126 réponses à ce sujet

[Del]

As a fan of Bioware since BG1, I regret to say that I'm disappointed with Dragon Age. Although I haven't finished the game yet, I have very little motivation to keep playing, which is part of the problem. Billed as the 'spiritual successor of the BG series,' I find Dragon Age to be much more like Mass Effect, which I couldn't finish either. Yes the atmosphere is great. The story is compelling enough. And combat can be thrilling at times. It can also be a repetitive grind. My major complaints are as follows:

1. Character creation and development is extremely weak compared to the D&D standard. There is very little room for unique and compelling character builds. Three classes and four-tiered skill branches?! More importantly, there aren't any synergistic rewards for committing to a certain path. The way specializations are handled is very poor as well. Big disappointment here.

2. Lots of combat for very little reward. Most of the best items are for sale or unavoidable on the main plot. This means tons of vendor trash and a couple of giant leaps in equipment upgrades rather than more satisfying incremental increases.

3. Lack of an open-ended world to freely explore. Jumping around the world map from 'point of interest' to 'point of interest' quickly made me lose interest. You get some say in the order you do things but for the most part, the game is extremely linear. We are spoonfed the adventure instead of getting to create our own adventure (to the extent that is reasonably possible in a crpg).*

Ever since Bioware got into the console business, their crgps have suffered in my opinion. Whether coincidence or not, I can not say. Keep in mind this assessment is coming from somebody who would stubbornly argue with Dave G and others about implementing 'damage vs. size' in BG2. So I love complexity in my crpgs. Dragon Age just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Here's to hoping that a real D&D-based BG/NWN 3 hybrid will see the light of day in the not so distant future. Cheers!


* EDIT: To avoid further confusion, I didn't mean to suggest that I was expecting a sandbox-style game. Rather something more along the lines of chapter 2 in BG2 where freedom to explore a dynamic world was embedded within the context of a stuctured story.

Modifié par Del, 30 décembre 2009 - 03:20 .

[Viglin]

Del wrote...

As a fan of Bioware since BG1, I regret to say that I'm disappointed with Dragon Age. Although I haven't finished the game yet, I have very little motivation to keep playing, which is part of the problem. Billed as the 'spiritual successor of the BG series,' I find Dragon Age to be much more like Mass Effect, which I couldn't finish either. Yes the atmosphere is great. The story is compelling enough. And combat can be thrilling at times. It can also be a repetitive grind. My major complaints are as follows:

1. Character creation and development is extremely weak compared to the D&D standard. There is very little room for unique and compelling character builds. Three classes and four-tiered skill branches?! More importantly, there aren't any synergistic rewards for committing to a certain path. The way specializations are handled is very poor as well. Big disappointment here.
>>You get Skills, Talents/Spells/Specializations at lvl 7/14...what more could you want? 

2. Lots of combat for very little reward. Most of the best items are for sale or unavoidable on the main plot. This means tons of vendor trash and a couple of giant leaps in equipment upgrades rather than more satisfying incremental increases.
>>Not true[or do you except minions to be equiqed with items normally found on heros/bosses?], most of the better ideas are from quest rewards or bosses...especially if you choose to ignore the DLC items for awhile. Ive never had a piece of armor or weapon that lasted more then one area before it got updated.

3. Lack of an open-ended world to freely explore. Jumping around the world map from 'point of interest' to 'point of interest' quickly made me lose interest. You get some say in the order you do things but for the most part, the game is extremely linear. We are spoonfed the adventure instead of getting to create our own adventure (to the extent that is reasonably possible in a crpg).
>>Its the players choice on how linear they are....lve read of people not getting to certain places[no spoliers allowed]...around lvl 15...when most would be there at level 8 or so if they took the "linear path"

Ever since Bioware got into the console business, their crgps have suffered in my opinion. Whether coincidence or not, I can not say. Keep in mind this assessment is coming from somebody who would stubbornly argue with Dave G and others about implementing 'damage vs. size' in BG2. So I love complexity in my crpgs. Dragon Age just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Here's to hoping that a real D&D-based BG/NWN 3 hybrid will see the light of day in the not so distant future. Cheers!

How far did you actually get to in the game?

Modifié par Viglin, 29 décembre 2009 - 08:37 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

I agree with you on the specializations. They could have been a very cool interesting feature in this game but they are mostly very lackluster; no real quests or reactions from NPCs (very very few here). I feel like they were just a tack on, and mostly unimaginative at that. Quests specific to specilizations and better/more skill choices would have helped out. If I had to design the game I would have limited each character to ONE speciliaztion too. I don't agree with 2 specializations, it kind of cheapens them.

[maximushur]

I share your disappointment with Dragon age. Having replayed BG2 just a couple of weeks before Dragon Age`s release i found DA lacking in nearly every department compared to BG2.

Obviously the graphics are better than BG2 but i think the combat, variaty, storytelling, skills and treasure was all a lot better in BG2.

I know alot of people will argue with me on these points but all i say is play both at the same time and see which one keeps you up to the early hours lol

[Del]

Viglin wrote...

How far did you actually get to in the game?

After restarting several times to get a feel for the skills, I stopped right before Landsmeet (?) at about 18th or 19th level.

[VINNY_RPGER]

yeah dao does suk it is the gravestone to bg and bg2 not a successor to. thoes games are rolling around in pain looking at dao.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have to disagree with almost all the points, and those who have been following Bioware's evolution in their games should know from the start that they do not do open ended games but story driven games.

[Abriael_CG]

I can only be absolutely delighted at the fact that DA:O is NOT an open ended game like Oblivion but a story-driven game with a well developed and interesting plot. If I want to wander aimlessly and pointlessly for hours, I can just fire up oblivion again, only to be disappointed again about how sadly dull and uninteresting the story was.

[Del]

I understand Bioware is known for story-based games as opposed to 'sandbox' games but even BG1 had vast areas to explore with little rhyme or reason. And remember chapter 2 of BG2? Amazing stuff. Although I do like a great big seamless world to explore, I also can appreciate a tight story-line that runs through it. In other words, it's all about balance to me and this game doesn't have it.

[Bonkz]

I agree with you on point 2 and partly on point 3.



I also think that good items in the game should be on certain bosses/places. If you save some money and go buy that axe from bodahn for example you have nothing more to expect weapon wise later on. Would be a bit better if that axe dropped from the high dragon for example, or maybe another boss somewhere.

Of course there are still some good items around the world but most of the places you visit you just a ton of metal shards, crystals and other useless weapons/armor that are only good for selling.



As for the freedom in the game i would also like to have some more of it. I don't mean oblivion or fallout freedom. I mean I'd like to have some places to visit other than the 4 major plot ones. Basically some actual big side quests that would lead you to places on the map that you haven't already been to. Places like the umar hills and D'arnisse hold come to mind from BG 2

[tonymerien]

I agree with some...Played BG I & 2, played wow for 5 years......I you want to go and aimlessley play ....do the wow thing...if you want a very good story line...do this one

[Dieover]

OP: your problem sound like you just RUSH through the game and my advice to you is that you need to take a time out to really enjoy it. Just as I'm doing now. I still have the tower and the lil boy quest to finish and i'm taking a week break to recharge my pleasure.



After meeting a super charge boss at the Dirty Alley, i finally realize my understoppable build has to revamp to be even better and i can't wait to respec my build.



What you should do is give the developer some good suggestions on how to improve the game and i'm sure they'll listen and eventually implement it via the next future DLC

[CBGB]

Our impressions sure differ, but I disagree most firmly on the last point:

Del wrote...
3. Lack of an open-ended world to freely explore.

Personally, I hate 'an open-ended world to freely explore' in a single-player RPG. Oblivion offered me little I couldn't get on an empty server in WoW. What a single-player RPG can offer that an MMO can not is a story with you as the hero, and with events that follow converging paths.

If you don't like that, no worries. Plenty of people liked Oblivion. But it seems an odd complaint from someone who liked Baldur's Gate, since it, like Dragon Age, gave you the freedom to choose which areas to see next, what kind of character you would play through them, and most important, which companions would accompany you. In DAO, your companions shape your experiences even more than they do in BG.

[pathenry]

If I want
to wander aimlessly and pointlessly for hours, I can just fire up
oblivion again, only to be disappointed again about how sadly dull and
uninteresting the story was.

Oblivion's main story didn't *have* to be lame though. It just turned out that way.

It isn't either/or though. A freely explorable world shouldn't mean that we can't have a solid story line. We want both.

Yes,
there are many more variables/potential bugs to deal with in an open
world, but hey..thats why these games make millions of dollars in
profits.

This linear crap and *illusion* of choices is a terrible way for games to go.

Modifié par pathenry, 29 décembre 2009 - 09:42 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

You can be a fan and still have complaints, EJ42.

[Eisberg1977]

Del wrote...

I understand Bioware is known for story-based games as opposed to 'sandbox' games but even BG1 had vast areas to explore with little rhyme or reason. And remember chapter 2 of BG2? Amazing stuff. Although I do like a great big seamless world to explore, I also can appreciate a tight story-line that runs through it. In other words, it's all about balance to me and this game doesn't have it.

It was much much easier and less time consuming to make very large maps in the late 90s, since everything was 2D, and not a 3D rendered world with 3D rendered characters/NPCs.  Not to mention all the animations that need to be done.  Things are more focused now.

[Razgorith]

I played over 700h of Oblivion, 100h of NWN2, 7h of BGII and 1h of Diablo, and hey, I've found DA:O to be an epic game!!! XD



Oblivion only lasted that long because I'd experiment mods. A LOT. New quests, weapons, places, entire revamps (OOO, MMM, etc) I ended the game with 115 active mods, but at least 300 passed by. In fact, I BEGAN the game with 7 mods...

[Bonkz]

Del wrote...

I understand Bioware is known for story-based games as opposed to 'sandbox' games but even BG1 had vast areas to explore with little rhyme or reason. And remember chapter 2 of BG2? Amazing stuff. Although I do like a great big seamless world to explore, I also can appreciate a tight story-line that runs through it. In other words, it's all about balance to me and this game doesn't have it.

This is totally true. No one is talking about a sandbox game here. Just talking about some freedom in your story driven game. Chapter 2 in BG2 was the most memorable part in any pc game i've ever played. The rest of the game was linear too, but that specific chapter showed you that you are in an actual place of the world and in an actual city.
You had a huge city with 6-7 districts that you could freely visit, enter houses, find hidden items, talk to NPC's and discover quests that led you to places around the continent. The side quests took you to a small village in the forest, to a keep invaded by trolls, to a small town attacked by animals, to slaves that were being held in a house in the slums and even in the city itself like the plan sphere quest.
Thats the freedom i'm talking about, not some kind of open world like Oblivion. Athkatla in BG2 and the amazing places you got to visit through side quests on your world map is what i'd like to see in future Bioware RPG's.

When you have a city that is alive with sounds and people and you have some distinct places/districts to visit and discover stuff, quests and people,  what else can you ask for? 

On a side note, I'd really like to see side quests (either big or small) to be given by actual people. Maybe a guy in his house where you have to persuade to get, maybe a note you find on a dead man that can lead you to some village on your map etc.

Sorry i really got carried away.....

It was much much easier and less time consuming to make very large maps
in the late 90s, since everything was 2D, and not a 3D rendered world
with 3D rendered characters/NPCs.  Not to mention all the animations
that need to be done.  Things are more focused now.

I do know that in a 3D enviroment things are harder to make than the earlier years. Just wishful thinking ^^

Modifié par Bonkz, 29 décembre 2009 - 09:49 .

[Scotsman284]

I share some of these sentiments. I also feel companion backstories, aside from Alistair's and i guess Zevran's, sortof, were very lacking. I dont feel particularly fond of any of them. Which is new for me, as there are usually 2 or 3 in games like this that i always take with me. But hey, no game is perfect. Even oblivion which imho is the greatest rpg of the decade had numerous flaws and things that turned me off to it. You just gotta take it for what is and hope community mods can make up the rest...assuming you play on pc, that is.

Modifié par Scotsman284, 29 décembre 2009 - 09:52 .

[Dieover]

CBGB wrote...

Our impressions sure differ, but I disagree most firmly on the last point:

Del wrote...
3. Lack of an open-ended world to freely explore.

Personally, I hate 'an open-ended world to freely explore' in a single-player RPG. Oblivion offered me little I couldn't get on an empty server in WoW. What a single-player RPG can offer that an MMO can not is a story with you as the hero, and with events that follow converging paths.

Same here. I hate Open-ended world in a RPG because you'll eventually get lose or you wonder to far from your main quest and that was the exact reason why i stop playing Oblivion. All the side quest and deep open-end world cause me to lost track on what i was suppose to do and in the end lost interest with the main quest.

Not to mention time consuming with open-ended world . However I would like to see an Open-ended world for players that wish to do so. Just purchase a map (infinite random generated open-end world or dungeon) just like you would find in Torchlight - if anyone here even try that awesome Diablo 2.5?

Modifié par Dieover, 29 décembre 2009 - 10:17 .

[TheMadCat]

I'm still amazed at how many people keep doing technical comparisons between the BG series and DA:O as if they are actually similar in terms of development, cost, ect.

[Dieover]

TheMadCat wrote...

I'm still amazed at how many people keep doing technical comparisons between the BG series and DA:O as if they are actually similar in terms of development, cost, ect.

yea... kinda strange seeing so many comparsion between BG and DAO when i didn't even bother installing and playing BG when i first lay my eyes on it ugly graphic. (in a good way) lets move on people with the old game and don't share your classic boat with us because I sure hell doesn't wanna get confuse by it.

[orpheus333]

Del wrote...

As a fan of Bioware since BG1, I regret to say that I'm disappointed with Dragon Age. Although I haven't finished the game yet, I have very little motivation to keep playing, which is part of the problem. Billed as the 'spiritual successor of the BG series,' I find Dragon Age to be much more like Mass Effect, which I couldn't finish either. Yes the atmosphere is great. The story is compelling enough. And combat can be thrilling at times. It can also be a repetitive grind. My major complaints are as follows:

1. Character creation and development is extremely weak compared to the D&D standard. There is very little room for unique and compelling character builds. Three classes and four-tiered skill branches?! More importantly, there aren't any synergistic rewards for committing to a certain path. The way specializations are handled is very poor as well. Big disappointment here.

2. Lots of combat for very little reward. Most of the best items are for sale or unavoidable on the main plot. This means tons of vendor trash and a couple of giant leaps in equipment upgrades rather than more satisfying incremental increases.

3. Lack of an open-ended world to freely explore. Jumping around the world map from 'point of interest' to 'point of interest' quickly made me lose interest. You get some say in the order you do things but for the most part, the game is extremely linear. We are spoonfed the adventure instead of getting to create our own adventure (to the extent that is reasonably possible in a crpg).

Ever since Bioware got into the console business, their crgps have suffered in my opinion. Whether coincidence or not, I can not say. Keep in mind this assessment is coming from somebody who would stubbornly argue with Dave G and others about implementing 'damage vs. size' in BG2. So I love complexity in my crpgs. Dragon Age just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Here's to hoping that a real D&D-based BG/NWN 3 hybrid will see the light of day in the not so distant future. Cheers!

I'm sorry you felt disappointed with DA it can't hit everyones buttons and its sad that it didn't yours. Onto your points;

I completely disagree with your feelings about character creation. From my point of view AD&D had a pretty weak character creation system to begin with and it didn't really do much for the Infinity Engine Games. DA IMO simply has a better system. Character Generation continues throughout the game and allows consistant interaction and player choice. BG left you watching hit points most of the game. NWN has a more robbust system in the same mould but is also over complicated and easily exploitable. DA gets it just for me. Some specializations could have been balanced better but overall they are a good addition to the character without becoming your class. (Arcane Archer, or Red Dragon Diciple for example.)

When it comes to combat the majority of your opponents are cannon fodder as in any RPG. These should be rewarding experiances in and of themselves but not increase your parties powerlevel through magic. As with BG2 or BG1 you have some incredibly strong items through vendors. And i agree with you here that more items should be obtained through quests and adventuring. (I still remember things like Celestial Fury, The Neutralizer etc) Also some DLC item are a huge mistake concidering their powerlevel and the fact they have no effort to get.

Combat itself is a hundred times better than BG2. From animations to sound and tactical challenge. The engine does a really good job of creating a compeling pause and play experiance similar to BG. While also increasing the speed and excitement of encounters. It could be better. Curtain spells and effects can overbalance things. Curtain ystems within party and enemy AI should be fixed. All in all however the combat in DA is better than any of the infinity or aurora engine games by far.

I prefer BG1s style of exploration to BG2 and even Oblivions. Oblivion is mainly empty, BG2 is similar to DA in that it had a paired down group of areas. However i think the key here is that while DAs areas are all overtly related to the main quest. BG2s aren't. They feel seperate from the main character and quest and  only becom important when the main character needs cash. This makes each area feel new, rather than a trudge through a linear storyline.

I think you put to much faith into D&D when it just isn't a good system and has glearing flaws when re-produced in video games. 3rd Ed is OK but I generally don't like class based systems much. For a class based system DA is good if not perfect and avoids the pitfalls of Infinity Engine (AD&D) been counting and Aurora Engine (3rd Ed) exploitability.

Modifié par andyr1986, 29 décembre 2009 - 10:18 .

[Bonkz]

TheMadCat wrote...

I'm still amazed at how many people keep doing technical comparisons between the BG series and DA:O as if they are actually similar in terms of development, cost, ect.

I really like Dragon Age, I think its a great game. I've played through once already as a warrior and i intend to play again. People just point out stuff on another Bioware game (BG2)  that made it excellent and it still is excellent to this day. I have also found myself wondering why things i expected aren't in DA but were in BG, it's only natural.
There will always be comparison of Bioware RPG's with BG2 to be honest because as it is till this day, BG2 is the greatest RPG they created. DA came close if you ask me. Its just the little things that are missing

As for the development/cost terms I agree that they can't be the same but Bio spoke about the spiritual succesor of BG way too much and got people to start comparing

Anyway i still believe that Bio has the ability to create an even greater game than DA in the future with the correct improvements

[Scotsman284]

I actually have a bad habit of comparing every rpg i play to oblivion, which is a bad habit. As for baldur's gate, i only played 1 and that was briefly.

Overall, i felt i got cheated with dragon Age in some aspects. Mostly due to my lofty standards for any rpg. I felt character creation is too weak, companions are too dull, the world is too linear and i miss having voice acting like there was in mass effect.

I enjoy the combat, even if it gets tedious on the console, and some of the quests were fun and enjoyable and i especially liked the obscure references from some random encounters. So overall im kindof mixed on my overall opinion of the game.

As for open worlds, i prefer them in any rpg. For me, half the adventure is actually traveling to your destination, getting side tracked by monsters and bandits and taking time to explore ruins and gather artifacts of a lost era, well in my mind that just adds more depth to the game. Dragon Age had serious potential for that but again, i feel that it just fell short of what i envisioned.

Modifié par Scotsman284, 29 décembre 2009 - 10:26 .