combination that a player might stumble upon, but please: don't merge the stories by brute force, do it gently. E.g. if you loose the Landting (or how it is spelled) you could have given the player a chance to solve the problem through the back-door or just accept that he has lost (wouldn't have changed the rest much), but the literal brute-force solution was basically screaming "We didn't actually plan this, so here is a second chance that you can't fail (otherwise please reload)".

In other parts you just destroyed nice changes to the usual stories, like when you are imprisoned. After I escaped my cell I was hoping for some nice hide-and-run fun, opened the first chest... and found all my stuff. And when I was about to at least try to sneak out, I was able to get past exactly 1 room before this guard stormed in and removed my disguise (and all the guards from the one room of course attacked me). I still keep asking me if I did just something wrong or if this was really a major story-writer fail.

What I personally really hated was the combat system in all it's flavor. Not because it was throughoutly bad, but because it could have been a really good one, if it wasn't for all these flaws. Staring with the tactics: brilliant idea, but too many bugs/flaws to really enjoy it (details have been discussed enough already in this thread alone). The AI alone made me wanna bite my keyboard frequently, when Alister i.E. run towards my Inferno to take a bath in hellfire while it is still hot, even if his AI setting clearly stated "Will move out of area spell effects" (which he btw. never did). I did even get used at some point to the spawns stuck in place, Wynn casting Imprisonment on Ogres, which must have been "Enemy: class Mage" according to the tactics or the bard (what was her name?) standing right in front of the enemies while shooting with her bow (didn't ranged setting say something about running away from enemies?).

The spells/actions itself vary from "useless" through "strange" to "overpowered" and only a hand-full of them are actually good/useful and none of them fun as in i.E. the Wish spell from BG2. Especially since you only have a very limited number of points available, spending those in skills that afterwards turn out to be useless makes me wanna re-roll (but I can't). 

Let's just take the Fireball as an example: the spell is rather common to most systems and visually and from it's effect (knock-back and the after-burn) everything is very nice, but from a gameplay perspective it is totally flawed. You either have a spell that erases entire armies (earlier game, and later on when these one-hit guys appear), but if you want to use it you got only one shot at best, or you erase your party as well, making the points spent quiet useless. Later in the game - even with very high Magic and the +20% fire damage gloves - the spell barely scratches on the health of enemies, while an enemy spell still almost erases my party. There have been given more examples where the spells/actions fail in this thread.

The difficulty of this game is actually refreshing. I never had so many well balanced fights, where you never feel like just 'disposing' your enemies. On the other hand some might question why exactly a generic bear has more hitpoints then my level 15 party combined, but well... I'd say sometimes there should be 'disposable' enemies, we all want to just frag from time to time. And the scaling sometimes made me feel like equipping items is just for the looks. Sure they give nice stats, but why my Arcane Knight with the best armor and all his defense still gets beaten up by every other enemy, while Wynn in her thin clothes can take only a few hits less, makes me feel like I could finish this game naked as well. 

And speaking of Wynn: I have a feeling that it is absolutely impossible to play through this game without having a mage in the back that is 100% dedicated to healing the party. If your main character is the only mage in the party, because you probably don't like Morigan and don't want to watch an old lady in a short leather dress all the time (the almost topless mage cloth on her made me wonder if there are some really sick guys over at your designer team, or if I was the only one noticing this), this can be really annoying, as you can't dare to spent mana on anything but heals.

But the biggest disappointment was definitely the end-game. From the earlier fights I expected difficult fights, teeth to teeth with the hardest enemies and groups in this game, inventing new tactics (and saving a lot in case those fail) just to beat the next enemy, ready to launch the troops I gathered during all the rest of the game if necessary... and what I got was the probably most easiest fights ever. Guys, really... tons of enemies and all of them have 20 hp? I destroyed the whole horde with one fireball? And beside the fact that the AI got stuck so many times on respawn that my PC was running at slow-motion frequently, it was incredible annoying to watch the completely ridiculous AI either standing all at one point, or running through half of the front-line just to get that one marksman in the back that shot first. And I didn't even need any of the allies I gathered, I could do all with my four people. So what was the point of recruiting them? I just called in some elves on the final fight just to see what was happening. 

And the final 'fight' btw. was the one most disappointing thing in the game. I waited till he was at one of his locations, launching attacks at my main char (thanks that you gave me the 75% spirit resistance helm earlier, otherwise it would have been a challenge), then I spilled all my Dots at him (Inferno, Death Cloud, Fireball and whatever else came out of my Staff of Happy Doomsday), launched the ballistas and said "Oh look, there are cookies!" and the final boss was like "Mmmh, cookies!" and completely forgot to evade any of my spells and died. Besides: the 'allies' were so useless, they couldn't even kill the one-hit-guys, even the named plot chars (Irvine, Arl) failed to kill one elite Hurloc on their own (not even speaking of healing themselves) before they all died (and magically got resurrected afterwards).


In general I would say: DAO is a good game. But from a company that is known to produce only the finest and most epic games in history of computer games, it is because of all it's flaws disappointing.

[brask_me]

"Disables/stuns. Here, Bioware
would need ample tutoring from a company like Blizzard who understand
the power of disables. What we got in DA are ridiculously long stunning
spells which utterly imbalance an already imbalanced combat system to
the point of making most fights trivial."

I actually found the opposite to be true (if I understand you correctly). Because the warrior classes consume stamina so quickly, it's very easy to be overwhelmed by even a medium force of enemies at about the same level as your party, especially around the time of the early levels after Ostagar. The disable spells become necessary just to give your warriors time to deal with them. If the warrior skills used less stamina (even with no or negative fatigue) and relied on more on their cooldowns, some of the 10-20s stuns would not be necessary, IMO. I happened to have only 1 mage with very few CC spells at the time, courtesy of a prebuilt NPC, and there was a real increase in difficulty for a few levels until I sorted that out.

Later in the game, this becomes much less of an issue, so I don't exactly know what the solution is. Perhaps stronger enemies aren't affected as long as weaker ones?

[Mordaedil]

lol, Baldur's Gate didn't have level scaling. Right.



I guess whether a camp had 10 Xvarts or 25 Xvarts was completely random right?



I don't get the dislike for level scaling, really. It was in NWN as well and just ensures that there's a "fair" amount of challenge in an encounter without putting you against rats and dragons every other turn.



Play a bit with the NWN toolset to see how level scaling works and why it's a good thing. Encounter level scaling can still be challenging, because encounters have "settings", like "easy", "weak", "average", "strong", "hard" and "impossible", which scales the level of the monsters further beyond your level.



And it's more realistic, because levels aren't a tangible entity, it's a representation of how powerful you are and when encounters level along with you, it's to represent that the world isn't static.



The game really wouldn't be fun without level scaling. I'm sorry if you disagree with that.

[DirtyCleo]

I agree with OP.



I'm really trying to find what's wrong with DA, 'cause I know something's missing. It feels like a ten dollar street you just gave all weekend's eight-ball to.



Something's not right.



What happened to feeling like you're in control of your party?



What happened to a streamlined, intuitive interface?



What happened to a unique storyline? Anyone who's ever read the common-denominator fantasy books with the pretty lady and the dragon on the front, on the bottom shelf of the last aisle at your local chub-shop knows that DA's storyline is a total patchwork of the most stereotypical characters and poorly recited British-Accent-Fantasy adjectives you'd most likely find watching canceled episodes of Conan on daytime television.



I would think you could get away with some creativity in a Mature rated PC game. Instead it's like...for the kiddies who loved Lord of the Rings, but had never heard of Tolkein.



Most annoyingly, 90% of the dialogue choices have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the ultimate outcome of the conversations. Your character never has a chance to truly shine in any kind of unique way.

[phordicus]

apologies to the few people who actually have contributed to the discussion, but it was 5 pages by the time i got here and the trolls, gainsayers, and idiots make it more tedious than the Fade.  i can forgive those who didn't have the benefit of playing DAO's antecedents in their own time.  to them DAO must be manna from heaven compared to what's allowed to wear the acronym RPG these days.

the first thing i want out of the way is that BG/BG2 did not level scale in the manner by which "level scaling" is used now.  for areas where monsters were spawned, there might be a line in the trigger script, placed after the default creatures are spawned, that reads something like "If PC level > 6, then spawn 5 more -or-  if PC level > 15 then spawn 10 more".  or, as a specific example iirc, the Shadow Temple (Umar Hills) where you could fight a mummy, two skeleton warriors, and a bone golem;  if you were over level 12 the mummy gets upgraded to greater and a lich subs in for the melee skel warrior.  what you didn't get was the absurdity of today with level 10 rats and level 17 wolves.  level ranges be damned, this is the same borked scheme that doomed vanilla Oblivion to lulz and is the very opposite of immersive regardless of how many NPCs are telling you their life stories.
bosses never scaled.  the only thing close to taking the player's level into consideration might be a special ability or particular spell being used, and even that was Count On One Hand rare.

i don't have a problem with the combat system as a whole.  because it's a closed system i won't bog this thread down in statistics and formulae just to tweak it to my preferences.  i still hate ad&d's ruleset but it didn't bother me in the context of the BGs.

the AI is much better than most of the games i've ever played, but -- again more part of combat -- the whole aggro mechanics is ridiculous.  the target switching done by the enemies is not as intelligent as i'd expect from a game at this point.  for those interested in vanilla game AI vs game modder AI, check Dawn of War and the DoW AI mod.  what they did to vastly increase the realism and challenge without having the AI cheat is proof we shouldn't still be satisfied with the crap AI that gets churned out.  even the BG2 AI mods have a say in this.
what the greater crime, to me, is the fact that the improvements are available and easily implemented if they could be troubled to hire more AI scripters instead of so many engineers trying to cram as many polygons on the screen as possible.  yeah, the game should be pretty, but even pretty but dumb girlfriends get dumped after a few weeks.

the rest is more personal for you and subjective, regardless, so no need to comment unless you just really want my opinions on them.

Modifié par phordicus, 18 décembre 2009 - 08:06 .

[Paromlin]

phordicus wrote...


the first thing i want out of the way is that BG/BG2 did not level scale in the manner by which "level scaling" is used now.  for areas where monsters were spawned, there might be a line in the trigger script, placed after the default creatures are spawned, that reads something like "If PC level > 6, then spawn 5 more -or-  if PC level > 15 then spawn 10 more".  or, as a specific example iirc, the Shadow Temple (Umar Hills) where you could fight a mummy, two skeleton warriors, and a bone golem;  if you were over level 12 the mummy gets upgraded to greater and a lich subs in for the melee skel warrior.  what you didn't get was the absurdity of today with level 10 rats and level 17 wolves.  level ranges be damned, this is the same borked scheme that doomed vanilla Oblivion to lulz and is the very opposite of immersive regardless of how many NPCs are telling you their life stories.
bosses never scaled.  the only thing close to taking the player's level into consideration might be a special ability or particular spell being used, and even that was Count On One Hand rare.

Exactly.
The difference between this type of scaling and what we have in DA is like day and night.
One thing that has to be emphasised is that even though there was some scaling; it was done seldom, and never in a way that would change the actual stats of a creature.

While I can't put my hand in fire for xvarts-per-level in BG1 (poor things, it was always bitter-sweet killing them), I can say for sure that no single monster changed their stats in correlation to your level. Just to put things into perspective; on one hand we have this supposed scaling of the number of cannon-fodder xvarts (and gnolls maybe) and on the other we have the rest of the game, 99% of the encounters, which didn't scale in number or in power. BG1 was indeed a fun game with its exploration, combat..

So if they really feel they are unable to design decent combat encounters without scaling; I'd much rather they use scaling of numbers than scaling in power. Sporadically, of course.
Mordeadil, I don't see how level scaling is more realistic. How is wolves suddenly becoming stronger than bears, because you killed 550 darskspawns, more realistic than... anything?

Naturally, I'd prefer they populate each world-map area with static monsters, that would not scale in power depending on your level, but depending on where they're located. The question should be: "Is xy creature deep into an ancent dungeon or at the outskirts of a forest?" and not "What is PC level?".


***

DirtyCleo, yes, sadly many dialogue options lead to the exact same response. It has to do with all the lines being voiced so they cut down many C&C possibilities within dialogue.

Another poster mentioned the economics and I very much agree. It's lame when, at a certain point, you can buy everything (including tons of potions) and... incidentally the best items are in shops.

[Sylixe]

I was really going with the OP on some of the points he made. Especially about scaling, since i have played through the game many times and taken different paths to reach the ending. I can tell you that some places are a nightmare to try early on in the game.

However he fell flat on his face when he put the words Blizzard and balance into the topic. Paromlin you might want to understand WoW PvP before you start using it as a standard. There is NOTHING balanced about their PvP.

Don't really understand your point about the AI either.  Even if you program a game to have a "Bring a Friend" AI decision for pulling, you can still seperate them if you understand how to circumvent it.  I have installed the mods that supposedly stop pulling and yet i still can do it.  This is not going to change until the NPC's are played by other humans.

Modifié par Sylixe, 18 décembre 2009 - 10:01 .

[Paromlin]

Sylixe wrote...


However he fell flat on his face when he put the words Blizzard and balance into the topic. Paromlin you might want to understand WoW PvP before you start using it as a standard. There is NOTHING balanced about their PvP.

Oh god, here we go again.

Sylixe,
Blizzard =/= WoW
PvP =/= PvE
Blizzard is king of PvP balance =/= Blizzard understands the power of stuns
Dragon Age doesn't even have PvP.
PvP is notoriously hard to balance, especially when there's such a great variety of classes and ablities such as in WOW.

I don't know how it came all the way to "Blizzard is good at balancing PvP in a MMO"  from "Blizzard understands the power of disabling spells"; which is something I noticed in their games I have played.

It's your understanding of my words that fell flat on its nose.


Regarding AI; this is not true. It's basic AI behaviour that's present in many games; one perceives you and the others from the group attack you as well. That's not AI level from year 2100, you know.

Modifié par Paromlin, 18 décembre 2009 - 10:15 .

[Arvay5]

paromlin do not be a fool wow and dragon age are too very different games and any class/race combination is hard to balance(and no wow still has not completely balanced its game if you think that then you sir have no idea what you are talking about) games will never be 100% balanced.... also blizzard does suck when it comes to pve combat they completely destroyed raids by reducing group size and they make all pvp items somehow as strong or stronger then raid items when raids take much more time and planning to do. They still focus highly on pvp and fall short on the type of combat this game has done a better job on pve, and dont even start on the dialogue options...... you dont see wow even trying to accomplish that do you? Not all of them lead to the same outcome and I have the feeling that you are just being critical about this game.

[Dieover]

OP.. When it come to king of PVP it has to be Warhammer Online.



WoW is made to cater pve folks to progress in gears via brutal farming with a monthly fee involve.



While DA give you lots of opinion in it slow pace emerge yourself action RPG. Things like single pull to Rambo style charge. I don't think you even understand that concept before you made this thread.



I stop playing warhammer online just for DA. You'll never get this kind of PVP in WoW



Check out warhammer online, the true king of pvp (with balance and everything)







and when you compare DA a RPG to WoW a MMO just show me how shadow your argument has become on your own thread. Tainted thread?

[badkenbad]

Paromlin wrote...

Disclaimer: content may cause severe shock and hysteria among Bioware toadies. If you're part of the aforementioned group, you're advised not to read. 

Shouldn't have read past this sentence... not because I'm a toady, but if you're so insecure in your opinions that you completely dismiss anyone who disagrees with you before they even read what you wrote, why should I care what you have to say?

Modifié par badkenbad, 18 décembre 2009 - 10:40 .

[Duck and Cover]

wow, I actually read the entire OP. He makes some good points. the game is far from perfect. But it is fun, at least for me. The OP didn't seem to think it was fun I suppose. You just can't compare a game like this to world of warcraft. Wow makes gazillions amount of dollars, and has an what seem to be an unlimited budge. They can get many, many animators to do more combat animations and artists to design more armour.



Despite wow's popularity, rpg's are still a niche market. They don't sell as well as action/fps games, and most likely never will. They only have so much budget to work with. They don't have wow's budget.

[Impresario]

I can’t even bring myself to complete a second playthrough.  It's not the mechanics, but that the four main quests are mundane. Explore Alice in Mageland's warren holes (shrink me) yet I felt no wonder--or at least the opportunity to converse with a Cheshire cat.  Lupan Land reminded me of a cheesy Trek episode. I kept on hearing melodramatic Shatner lines in my head.  It's A Small World's candidates for the Lilliputian throne didn't engender any interest and wading through Moriah was a chore, more than an epic crawl. The infirmed Earl Theoden was the best of the four hub quests (at least for me).  I enjoyed the Sacred Ashes diversion--the architecture was nice, even if the wall paintings lacked detail. It did have a Dr. Jones feel to it--searching for the lost relic. 

Consequently, I was disappointed with the game but I paid the entry price.  As per Bio, the party characters were fine. We spoke often at a plain camp but there was no place for us to socialize besides those confines. Unfortunately, the capital city of the realm was the size of a pea. I fault the game world--it was generically lightweight--derivative not so much of other games but of other works--indeed much better works.  You can’t win them all—a good try I guess.               

[Elvhen Veluthil]

I don't like the OP tone, especially since he didn't paid the game. Glad you cast that spell to keep Bioware groupies out of the discussion though, really hate all those stupid posts saying mindlessly that Bioware makes only great games, they made MDK2 after all, which comparing to the divine MDK1, was crap. But then again they made BG, even if almost all of the people working on that game doesn't work anymore for Bioware/EA, good for them.



I rate DAO with 7/10, because I enjoyed playing in the Fade and some aspects of the game. Now that I have finished it, I can't remember what else I enjoyed, but I had a good time playing it until the Landsmeet. From that point on I switched from Hard to Easy mode, skipping fights and useless discussions, getting eager to see how and if the Archdemon would finally get involved in the story, sensing that he probably wouldn't. And he didn't.



The armies that I assembled weren't used anywhere because I didn't needed them, the main villain was totally uninteresting, the game ended, and I wonder what the hell was Bioware making for 5 years. Really now. I'll give credits to the writer's team for recording all the lore of this new world, even if they don't respect it at all, comparing it all the time with real life facts. I need fantasy, not comparison with France or England, making reference to Superman in DAO is way too much for my taste. Tolkien was more humble about his tales, he said that everything was given to him, he just told those tales.



Equipping this or the other item lost any significance after a while, fighting hurlock or hurlock Alpha or whatever was the same. Accumulating wealth didn't gave any form of satisfaction, 120 gold isn't really something to be proud of. Skills, talents, everything you could gain became obvious from the beginning, nothing to be surprised beside the specializations.



I enjoyed being around some of the companions, Wynne, Morrigan, Zevran, Sten, Oghrain, but none of them is more memorable then Minsc, Edwin, Imoen, or any other character in BG series. Can't think a reason how DAO drove the RPG genre forward. Really can't.



I am sure the community will create many great mods with the toolset, and some of the Bioware stuff are already offering a great deal of help to the community.

[Derengard]

About the dialog options: you have to be realistic, this is a game, and either for limiting the work amount or for avoiding potential misunderstandings, the most obvious answer is mostly right. And the example with Zevran that was chosen was also rather awkward: it was obvious that it could also be interpreted negatively. In fact, given the alternatives that was the most direct meaning. Only in real life you can extend on it to make sure it was a neutral statement.

Modifié par Derengard, 19 décembre 2009 - 02:52 .

[Sylixe]

Paromlin wrote...

Sylixe wrote...


However he fell flat on his face when he put the words Blizzard and balance into the topic. Paromlin you might want to understand WoW PvP before you start using it as a standard. There is NOTHING balanced about their PvP.

Oh god, here we go again.

Sylixe,
Blizzard =/= WoW
PvP =/= PvE
Blizzard is king of PvP balance =/= Blizzard understands the power of stuns
Dragon Age doesn't even have PvP.
PvP is notoriously hard to balance, especially when there's such a great variety of classes and ablities such as in WOW.

I don't know how it came all the way to "Blizzard is good at balancing PvP in a MMO"  from "Blizzard understands the power of disabling spells"; which is something I noticed in their games I have played.

It's your understanding of my words that fell flat on its nose.


Regarding AI; this is not true. It's basic AI behaviour that's present in many games; one perceives you and the others from the group attack you as well. That's not AI level from year 2100, you know.

Blizzard =/= WoW  ???????
You could have fooled me since they are they created and published the game.

I am still lost on your complaints though since you continue to contradict yourself.

Modifié par Sylixe, 19 décembre 2009 - 04:36 .

[pokemaughan]

Very good and well written.



Bio needs critics like you.

[Paromlin]

Impresario wrote...

I can’t even bring myself to complete a second playthrough.  It's not the mechanics, but that the four main quests are mundane. Explore Alice in Mageland's warren holes (shrink me) yet I felt no wonder--or at least the opportunity to converse with a Cheshire cat.  Lupan Land reminded me of a cheesy Trek episode. I kept on hearing melodramatic Shatner lines in my head.  It's A Small World's candidates for the Lilliputian throne didn't engender any interest and wading through Moriah was a chore, more than an epic crawl. The infirmed Earl Theoden was the best of the four hub quests (at least for me).  I enjoyed the Sacred Ashes diversion--the architecture was nice, even if the wall paintings lacked detail. It did have a Dr. Jones feel to it--searching for the lost relic. 
    

I too found many areas/quests uninspiring. In some it was due to the lack of feel of a living world; Denerim with its one and only real area; the marketplace, with its empty tavern, empty streets, static citizens, and only a few buildings you can actually enter.
In some it was due to the gigantic chore and repetitivness; Deep Roads. While Orzammar seems much more alive than Denerim, once you enter the deep roads and see in this order: (rock cave, darkspawns, rock tunnel, rock cave, darkspawns, rock tunnel, rock tunnel, darkspawn) x 20.. you wish to be teleported back to Denerim.
Regarding revenants; I really hoped something else would pop out when I broke the 20th glass container or whatever that was. No luck.
This all coupled with enemy/item scaling and a combat system that has many problems; ehm..

I liked the Indiana Jones part of Andraste's temple as well. Cool place.

 

pokemaughan wrote...
 
Very good and well written.



Bio needs critics like you. 

  Thanks.


***

And now to the trivial stuff;

Sylixe, there is nothing contradictory in "Blizzard =/= WoW". Blizzard = WoW is incorrect because Blizzard does not equate WoW. Blizzard is a company which developed big successes such as Warcraft 1, 2 and 3, Starcraft, Diablo 1, 2 *and* WoW. Now, lets reiterate what I wrote in my original post: "Disables/stuns. Here, Bioware would need ample tutoring from a company like Blizzard who understand(s) the power of disables." Emphasised for more clarity. There was no mention of PvP balance in WoW, a game I haven't even played.
Since I haven't played WoW I can't say for certain, but I believe the number of abilities/classes is a few times bigger than what we have in DA. And you brought PvP into the argument.. So a comparison with WoW's PvP is indeed an unfair comparison either way. 
You've probably confused my topic with another one in which the topic starter says DA makes him want to start WoW: http://social.biowar.../9/index/469828

badkenbad wrote...

who disagrees with you before they even read what you wrote, why should I care what you have to say?

I don't know... why should you care?  I'm glad you posted anyway, despite not caring, but I think the topic will survive even without you caring.
Oh, and the warning was put before the review-of-the-negative-stuff-in-DA because after the text it wouldn't serve any purpose. Farewell!

[Drizzzzzzzt888]

Foremost I was lookign forward to play DA, but now as I finished it, I can´t say anything than that I agree with OP.

[Dieover]

@ Drizz well why not give us a honest review with feedback on where to improve since you beat the game without the spoiler? Agreeing with someone is easy when you have 0 credibility to back it up.

for me I'm taking my time with the game. I already spend over 70+ hours and only got 49% unlock and yet I'm NOT running with full party with Ez-Mode build (without Morrigan and Alister in my party) and i'm luving it so far.

Nothing in DA has disappointed me yet because everything we do has an "Option" for us.

Do you prefer single pull because your party is to weak taking on a group of yellow mobs? pull one mob at a time, or do you feel like a Rambo by charging in and taking on a group yellow mobs instead playing it safe? go for it. See all the options the game give you without getting overwhelm and getting wipe constantly?

I did just that with just 3 of us - Rambo style and i nearly got wipe vs. a large group of yellow mobs but nothing beat a good challenge on using the right skills that isn't to overpower that would chain lock your opponents.

img64.imageshack.us/i/abeast.jpg/

Modifié par Dieover, 21 décembre 2009 - 02:15 .

[Maufurtado]

Sometimes I wonder I why I waste my time reading this kind of thread.



It never goes anywhere.

[Drizzzzzzzt888]

Dieover wrote...

@ Drizz well why not give us a honest review with feedback on where to improve since you beat the game without the spoiler? Agreeing with someone is easy when you have 0 credibility to back it up.

for me I'm taking my time with the game. I already spend over 70+ hours and only got 49% unlock and yet I'm NOT running with full party with Ez-Mode build (without Morrigan and Alister in my party) and i'm luving it so far.

I´m not that type of gamer, who run through the game in few days. I was playing it since the day it came out and ended week ago. And I tried to enjoy it really, but it didn´t work. I´m not going to write a review, because I don´t speak english very good, but the only thing this game improved from my previous RPG experience is the feel of party cooperation.

[Brunobyof]

Yes, this is a good game. Thogh, there is much to improve.

I didn't like the statics NPC's, neither the newbie super armors, that aren't so unique.

Various bugs, empty taverns, empty stores (why the hell the stores are almost the same in alll places? A few potions, salves, plans, armors and wepons that looks all the same, nothing superb) Aactually, in a few times i saw an item that runs completely out of the background of your party: You feel lack of money, then u see a wepon that costs 145 gold and u r carrying only 5 gold.... and then u see that this item is not realy so grat...this is foolish. The same happens when u gather some really strange loot, like a bow in the corpse of a dragon, or money in a corpse of a dead one....

BUUUUUT, all other features of the game are incredibly great.

Dialogue, party coop, imersion, playability, sound, background, tatics, surprise element, etc etc...

So, my note is a 9.0 for a brief analisys....

[Bonkz]

Paromlin wrote...

badkenbad wrote...

Shouldn't have read past this sentence... not because I'm a toady, but
if you're so insecure in your opinions that you completely dismiss
anyone who disagrees with you before they even read what you wrote, why should I care what you have to say?

I don't know... why should you care?  I'm glad you posted anyway, despite not caring, but I think the topic will survive even without you caring.
Oh, and the warning was put before the review-of-the-negative-stuff-in-DA because after the text it wouldn't serve any purpose. Farewell!

I do agree with some points of your post Paromlin and i have some things myself that i found not exactly to my liking. Lack of actual sidequests and lack of exploration being two of them. Even so, that does not make the game bad. I really enjoy every minute of it.

Also, badkenbad does have a point in what he says. You're basically calling anyone that liked the game and would disagree with you a toady. Sarcasm really gives you no credit or makes your points stronger. Just for the record.

[Paromlin]

Drizzzzzzzt888 wrote...

Dieover wrote...
 Agreeing with someone is easy when you have 0 credibility to back it up.

I´m not that type of gamer, who run through the game in few days. I was playing it since the day it came out and ended week ago. And I tried to enjoy it really, but it didn´t work. I´m not going to write a review, because I don´t speak english very good, but the only thing this game improved from my previous RPG experience is the feel of party cooperation.

I also tried to enjoy it, but sadly certain things (1. and 2.) detracted too much from my gameplay experience.

***

Dieover, how is he not credible? Now you need to write a whole review and only then can you agree with someone and sound credible? That's new to me..

Bonkz wrote...
You're basically calling anyone that liked the game and would disagree with you a toady.

Not at all.