848 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

That was my experience too. Sure, the turn-based combat is good enough, and character building is great. Apart from that however? The story is a snoozefest, the setting so nondescript it hurts, the quests boring as sin (eh), and the characters one-dimentional cardboard cut-outs. If you want an IWD-like game, it's good. If you want something like BG2, well, Original Sin is not it. I do believe the game was a bit overhyped by the folks who swear by turn-based combat to the point it makes them overlook the glaring flaws the game has as an RPG. It's still good, just not amazing.

And anyway, if I want interesting turn-based combat, X-Com: Enemy Unknown and Xenonauts beat everything else on the market already as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, one thing that amazes me in this topic is the whole ''Bioware was forced to make non-BG2 like games by EA!'' which is just... what? Ever since KOTOR they have stopped making those. PC is their lead platform, eh? Then why was KOTOR released on Xbox, and both Mass Effect and Jade Empire were released on consoles before getting PC releases (imagine the anti-EA outcry if they did the same for Inquisition)? All of this predates EA I might add, while Origins (the fabled return to the roots) was released two years after they were bought by EA. I have no lost love for EA at all, but they are an all too convenient scapegoat for things Bioware have decided for themselves.

To me, seeing their release history, the whole idea that Bioware is out, wants to or should remake BG2 is a complete and total fabrication. They kinda brought this on themselves with Origins's bipolar marketing, but it's still crystal clear that it's not the kind of game that makes them tick anymore.

The thing is those BG2 fans don't let go. ME1 was marketed as the spiritual successor to KoTOR. That's why I followed Bioware's release on the 360. But then everyone forgot about KoTOR's spiritual successor line, and KoTOR IMO put Bioware on the map more than BG2, at least in the sense that they kept trying to copy KoTOR in different ways in JE, ME and DAO.

[Remmirath]

So NWN/NWN2 wouldn't cause a problem because feat use limits were generally based on uses per day rather than cooldowns? Yeah, I see it.

Correct. Also, the majority of feats in NWN and NWN 2 aren't even on a uses per day limit, they simply function all the time.
 

And now you've lost me. How is "which ability to use when" not a tactical decision? Unless "tactical" implies some sort of simulation thing?

That was poorly worded, yes. It is a tactical decision, but it's one that shouldn't have to be made in the way it is made in a game with cooldowns -- as in, with rare exceptions, if somebody knows how to do something, they can keep on doing it whenever it makes sense to do so no matter how recently they last used it. I'd rather be able to focus on positioning and that sort of thing. And yeah, I do prefer more simulationist combat in general.
 

From where I sit DA:O is far worse than the sequels for rogue and warrior builds. Of course, that's because the activated abilities count for me. If I wasn't using them I suppose DA:O would look better, but in that case I'd probably think all three games were awful.

I do use some of them on occasion (those ones that I think do make sense). Partly it's that I prefer to avoid the abilities that I consider cheesy or nonsensical, and there are many more of those in DA II and in DA:I than there were in Origins.

Certainly there's less variety in builds in DA II and in DA:I than in DA:O, since in the later two games it's impossible make a bow-using or dual-wielding warrior, and impossible to make a rogue who doesn't use two daggers or a bow.
 

It's clearly a game made for the PC. The parts of the UI that are actually bad for the PC are the parts I've not seen very many complain about here - like the console menu inputs, the icons, etc. Most related to the combat not being like DAO. Which has nothing to do with the PC UI really.

Yeah, I find this strange. The menu inputs and icons are some of the worst parts of the UI, to me (that and the mini-map not having any map part to it). The whole UI, the menus and character screens and all, is really quite clunky. The combat seems to me like it was made for the PC; it's just not a style of combat I'm particularly fond of.
 

The main take away - Bioware doesn't give a fig about combat. There will always be people who loved ToEE and IWD but Bioware has never wanted to cater to that fan base. If you (for whatever reason) like a Bioware game for the combat you're SOL in the sense there's no guarantee they'll follow up on it. They really don't focus on it. They're the anti COD and Halo in that sense.

True. It would be nice if they would at least stop switching the gameplay up so much within the same series.
 

The thing is those BG2 fans don't let go. ME1 was marketed as the spiritual successor to KoTOR. That's why I followed Bioware's release on the 360. But then everyone forgot about KoTOR's spiritual successor line, and KoTOR IMO put Bioware on the map more than BG2, at least in the sense that they kept trying to copy KoTOR in different ways in JE, ME and DAO.

[Natureguy85]

 

It would be nice if they would at least stop switching the gameplay up so much within the same series.

 

I agree.                                                                                                            ...Stupid thermal clips...

[Salaya]

I hope anyone takes this the wrong way, guys, since I love Bioware games and I have in high regard its plots (in fact, my criticism almost always aims to gameplay, never writing).

 

That said, it is frightening how quickly people disregard plots and writing in Larian games. If anything, they are smarter versions of what Bioware normally tries to achieve with its scripts.

 

Of course, this is a very, very personal opinion.

[AlanC9]

Certainly there's less variety in builds in DA II and in DA:I than in DA:O, since in the later two games it's impossible make a bow-using or dual-wielding warrior, and impossible to make a rogue who doesn't use two daggers or a bow.

I don't believe that conclusion follows. I find that I have more variety in DA2 with rogue and warrior builds than I have in DA:O -- what I lose in different weapons I more than recover in the ability trees. Obviously this wouldn't work as well for you since you don't like a lot of the stuff on those ability trees.

[Big Metal Unit]

I hope anyone takes this the wrong way, guys, since I love Bioware games and I have in high regard its plots (in fact, my criticism almost always aims to gameplay, never writing).

 

That said, it is frightening how quickly people disregard plots and writing in Larian games. If anything, they are smarter versions of what Bioware normally tries to achieve with its scripts.

 

Of course, this is a very, very personal opinion.

 

Larian writes good stories, they're instant-buy games for me just like Bioware.  My disappointment with OS (and I still love the game) was the lack of interesting companions* - but they as admitted that they didn't have time to really polish them so I'm not holding that against them much.  The second character you make yourself is too much of a blank slate for my tastes (I don't like to roleplay more than one "main" character), and the personality options you can give them leave a bit to be desired to make them feel like their own entity.  Games a blast solo, but seems really ideal for playing co-op.

 

Still it's the first game in a new engine, historically those are always weak in some big areas that get polished up in expansions/sequels.  Baldur's Gate gave us BG2/ToB, NWN gave us SOU/HOTU, etc...

 

* I haven't revisited the game since the latest two companions were added, so I can't comment on those.

[Natureguy85]

I hope anyone takes this the wrong way, guys, since I love Bioware games and I have in high regard its plots (in fact, my criticism almost always aims to gameplay, never writing).

 

That said, it is frightening how quickly people disregard plots and writing in Larian games. If anything, they are smarter versions of what Bioware normally tries to achieve with its scripts.

 

Of course, this is a very, very personal opinion.

 

Did you skip ME2, DA2, and ME3? You don't have to respond if you don't want to get into it, or PM me if you just don't want to hijack the thread, but those games had many, many plot issues. I just had to throw it out there.

[In Exile]

I hope anyone takes this the wrong way, guys, since I love Bioware games and I have in high regard its plots (in fact, my criticism almost always aims to gameplay, never writing).

That said, it is frightening how quickly people disregard plots and writing in Larian games. If anything, they are smarter versions of what Bioware normally tries to achieve with its scripts.

Of course, this is a very, very personal opinion.

Talking about quality in plots is too subjective. But, IMO, Larian has bad writing. Or rather bad localisation, if their team isn't here. I don't mean bad story writing. I mean bad grammar.

[Reymoose]

Talking about quality in plots is too subjective. But, IMO, Larian has bad writing. Or rather bad localisation, if their team isn't here. I don't mean bad story writing. I mean bad grammar.

 

You know, I hate to call anyone out, but you seem to be raising Bioware up by putting Larian down. Original Sin, at this moment, has none of the things you've said, the localisation is perfectly fine, there may be typos in a couple of lines of text, but from ALL of the voice-acted conversations it's the same as Bioware.

 

D:OS isn't anything innovative or anything but it is hand in hand the same quality story as DA:I in terms of overall plot (not characters mind you, but plot).

[In Exile]

You know, I hate to call anyone out, but you seem to be raising Bioware up by putting Larian down. Original Sin, at this moment, has none of the things you've said, the localisation is perfectly fine, there may be typos in a couple of lines of text, but from ALL of the voice-acted conversations it's the same as Bioware.

D:OS isn't anything innovative or anything but it is hand in hand the same quality story as DA:I in terms of overall plot (not characters mind you, but plot).

I'm not trying to defend Bioware. I didn't mention Bioware. I mentioned my problem with their writing, and why I don't personally enjoy it. I'm not interested enough to replay divinity to start tracking down examples, but I stand by what I said, saw and read.

I didn't say the plot was bad. I didn't say it was good. I didn't, in fact, say anything about it at all.

[Salaya]

Larian writes good stories, they're instant-buy games for me just like Bioware.  My disappointment with OS (and I still love the game) was the lack of interesting companions* - but they as admitted that they didn't have time to really polish them so I'm not holding that against them much.  The second character you make yourself is too much of a blank slate for my tastes (I don't like to roleplay more than one "main" character), and the personality options you can give them leave a bit to be desired to make them feel like their own entity.  Games a blast solo, but seems really ideal for playing co-op.

 

Still it's the first game in a new engine, historically those are always weak in some big areas that get polished up in expansions/sequels.  Baldur's Gate gave us BG2/ToB, NWN gave us SOU/HOTU, etc...

 

* I haven't revisited the game since the latest two companions were added, so I can't comment on those.

 

I didn't have an issue with roleplaying two characters; I found it refreshing. But I understand perfectly why so many people didn't like it. It certainly could feel weird at times.

 

And yes... they fell short with companions. The potential is there, but they are way too...scarce in personality? . I completely agree.

 

Did you skip ME2, DA2, and ME3? You don't have to respond if you don't want to get into it, or PM me if you just don't want to hijack the thread, but those games had many, many plot issues. I just had to throw it out there.

 

Yeah, yeah. I know these issues. It's just that I find them way too subjective to be good material for discussion? I mean, discussing things is always fun, but not always productive

 

Talking about quality in plots is too subjective. But, IMO, Larian has bad writing. Or rather bad localisation, if their team isn't here. I don't mean bad story writing. I mean bad grammar.

 

I wish I could agree or disagree with you; if the game (Original Sin) would have had spanish translation I would have developed a better opinion about this. In my obvious-not-fluent english perception there was nothing wrong with the writing itself.

 

Although, if I remeber correctly, the spanish localization for Dragon Kight Saga was more or less flawless. But I played that game three-four years ago, so...

[Reymoose]

I'm not trying to defend Bioware. I didn't mention Bioware. I mentioned my problem with their writing, and why I don't personally enjoy it. I'm not interested enough to replay divinity to start tracking down examples, but I stand by what I said, saw and read.

I didn't say the plot was bad. I didn't say it was good. I didn't, in fact, say anything about it at all.

 

That's what you're implying and looking through your posts, it seems that you're using constant circular and misdirecting arguments to avoid talking about the inherent fundamental problems within DA:I. 

 

Let's forget about the story and go to gameplay then, which one of these is objectively better? It can be subjective, but I'm asking in terms of mechanics within an RPG.

 

"Combat in Original Sin is turn-based and tactical, and positioning and environmental factors play a huge part in determining the victor. All of the elements—fire, water, electricity, poison, etc.—interact with one another, as well as with characters. That means that you can break a water barrel to make a huge puddle, then electrocute anyone standing in it for extra damage. Or, an explosive arrow can set off a chain reaction, igniting a cloud in the air and laying waste to a poorly-placed enemy platoon. Characters can be wet if it's raining, dry if it's sunny, warmed by a fire, burning, and plenty of other statuses, and each one affects how they fight, how much damage they're taking, and so on."

 

Or, picking the specialization of say, Reaver, and spamming Dragon Rage with the occasional swing of the weapon with Devour for minutes on end? I say that because that's what combat as a Reaver boiled down to vs. Not that in DA:O.

[Natureguy85]

 

Yeah, yeah. I know these issues. It's just that I find them way too subjective to be good material for discussion? I mean, discussing things is always fun, but not always productive

 

Yeah, I consider many of those problems quite objective lol! Fair enough though.

[In Exile]

That's what you're implying and looking through your posts, it seems that you're using constant circular and misdirecting arguments to avoid talking about the inherent fundamental problems within DA:I.

Let's forget about the story and go to gameplay then, which one of these is objectively better? It can be subjective, but I'm asking in terms of mechanics within an RPG.

"Combat in Original Sin is turn-based and tactical, and positioning and environmental factors play a huge part in determining the victor. All of the elements—fire, water, electricity, poison, etc.—interact with one another, as well as with characters. That means that you can break a water barrel to make a huge puddle, then electrocute anyone standing in it for extra damage. Or, an explosive arrow can set off a chain reaction, igniting a cloud in the air and laying waste to a poorly-placed enemy platoon. Characters can be wet if it's raining, dry if it's sunny, warmed by a fire, burning, and plenty of other statuses, and each one affects how they fight, how much damage they're taking, and so on."

Or, picking the specialization of say, Reaver, and spamming Dragon Rage with the occasional swing of the weapon with Devour for minutes on end? I say that because that's what combat as a Reaver boiled down to vs. Not that in DA:O.

There is no argument that in terms of combat - or at least let's say isometric RPG combat similar to IWD or ToEE - there is no competition with Divinity, and Divinity included a lot of features really designed to make that work. If isometric combat alone did it for me, I'd still be playing Divinity. But it doesn't. Just like IWD didn't. I don't like games like that beyond the time I spent breaking their combat with a powergame build.

There's a separate question as to whether or not DAI and DAO succeed with their own combat, whether the mechanics are better than DAO, and whether the UI is better in DAO. I need to add the caveat that I've only played DAO on nightmare (aside from my first PT ages ago) and I'm not yet done my first DAI play through, and haven't played it on nightmare yet. Also, I power-game, so that strongly colours my feelings about what RPG combat ought to be like.

I haven't played reaver in DAO and now never will so I can't comment. I play mages. And I found mages in DA2 and DAI far superior, with my favourite mage gameplay coming in DAI.

In DAO, mages were broken in two ways. Some abilities were so OP (like Mana Clash) that they made the game pointless. And others were so **** that they only existed to eat up ability points to get to the good stuff. There was only one stat that mattered in DAO for mages: magic. Even as a BM, constitution really only mattered as buffed by items. Each level up was just dump 3 points in MAG or built suboptimally.

In terms of abilities, like I said, there were two choices: trash or OP. Some abilities had good synergy with some builds - Spell Might and Wisp come to mind, the former because it drained mana even if you used BM so it was just a free spellpower boost and spell wisp because it added. I easily had 150 spellpower by level 20. But otherwise there was no variability.

As for tactics, every mob died the same way: fireball (which knocked them down), cone of cold when they ran for me, and then basic damage abilities like winter's grasp and arcane bolt to finish. If I used two mages or the BM/SM they wouldn't even get that far. I tried to gimp myself - not use paralyse or glypth or paralysis to hold them in place - but not even that made it challenging.

For my play style, the tactical camera and action mode work well because I prefer a mix of WASD and click to move depending on the circumstances. I hate aspects of the tac UI with a passion, especially that I can't multi-select and that I can't rote or zoom out the camera properly, but overall it works for me. I don't mind moving the camera with WASD because that's how I moved my characters.

DAO and DAI control very similarly for me. WASD to move, low angle zoom on the camera because I don't care for top down, I need field of view in the distance. So I would always be one scroll flip below pure isometric and angle the camera into the distance.

[k1rage]

Oh lord dont even mention NWN2, its two painfull to me to think about how there will never be another bioware (or any) game based upon D&D 3.5 ever again

 

I hate 4.0 ever so much and i dont have a consistent 3.5 group..... so sad

[In Exile]

Oh lord dont even mention NWN2, its two painfull to me to think about how there will never be another bioware (or any) game based upon D&D 3.5 ever again

I hate 4.0 ever so much and i dont have a consistent 3.5 group..... so sad

I don't understand how you can hate a ruleset that's never been released. Sure, we're all worried about a move away from 3.5, but sometimes a decent (for D&D anyway) ruleset endures.

[Beomer]

Origins 2.0 is not happening no matter how much some of us might want it. That ship sailed with Brent Knowles.

Also OP in consideration of public interest, please change your avatar. I know I wasted five minutes looking at Triss instead of reading your post. 

[Nerevar-as]

Talking about quality in plots is too subjective. But, IMO, Larian has bad writing. Or rather bad localisation, if their team isn't here. I don't mean bad story writing. I mean bad grammar.

They are Belgian.

[Gerula81]

That is funny because many of those people who bought Skyrim and DAI are not 12 year old console players. I myself am way over 12 by several magnitudes as are a lot of posters on this forum. Guess what I like DAI. It hearkens back to the days of BG1 design and not an MMO. Yes I have been playing long enough to know what I am talking about. DAO and DA2 have more elements of MMOs than DAI. IMHO.

 

So what if DAI began at its roots as a multi-player experience so did Neverwinter Nights (Bioware Game) and more recently Kingdoms of Amalur by 38 studios (which was an offshoot of the in-development multi-player Copernicus) . In fact the single player campaign in NWN was not its strength, the multi-player and toolkit were the strengths of NWN. The sheer amount of persistent worlds create with that toolkit for multi-player experience was incredible. The Multi-player and toolkit made NWN successful not the single player campaign. 

 

 

Fact: I'm over 30 years old and I enjoyed Skyrim. Fact: Generalisations and stereotypes are not valid arguments nor are they facts.

 

Guys, our age has nothing to do with it. It's not wrong that 30+ people play fantasy RPGs wink, wink (I'm 34 myself). My point and statement is of what was intended for DAI to be as it results from developers' statements. Whilst I actually agree with you and since you haven't actually debated my point, I guess it still stands

[AlanC9]

Well, the rest of your point was.... what? Skyrim-like, RPG-like, console-like, right? Since DAI's an RPG which runs on consoles and it does take some design inspiration from Skyrim, I suppose that's true. Pointless, but true.

[Akka le Vil]

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Origins sold well. DA2 didn't. Why would you attempt to improve DA2 instead of improving that which was already a success?

 

What I really don't understand is why they went EVEN FURTHER in the DA2 direction after the failure it was, while going EVEN FARTHER from DAO.

 

Wut ???

[tmp7704]

What I really don't understand is why they went EVEN FURTHER in the DA2 direction after the failure it was, while going EVEN FARTHER from DAO.
 
Wut ???

But they didn't go even further in DA2 direction. If anything, a number of changes from DA2 were made to bring back elements from DAO (slower combat animations with some momentum to them, wider race selection, travel around the world instead of being locked to one location, many different areas instead of one cave for all your content need, etc)

What parts of DAI do you consider as 'even further in the DA2 direction'?

[Akka le Vil]

But they didn't go even further in DA2 direction. If anything, a number of changes from DA2 were made to bring back elements from DAO (slower combat animations with some momentum to them, wider race selection, travel around the world instead of being locked to one location, many different areas instead of one cave for all your content need, etc)

What parts of DAI do you consider as 'even further in the DA2 direction'?

 

I'm sorry, are you telling me that the ridiculous combat animations with mages pole-dancing around their staff are closer to DAO than DA2 ? 0_o

No auto-attack ? Using the attack button makes you flail stupidly at the air instead of making you close in the mob ? Tac-cam even more useless than in DA2 ? Even more "streamlined" (read : dumbed down) party control ? Even more consolized interface ? Even more pointless leveling up ?

 

DAI is just a vaguely tweaked DA2 that goes even further in the same direction than its predecessor went compared to DAO. The only two things they fixed are the rehashed caves and at least the two-handed weapons feel they have some weight and aren't made of paper. I struggle to see anything that can reminds someone of DAO instead of DA2.

[Cyonan]

I'm sorry, are you telling me that the ridiculous combat animations with mages pole-dancing around their staff are closer to DAO than DA2 ? 0_o

No auto-attack ? Using the attack button makes you flail stupidly at the air instead of making you close in the mob ? Tac-cam even more useless than in DA2 ? Even more "streamlined" (read : dumbed down) party control ? Even more consolized interface ? Even more pointless leveling up ?

 

DAI is just a vaguely tweaked DA2 that goes even further in the same direction than its predecessor went compared to DAO. The only two things they fixed are the rehashed caves and at least the two-handed weapons feel they have some weight and aren't made of paper. I struggle to see anything that can reminds someone of DAO instead of DA2.

 

The amusing part is that despite the heavily cut down tactics menu, I actually have to control my party in Inquisition more than I did in Origins.

 

In Origins with a half decent understanding of tactics you can almost make the combat play itself, even on the higher difficulties.

 

Although despite everything they seem to be doing well, so I wouldn't expect a return to Origins anytime soon.