143 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir_Kal]

Ancalimohtar, I couldn't agree more about your first post. While I was playing DAO, I was just thinking how great this game was. My first cRPG (heck, my first RPG!) was Baldur's Gate. That leaded me to start reading about the whole RPG thingy, to buy and read the 3rd Edition (and then the 2nd Edtion for curiosity) Player's Handbook, to purchase Icewind Dale, Torment and finally BG2, followed by Throne of Bhaal. The BG saga is still the best cRPG ever done IMHO, followed by Torment and IWD saga.
I must confess that I searched a lot for the "next BG" since 2001 when I finished TOB. Many games tried to achive that status... Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights1 and 2, Pool of Radiance - Ruins of Myth Drannor etc. Most of them were fun here and there, but they all lack the special flavor that made those game so unique, specially Baldurs Gate (2+TOB) that means a huge world, immersive gameplay, fun interface, lots of quests and ways to finish them, lots of background stories, npc that make you care for them and their fates (Arcanum really almost got there, but the interface had serious problems and most of the npcs were irrelevant to the story).
Neverwinter Nights 2 was a big disappointment to me. I expect so, so much from it and at the end it was a major flaw. And you know, its fun because when I first saw DAO running I though "man, this is what NWN2 should be". Even graphically, DAO is marvellous, NWN2 - and I am sorry to say that Obsidian - is horrid... look at the character models or enviroments, everything screams "artificial", "dull", even the animation (the human model running for example is awful). It seems that they didnt know where head while making the game, wich artistic direction move take and everyone did what think it was cool and put it on the game toolset.
And to be honest I didnt belive at all in that "BG sucessor" moto. I was so wrong. Bioware did some great job with Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, but I was expecting that DAO was something like that, a major cRPG done for consoles with all limitations that comes with it. IMO, in the last years Bioware found a way to survive in the MMO-oriented cRPG market, that was doing RPG for consoles and porting them to pcs (nothing wrong with that!).
Yes, you can "feel" these games heritage at some points of DAO, like the "Camp site" (so similar to the ship from KOTOR). But my only problem with these 3 great games is that they were done mostly for consoles: their stories, although great, are thin, the gameplay is mostly linear. And all three of them are very similar. See how close is KOTOR and JE.
I remember that JE Sawyer once said at IWD2 forums that good games are either "evolutionary" or "revolutionary". I think that DAO is a natural evolution of everything that Bioware did in the last years and even the industry of cRPG. It mixes the best of NWN and BG, plus things from all other games (and from other companies) after a critical look of what works and what dont, just like Ancalimohtar said.
So far I truly hope that in the second expansion Bioware offers an online option so we can play in servers done by players pretty much like NWN1. But that's another dream, a new one. You guys just realized my old one: play a game as fun/great/cool/entertaining as BG1/2. So I say thank you, Bioware. Thank you. I have the same trill now when I start DAO that I had when I started BG 10 years ago. Its a great game. A great game RPG. A great story. You delivered it. Again.

Modifié par Sir_Kal, 06 janvier 2010 - 04:02 .

[wwwwowwww]

tetracycloide wrote...

What if I don't want to help out the Dalish because I'm supre prejudiced against elves, for whatever reason, and I decide I can only show up with two treaties instead of all 3?

I know what you're driving at here and in the rest of your post but the pedantic ass inside of me keeps screaming 'then lie to their knife-eared faces and betray them to the werewolves!'

At some point you have to step back and ask yourself just how much freedom is reasonable.  Even in a completely sandbox game like fallout 3 or grand theft auto there's still a scripted story line.  Sure, you don't ever have to complete it, i didn't in oblivion, but there's only so much game before you run out of other things to do (less in this game than the other examples but, again, this isn't a sandbox game).

lol, no I completely understand that at some point you need to complete it, and I'm all for that. What I'm getting at is various ways to complete it.
Yes there are a ton of sidequests to add variety to the game and OMFG I LOVE that about this game, but as far as the 4 main things you HAVE to do in order to complete the game I'd love a little more variety is all. Like I said, and just an example, what if I don't want to even deal with the "knife ears" so I don't even bother going to help. I can't really end the game unless I finally break down and go help them. That's all. Believe me I don't want to just wonder around aimlessly.

Its' just a way of adding more flavor and BG to your character is all, a little more good or evil.

[Bagheeris]

It's a bit pity that this thread turned into another 'mages are OP' discussion spiced with the standard 'if you think mages / some mage spells are OP then don't use them' advice. So far it's simply too hard for me to run with no mages party because i'm not able to make up for the loss of ranged aoe, ranged cc and healing. I'm gonna try with traps, grenades and pots but i'm not so good, at least not yet.

I may be spoiled by variety of WoW raid encounters, but imho different figths should motivate me to think of different optimal strategies. Compared to the story, i get the impression encounter design lacks innovativeness and the final polish. E.g. there are too many figths where having ranged aoe makes huge difference, regardless of difficulty setting. Typically when clearing rooms in buildings: open the door but stay out of LOS, cast aoe covering the whole room and just wait. If needed use 1 - 2x aoe stuns / knockback to prevent mobs from getting throught the door. I would have to be more creative with the tactic if aoe perimeter was smaller, spell duration shorter, casting time shorter and requiring LOS.

And one more snipe at the "mages are OP" topic: there are many encounters where you fight groups of 5+ warriors or 5+ archers or 5+ melee dps or even all of them combined but there are very few encounters with more than 2 mages. Why is that?

[tetracycloide]

I think the issue with encounter variety is the paradigm that a player 'picks' a full party near the beginning of the game and runs with it for the entire game. This was something that featured heavily in Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect before Dragon Age, Mass Effect even had achievements for it, stat boost achievements at that. If encounters are properly tuned, however, this should not be possible. There should be a tactical reason to use each party member that makes each one uniquely useful on different encoutners.



Oddly enough the convention of 'one party, stick with it' lies in direction opposition with the story and dialogue progression where using only one party and never subbing in other people causes the player to miss out on plot detailing.



The best of both worlds, in my mind, would be to stop limiting party memebers to the classes and specilizations they are predefined to be. Does alistair really have to be a warrior? Why would the templar only be warriors, wouldn't stealth and ambushes be at least as effective a method to combat demons and malificarum? Does zevran really need to be a rogue to be an assassing? Wouldn't a blood mage make a very effective assassin? For balance reasons not every party member should be able to be any class or specilization, maybe, but there's got to be a better compromise than 'we've autoleveled a predefined class and specilization for you in a completely suboptimal manner but we left half the levels and specilization points for you to customize.'

[Jack-Nader]

I think the "mages being OP" is a superficial derivative of this thread. What I got out of it is a clear indication that the game lacks variety. BG handled this via immunities and mixed hostile types. Take trolls for instance, they had very good health regen and required acid/fire when in a weakened state to kill. There were magical immune monsters which meant your caster had to take a more buff based role for the fight or risk engaging in melee. A broad spectrum of mixed hostile types meant every encounter had to be weighted and measured but at no point were you left in the dark about how to fight each creature. There were always tombs scattered about which told you.



Hostiles were constantly backed by a mage equivalent creature which, thank goodness, you could NOT cast a "mana clash" type spell and instantly dispense with it. Mages had protections which needed to be handled first before you could damage them. Generally your mage would be doing this while your warriors were engaging its' minions. Without your warriors your mage would likely become squishy paste for the hostile minions. Everything had a purpose.



For anyone missing my point I am not advocating a nerf on mana clash. I think it is a great spell that has a purpose. The problem is the complete disregard for magical spell protections. You should not be able to walk in a room and cast 1 spell that obliterates everything.



DA falls very short in variety. The encounters are always linear and on most occasions you fight creatures that are very much the same and so can be handled in the exact same manner. The only mage I have seen that ups magical defense is the "arcane warrior" encounter and he can be mana clashed before the encounter really starts. Spell shield is a sustained buff and there is no reason it should not be up before the encounter starts.

[Ancalimohtar]

Jack-Nader wrote...

I think the "mages being OP" is a superficial derivative of this thread.

Pretty much. I'm not a fan of the threadjacking, especially since "mages being OP" is merely one among many (and many more important) points made in the OP. There are many other threads you can take your defense of overpowered mages to. My two main gripes with it are 1) they become i-win buttons because the same tactics with the same spell combos never fails, and 2) mages are just stronger party member choices, which is bad if you want to encourage variety in party makeup, which I trust the designers do. For example, I bet Wynne is taken more than any other party member on average, probably followed closely by Morrigan.

Modifié par Ancalimohtar, 06 janvier 2010 - 04:19 .

[tetracycloide]

Ancalimohtar wrote...

Pretty much. I'm not a fan of the threadjacking, especially since "mages being OP" is merely one among many (and many more important) points made in the OP. There are many other threads you can take your defense of overpowered mages to.

In my defense I have addressed more than just the mage balance issues in my responses to your OP and, additionally, several of your biggest points are so self evident and well argued (Non-Transparant Mechanics, Lack of Encounter Variety, Dropping 'real time' turn based for real time real time, ect) that the only response I can muster is an enthusiastic nod which translates poorly to a text based forum.

That said there is one point you made as a criticism that I actually liked to some extent.  Enemy ranks showing as yellow or red/orange in combat is a little immersion breaking but, for the most part, it's not hard to tell which individual in a group is the strongest without names showing at all just on appearance.  So the player, should ranks have been left out as a hard coded stat, would easily pick out the high priority targets in a group on sight while the player's party would be stuck with tactics like 'attack target of target' or 'attack any' or 'attack nearest.'  If one of my party members is a mage, however, the only way to make them change their tactics based on the presence of a stronger than normal foe is to do it manually, which is annoying given the number of elites in the game ripe for this kind of strategy, or hard code ranks in so they can be used as tactics conditions.  I think what you're really railing against in the enemy ranks section is the same thing you lament when talking about encounter variety.  The problem isn't that ranks exist, not in my mind anyway, nor is it that 'boss + minions' fights exists but that minions or 'boss + minions' fights are the only fights in the game.  There are no fights of the 'party of minibosses who synergize one another' variety.  So I disagree, ranks do not force a 'boss + minions' design philosophy and they do serve a purpose in this style of game but agree that there are far to many encounters that look and feel the same.

[Ancalimohtar]

@tetra, I wasn't referring specifically or primarily to your posts, as I think you've made some great points overall. It's been mostly one person who has argued with everybody else in this thread on the same subject, who can easily take his crusade elsewhere. It'd be better for this thread to be a place where everybody voices his opinion on the points presented in the OP and related points, giving a fairer representation of feedback from the playerbase. Someone trying to push one argument over and over with everybody that comes along just magnifies one opinion beyond need. Not that I don't respect said opinion or wouldn't enjoy arguing against it, but I think a separate thread focused on that would be better.

Re: ranks, you definitely got my point exactly, that the main problem is that "There are no fights of the 'party of minibosses who synergize one another' variety." Absolutely. But the entire design of "yellow" and "white" enemies seems to be that they're pulled out of a box, not uniquely created for that encounter. It seems only "orange" enemies have any individuality. Yellow or white enemies never even have names, just "Hurlock emissary" or whatever. They're just higher level versions of stock enemies, with more life and more damage and more resists.

So yeah, technically it's not the rank system; rather, it's the functional consequences of having it.

Modifié par Ancalimohtar, 06 janvier 2010 - 06:29 .

[termokanden]

Bagheeris wrote...

And one more snipe at the "mages are OP" topic: there are many encounters where you fight groups of 5+ warriors or 5+ archers or 5+ melee dps or even all of them combined but there are very few encounters with more than 2 mages. Why is that?

Because mages are supposed to be rare and powerful. Why would anyone fear what mages can do if your average footsoldier is just as powerful? Whether this means that mages as playable characters is a bad thing is another discussion entirely.

It'd be better for this thread to be a place where everybody voices his
opinion on the points presented in the OP and related points, giving a
fairer representation of feedback from the playerbase.

I take it this is directed at me then? I honestly did try discussing and not arguing about a point. It's difficult for me to understand why people can direct personal attacks against me, calling my opinion a crusade and still argue that we should give a fair representation of feedback. I can have an opinion, it just has to be in line with the review?

It's also hard for me not to respond when people make posts claiming I must not have enough experience with what mages can do to make such claims. If you don't respond in a civil manner, you are not really doing this thread any favors. If there ever was a crusade, it was not the work of one man.

Alright, let me bring up some of my other points:

I don't understand why you attack Jade Empire, saying that you hope none of us are ever subjected to that kind of system again. Was it really that bad? I loved that game, and so did many others. That said, I admit it had balance issues.

And now about NWN. You claim that it was unplayable. That is quite simply not true.

These, and the point about mages, is what I mainly disagreed with in the review. I actually agree about most of it.

Modifié par termokanden, 06 janvier 2010 - 08:57 .

[Ancalimohtar]

@termo: When people argue back and forth in a thread, the thread becomes filled with one aspect of the topic as a whole. When that argument is mostly carried forward by a few people, the thread becomes distorted with their views, rather than offering a fairer representation of the playerbase. Everybody feels a need to defend their own views and posts, and at the same time, the temptation to respond to the one or two tangential points or examples of the other posters that are most easily argued against. Quickly things get off-topic and out of control. The opinions of people who only posted once and never got baited into a back-and-forth argument get buried, even though they are really worth just as much.



As for Jade Empire, the combat system was terrible and poorly-constructed, in addition to being slow and not tactical. I only mentioned it for completeness. To be honest, I don't feel the need to defend that point of view, as it's not relevant to any other point i made in the OP, and I'm not sure why you want me to.



As I recall, the main problems I had with NWN1's mechanics and gameplay were 1) the lack of a party, completely unacceptable in a game with D&D rules where things were built to contribute to a party, 2) the sluggishness of the engine, which only got worse in NWN2, and 3) having a henchman--a beggar's version of a party--running around completely uncontrolled, ruining everything. I don't even think you could equip your henchman. The main campaign was also completely unappetizing. It was just an entirely forgettable game (and a severe disappointment from the makers of the BG series) so you'll forgive me if I don't recall all the problems I had with it.



What's puzzling me is why you're taking offense at my calling NWN "unplayable." First of all, as I've reiterated, I never intended to speak for anyone else when voicing my opinions; so yes, it was completely unplayable, for me.

[termokanden]

Ancalimohtar wrote...

@termo: When people argue back and forth in a thread, the thread becomes filled with one aspect of the topic as a whole. When that argument is mostly carried forward by a few people, the thread becomes distorted with their views, rather than offering a fairer representation of the playerbase. Everybody feels a need to defend their own views and posts, and at the same time, the temptation to respond to the one or two tangential points or examples of the other posters that are most easily argued against. Quickly things get off-topic and out of control. The opinions of people who only posted once and never got baited into a back-and-forth argument get buried, even though they are really worth just as much.

Oh agreed. However, I think people were too quick to point it in my direction, while STILL ARGUING ABOUT MAGES!

As for Jade Empire, the combat system was terrible and poorly-constructed, in addition to being slow and not tactical. I only mentioned it for completeness. To be honest, I don't feel the need to defend that point of view, as it's not relevant to any other point i made in the OP, and I'm not sure why you want me to.

I don't want you to defend it. I'm just wondering if you felt Jade Empire was bad in general or if it was the system alone. I was just a bit surprised that it should be THAT bad. If I had to criticize it myself, then I would say that the whole combat system can be summarized as "kick twice, jump over head, repeat". But the overall game I thought was great. And for some reason I also found the combat fun, if oversimplified.

I basically just wanted to know if I'm the only person here who doesn't hate JE 

As I recall, the main problems I had with NWN1's mechanics and gameplay were 1) the lack of a party, completely unacceptable in a game with D&D rules where things were built to contribute to a party, 2) the sluggishness of the engine, which only got worse in NWN2, and 3) having a henchman--a beggar's version of a party--running around completely uncontrolled, ruining everything. I don't even think you could equip your henchman. The main campaign was also completely unappetizing. It was just an entirely forgettable game (and a severe disappointment from the makers of the BG series) so you'll forgive me if I don't recall all the problems I had with it.

It had its problems. However, I thought it was actually very playable. Add something like HotU and there are so many different builds to try. There was a big community enjoying replaying the game as well.

What's puzzling me is why you're taking offense at my calling NWN "unplayable." First of all, as I've reiterated, I never intended to speak for anyone else when voicing my opinions; so yes, it was completely unplayable, for me.

It looks like a general statement to me, one that I could not agree with at all. You don't have to defend it further. Leave it at this, a lack of agreement

Do not forget that I do actually agree about pretty much everything else in there, which is also why I'm not complaining about any of that. In particular, scrapping the henchman system and having an actual party now in DAO is quite a smart move I think. That was probably the part about DAO I enjoyed the most.

[shree420]

A very long and detailed review, had fun reading it, and found myself nodding vigorously at points. Thanks for a good read!

I, too, feel that DA:O has taken us back to Bioware's gaming roots. It's not as great as BG2, but I'm beginning to think that's a tall order for any game to fill.

The return of the full party is what makes these kinds of games fun; the idea that you're not a lone ranger fighting against evil influences. I just wish DA:O had five members as originally planned, though four works fine.

DA:O also has a great story, although it tends to repeat the Four Great Hubs technique of ME and JE. "Go to each hub, clear monsters out, done". I think BG2 did it better here; like you said it mixed linear and sandbox gameplay very well.

Personally, the Fade, therefore, appealed to me; it was an excellent linear-gameplay puzzle diversion and gave a good look at how you'd do solo. It was very well written, though I'd hoped that your companion nightmares were bigger than the convince-and-one-fight nature of things.

Tactically, the absence of a combat log sucks; it's what gives you strategic feedback and closes the loop. The inability to change the diamond formation also hampers me, plus the fact that you can't rearrange party order - so my summoned bear tends to follow at the end of the line rather than beside my tank, and vice versa if you choose otherwise. Addition of scripted tactics a welcome addition, though limiting by skill points was a bad idea. It's a player convenience, not a skill.

There's certainly more combat-wise for melee players here in terms of abilities, say compared to BG2. They've done a good job of expanding the skill sets for warriors and rogues, though their skill sets are not as flexible as a mage's. A mage can pick and choose his spells - no opposing school restrictions here - but warriors and rogues can't do so effectively, because the best talents are top-loaded.

A point I'll make I feel that has not been covered is Specializations. I felt that two specializations breaks the game tactical progression and makes a mockery of the concept. "Well, you went here and became a Templar, now you went here and became a Reaver!" It's not the natural opposition inherent in some specializations that bugs me, though it grates - for example, you can make Wynne a blood mage. This can be easily fixed by putting restrictions on specialization pairs.

No, my issue is that specializations seem tacked-on as a feature. "Ok, we have our basic classes. Let's just add four talents to a class and call it a specialization." It's a great idea, a good alternative to the kits approach, but not made deep enough. I would've preferred to have two-three specs per class, mutually exclusive, and having deeper talent trees. They could've skimmed off some of the base class talents and put more into the specs. How can the coolth of being an assassin be expressed in just four skills?

I would have loved these to be tied into the story. Want to be a Templar? Go to the Mage Tower and BE one. Literally. Have Templar quests. Yes, I'm talking the Guild approach. As they are now, I get a Templar spec unlocked, but no one comments on my magnificient Templar-ness. I understand that integrating 12 specs into the story is tough, but that's my point - why have specs if they seem divorced from the story? Just unlocking them in-story doesn't count. Have less of them, and make them deeper. This is also why I didn't like JE's combat system, though the game was fun.

I'll stop for now, but again, great post, and great discussions.

[Gabo]

Great feedback that will surely help us improve



I may have some more coments later on but right now I have a deadline to get to!

[tetracycloide]

Gabochido wrote...

I may have some more coments later on but right now I have a deadline to get to!

Wasn't that deadline the day before yesterday?

I kid, i kid.  Seriously, looking forward to whatever you have to say and to a more perfect DLC.

[System Shock]

hmmm... cute.



Wanna make Dragon Age 2 better? Have the devs play Oblivion.

[termokanden]

Why would that make DA 2 any better?

[shree420]

Gah...please don't bring Oblivion into this. It has its good points, but Bioware makes story-driven games mercifully unlike the Oblivion "sandbox".

What I liked about Oblivion, was that the sandbox experience was good. Once you got out of the dungeon, you could go anywhere, and do anything in the world - ride a horse all the way to the next town? - doable. And there was always a quest to go to. Problem was, there was no urgency about it. And the combat system sucked, and there was none of the party fun and tactics.

And of course cursed enemy autoleveling.

DA: Oblivion would have the Archdemon accompanied by Level 20 mice who would Overwhelm.

Oblivion was fun for the first six hours, but once you exhaust the exploration possibilities and your jaw comes back up off the floor following the frankly gorgeous graphics, there was nothing more. I left it at that point.


Clearly, DA:O has gotten most of the things right. An additional gripe I might raise is the lack of people and color in the cities and settlements, but I understand that I don't want throngs of people to push up gaming requirements. BG2 was very good at that, but then BG2 didn't have to do the whole thing in textured 3D, and could get by with drawn art and music. Part of the reason why there's still a market for 2.5D games like that, I suppose.

Modifié par shree420, 08 janvier 2010 - 03:10 .

[Eragondragonrider]

I really like this game, but for character specialization, I wish DA:O had talents trees to that way you could specialize they way you want. I all wish there was quest for you class to get rare equipment, talents or other things. This game looks a lot like WOW, with the tatics and group make, wish there was more quest and an open world to go explore and more secret areas to find in the game.

[tetracycloide]

I guess that would depend on what part of WoW you played but, from an end game raider's background, DA:O was thankfully nothing like WoW in terms of content or loot aquisition. The ability to purchase high end gear alone adds a remarkable degree of freedom in what parts of the game the player wants to experience and in what order. There are some caviats to this, to be sure, but for pretty much every major weapon type there's a high end version of that weapon available for sale somewhere and it can be the first upgrade taken instead of always being shoehorned into completing a specific portion of the game early to unlock access to what your character really needs.

[Eragondragonrider]

tetracycloide wrote...

I guess that would depend on what part of WoW you played but, from an end game raider's background, DA:O was thankfully nothing like WoW in terms of content or loot aquisition. The ability to purchase high end gear alone adds a remarkable degree of freedom in what parts of the game the player wants to experience and in what order. There are some caviats to this, to be sure, but for pretty much every major weapon type there's a high end version of that weapon available for sale somewhere and it can be the first upgrade taken instead of always being shoehorned into completing a specific portion of the game early to unlock access to what your character really needs.

I was an end game raider in WoW, I like the raid dungeon but hated to 10hrs+ of raiding for a fight over loot, then having to wait a week to go back in, what I liked about WoW was the talent trees and exploring the world freely. With the talent trees you could have some very interesting builds that where unique and thats what made it interesting.

[RangerSG]

System Shock wrote...

hmmm... cute.

Wanna make Dragon Age 2 better? Have the devs play Oblivion.

Umm...no. Oblivion is inferior to Morrowind in everything but graphics even.

________________

OK, in general this is a good review, pros and cons. But I would offer some critique...

1) Are mages overpowered? They're powerful. But it was advertised beforehand they would be. Compared to BG, no, they're not. Compared to D&D 3.x, yes they are. But that's because mages stunk and clerics ruled the world. Nothing was more overpowered in NWN than a cleric. I like having true blend mages. And I fail to see why a party with a tank+3 mages should 'not' be powerful. Note...raw power is not always everything. It's quite useful to have a rogue to avoid traps and other issues. So no, let's not go the "make DA mages like everything else" route. Some spells could use a more logical placement, on that I agree. If all you want is to nuke the universe, then of course you should have three mages. And no, 1 heal spell does not make you an adequate healer in DA.

2)  On the 'accents.' I really don't get the critque. What, is no one supposed to speak with 'any' accent? That would be immersion breaking too. "Why does it have to sound European"? Well, what should they use? African, Asian? Neither of those fit an Early-Middle Ages setting well. Sorry, but change for the sake of change is not a good thing. The accents fit the setting, and THAT is what should matter.

3) On the elves and dwarves, *shrugs* I find them both sufficiently different to care about their plight. If you want a human-only setting, that wouldn't bother me. But why should a fantasy GAME (as opposed to a BOOK) have to reinvent the wheel and come up with new races? Both have distinct spins that make me see them as sufficiently different.

4) I think much of your discussion of threat, while not entirely invalid, is unbalanced by using Shale as your example. Shale's a golem with an AoE attack. So she can attract and hold threat beyond either of your vanilla options. I think there is an issue with the effectiveness of Taunt vis-a-vis Threaten (which is almost useless). But that said, if you're in a party with THREE mages, it's very likely they'll attract threat. Also, healing the party ALSO attracts threat.

[Ancalimohtar]

@tetra, I actually prefer the opposite. I don't like gold playing a major role in loot acquisition. I guess part of it is I don't value freedom of running around and doing things in different orders as much as you. But I miss how in BG2, defeating a big boss got you something tangible, a unique piece of gear--best of its kind, or best for a specific situation at least--you couldn't get anywhere else. Killing Firkraag got you the crafting components to the Holy Avenger and the Red Dragon Plate. You couldn't get that anywhere else. It's just a better reward than boring old +XX gold, which you can make, in smaller increments, in tons of different ways. Basically, a unique encounter should provide a unique reward.

[tetracycloide]

The mages thing has been beaten to death, really, but at the risk of starting it up again. Why doesn't having 'heal' make a mage an adequate healer in DA? I mean sure, regeneration and group heal are nice, lifeward has its uses, but with a properly built tank holding agro heal is all any mage will need to keep them up. Well, that and lyrium potions for the longer fights.

I'd also like to point out that the OP isn't claiming mages are overpowered because of their raw power, the complaint is that there's no defense against it. Enemies should have abilities that have to be dealt with before a mage should be capable of one shotting them. If every mage in the game had anti-magic up before every fight mana clash would still be a massively powerful spell but it would also be balanced against the fact that not everything can be hit with it in the first second of a fight.

@Ancalimohtar I like it best when the encounters themselves are their own reward.  Even in the example you give (if i'm reading it right) it's a drop that gives the player options, craft one thing or the other, which is not quite as much freedom as straight gold but is still better than fixed drops/quest rewards.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 08 janvier 2010 - 09:08 .

[beancounter501]

Good review! I would agree with a lot of the points. However, I would much rather see the warrior line expanded then the mage line nerfed! Expand the basic warrior talent tree and cut back on the Weapon Specializations. It would be a lot of fun to switch weapon styles depending on the encounter. And cut back the fatigue penality of armor. Auto attack is auto-boring.



The whole tank concept is one of the worst game elements I have seen. Lets make the poor AI even dumber. Don't bother attacking that mage in a robe who you could kill in two swings! Instead fight the guy in massive armor! Dumb and dumber.



Give the freakin AI some intelligence. The mobs should target Mages and Rogues right off the bat. No player will let some rogue in leather armor back stab his whole party!! Lightly armored and easily hit targets should get killed right off! Paper tigers need to be killed and the AI should adapt.



If anything needs a massive nerf it is taunt. Mages should be forced to waste a lot of power in defense! Mages would not be half as overpowered if every archer in the game immediately targeted them. Kind of like what the player does!