152 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

5 battle styles. Very few different dialogue options too.

 

But lets say it has 40 variations. Compare that to Baldur's Gate 2. I bet you 40 will look like a pathetically small number.

With 8 optional romances, plus romanceless playthroughs... make that 360 variations and more. And other variations like siding with the mages, the templars, choosing who you recruit or not. Yeah, keep living in the past and pretending this game can't be as much an RPG like Baldur's Gate 2. I'll keep rolling my eyes hard. *slow clap*

[sleeping heart]

I'm playing a mage again in DA:O and i feel like such a badass, I walk into a room and it's like: "1, 2, 3 and 4, the devil is here, no sleep no more"

 

I miss that sense of power the mage had in DA:O

[Sidney]

I agree with you in part. Since the perks are tied to the inquisition and not the character itself, it isn't the same as making choices about improving your character's diplomacy skills and such. The perks the inquisition gives you is outside of the character itself, and therefore more like an item or something like that.

Well it is about making choices with limited points so it is really a distinction without a difference.

I suspect in this case it is easier to have, and I think overall better, to have many non-combat skills tied to the inquisition rather than an individual - thinking about codex skills, harvesting, searching and such things bouncing back and forth to make sure the "right" person is reading, searching or harvesting would be a pain in the rump.

[Hexoduen]

Note that most of the older RPGs didn't have all of the elements themselves. Choices in the story were typically nonexistent, and character builds were generally quite simplistic.

 

Starting in the mid 80's we slowly get the original pen and paper RPG elements present, or so I'd argue, and this continues up at least until the epic masterpiece that is Baldur's Gate II  Today, RPG's are fuzzy IMO. Had you asked me 20 years ago I'd have said adventure games are not RPG's. Now I'm not so sure.

 

Edit: Too add to the discussion: I did want the combat system as in Origins as stated by the OP, but I would not rate Inquisition as low. I still find it to be an amazing game - I simply dislike the action combat. So much looking forward to auto-attack

[friffy]

VtM: Bloodlines. The best game and RPG ever.

A like just for mention Bloodlines! Great game, love it - too bad there will be no VtM anymore...

 

 

Sorry for the interruption, was just so happy about it - so back to a topic that once more will lead to the fundamental conclusion that the "Witcher" is fantastic and BW should be like this crap - "crap" IMHO. And I wasn't quite happy with the combat in DA:I at first but I got used to it. Every Dragon Age game has a different combat system, it's a matter of taste - so I wouldn't call it fail.

[Sidney]

I'm playing a mage again in DA:O and i feel like such a badass, I walk into a room and it's like: "1, 2, 3 and 4, the devil is here, no sleep no more"
 
I miss that sense of power the mage had in DA:O

I don't miss the Mages from DAO. Yeah there was a giggly feeling when I blew up the first mage with mana clash but it got old after that. They were really overpowered across the board -- the ability to cast artillery spells through walls for example was awful, crushing prison made lieutenants a joke -- and needed the downgrade they took. The only thing I'd like to see return are buff/debuff Mages

[sleeping heart]

I don't miss the Mages from DAO. Yeah there was a giggly feeling when I blew up the first mage with mana clash but it got old after that. They were really overpowered across the board -- the ability to cast artillery spells through walls for example was awful, crushing prison made lieutenants a joke -- and needed the downgrade they took. The only thing I'd like to see return are buff/debuff Mages

 

And that is one of the reasons all of Thedas was freakin' terrified of mages and they ruled in the form of the Imperium unopposed for so long. their varied abilities in DA:O gave credence to that.

[Rizilliant]

I've complained about other aspects of Inquisition (fetch quests, non-cinematic camera), but the combat was something I had no problem with. Playing as a mage was a blast. It felt like a nice balance between Origins and DA 2. The tactical camera could use some work I am sure, but I thought it was a step in the right direction. The combat animations also felt more heavy, which was nice. Honestly, I don't know why people extol Origins' combat so much. Granted, its tactical camera was certainly superior to Inquisition's, but my idea of a fun time is not micromanaging my party to death. I suppose its just a matter of personal preference. Refering to the game as a "failure" just because the combat doesn't meet your tastes is unfair imo.

Thats why a certain niche of players liked it.. It wasnt this face paced action crap you can get from every other developer.. It was a slow paced, thought inducing, tactical experience, where you did manage each character...Similar, in ways, to NWN, or Baldurs Gate... 

 

Action Games are a dime a dozen, but Dragon Age, was one of very few, that had that certain appeal to it.. Not many games left for us old school fans of tactical thinkers, that dont hold your hand all the way thruogh.. Basically, if we want to enjoy one of those, we have to go back to before 2010... Dragon Age, was hoped to be another Origins, because no one else does those games anymore.. We didnt really need more of the same, in a big open world.. We have games fo rthat, which do it MUCH better..

 

And while im at it.. The combat wasnt great for an action game, if thats what it was going for.. The animations were so slow, and drawn out, that use twitch reflex doesnt work.. Waiting for your mage to swing, spin, then slam his staff to the ground, before you can move, is not good twitch combat.. Not being able to walk, over majority of the ground because a pebble impedes movement, is not good for twitch combat... Having trees, rocks, roofs, etc block your view, is not good for ANY combat!  The game was poorly made.. Period!  

 

The main, and companions stories, and conversations were decent though, ill give it that..However short it was  

[KaiserShep]

Mages were a pain in the ass in DA:O for sure. I went into that warehouse with my Warden while going solo just for kicks, unaware that it was a friggin den full of friggin bloodmages. My rogue had a hell of a time killing them all.

[Rizilliant]

With 8 optional romances, plus romanceless playthroughs... make that 360 variations and more. And other variations like siding with the mages, the templars, choosing who you recruit or not. Yeah, keep living in the past and pretending this game can't be as much an RPG like Baldur's Gate 2. I'll keep rolling my eyes hard. *slow clap*

 

To what end? What impact did it have on the game? All those agents aquired, were little mroe than a footnote.. The mage/templar choice, and choosing who ruled Orlaise, really seem to be the only impactful choices made.. 

 

Im not really sure what the romances had on overall story.. The were mroe of a side quest, than having any meaning in the overall main story of the game.. Part of the game, sure, and an important one.. But in terms of outcomes on missions, and such? I dont really pull romances in with the plot...

[Sidney]

And that is one of the reasons all of Thedas was freakin' terrified of mages and they ruled in the form of the Imperium unopposed for so long. their varied abilities in DA:O gave credence to that.

Yeah they are supposed to be powerful but of course that falls under the "cutscene characters" rule where everyone is a major bada$$ in a cutscene but don't quite play that way once you get your hands on them.

[CronoDragoon]

Mages were a pain in the ass in DA:O for sure. I went into that warehouse with my Warden while going solo just for kicks, unaware that it was a friggin den full of friggin bloodmages. My rogue had a hell of a time killing them all.

 

Mana Clash pretty much made enemy mages a joke, though.

 

 

To what end? What impact did it have on the game? All those agents aquired, were little mroe than a footnote.. The mage/templar choice, and choosing who ruled Orlaise, really seem to be the only impactful choices made.. 

 

Im not really sure what the romances had on overall story.. The were mroe of a side quest, than having any meaning in the overall main story of the game.. Part of the game, sure, and an important one.. But in terms of outcomes on missions, and such? I dont really pull romances in with the plot...

 

What about defining your character in a role-playing game? Surely that counts for something. Judgments, recruiting agents, and romances are all good opportunities to define the PC, depending how you handle them.

[KaiserShep]

Mana Clash pretty much made enemy mages a joke, though.

Yeah, that didn't do my solo rogue Warden much good though. It was then that I learned just how punishing exploring by yourself could be, but it didn't truly hit home until I ran into the horde of Dog Lords in DA2 with my solo rogue Hawke.

[Teddie Sage]

To what end? What impact did it have on the game? All those agents aquired, were little mroe than a footnote.. The mage/templar choice, and choosing who ruled Orlaise, really seem to be the only impactful choices made.. 

 

Im not really sure what the romances had on overall story.. The were mroe of a side quest, than having any meaning in the overall main story of the game.. Part of the game, sure, and an important one.. But in terms of outcomes on missions, and such? I dont really pull romances in with the plot...

They just added more flavor to our personal experiences. Hence, playing a role, playing the role our way. Fits in the RPG theme of this conversation. It doesn't need to influence the plot that much, as choices don't need to affect the story all the time. It's fun to have references here and there, it's fun to have your romance recognized in important part of the story as well. Those variations I'm talking about, they are minimal to some people but to me they are huge and we have the freedom to choose unlike some of those games where we're forced in a certain path all the time.

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah, that didn't do my solo rogue Warden much good though. It was then that I learned just how punishing exploring by yourself could be, but it didn't truly hit home until I ran into the horde of Dog Lords in DA2 with my solo rogue Hawke.

 

Well that's what I get for skimming.

[sleeping heart]

Yeah they are supposed to be powerful but of course that falls under the "cutscene characters" rule where everyone is a major bada$$ in a cutscene but don't quite play that way once you get your hands on them.

 

I hate it when games do that.... it's so underwhelming. Also it's not like mages didn't have their weak points, they just had more options.

[Il Divo]

 

What about defining your character in a role-playing game? Surely that counts for something. Judgments, recruiting agents, and romances are all good opportunities to define the PC, depending how you handle them.

 

I find this head scratching as well. I do love seeing my choices reflected in game, but there's this odd habit of assuming that older Bioware games did choices and consequences better. 

 

Far as I recall, a lot of them didn't. Nothing concrete anyway. Even KotOR, my personal favorite, utterly failed in this department. 

[Sidney]

I hate it when games do that.... it's so underwhelming. Also it's not like mages didn't have their weak points, they just had more options.

ME2 was the king of that stuff. You watch Jack solo rip apart two YMIRs and then you get her and that clearly ain't gonna happen.

[CronoDragoon]

I find this head scratching as well. I do love seeing my choices reflected in game, but there's this odd habit of assuming that older Bioware games did choices and consequences better. 

 

Far as I recall, a lot of them didn't. Nothing concrete anyway. Even KotOR, my personal favorite, utterly failed in this department. 

 

KotOR is one of the better examples, really. It's not really BioWare's fault that Obsidian did a terrible job with KotOR 2 in carrying over consequences.

 

Even then, it's really about the "go dark or light" choice at the end onwards, which is pretty representative of a lot of BioWare games that didn't get sequels. Jade Empire is pretty insane with how Closed Fist turns out.

 

In general, BioWare games have great reactivity with 1) allowing you to flesh out your PC and 2) characters within a story. ME3 often gets derided for how the rachni, Council, and Collector Base decisions turn out, but the way that playthroughs change depending on who is dead or alive at the time is actually really really impressive.

[Il Divo]

KotOR is one of the better examples, really. It's not really BioWare's fault that Obsidian did a terrible job with KotOR 2 in carrying over consequences.

 

Even then, it's really about the "go dark or light" choice at the end onwards, which is pretty representative of a lot of BioWare games that didn't get sequels. Jade Empire is pretty insane with how Closed Fist turns out.

 

I wasn't even thinking KotOR 2, but that does apply. Like you said, it's just how simple/straightforward fooling around with end choices really is. You can be the kindest person in the world, then murder your party at the last second and become a Sith Lord. 

 

Choices there were about as self-contained as it gets. 

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

ME2 was the king of that stuff. You watch Jack solo rip apart two YMIRs and then you get her and that clearly ain't gonna happen.

I thought it was 4 mech's? then she turned out to be as weak as Jacob in actual gameplay

[CronoDragoon]

I wasn't even thinking KotOR 2, but that does apply. Like you said, it's just how simple/straightforward fooling around with end choices really is. You can be the kindest person in the world, then murder your party at the last second and become a Sith Lord. 

 

Choices there were about as self-contained as it gets. 

 

I guess I just have a different definition of what choice and consequence is. To me, the game doesn't need to reflect my decision with in-game content unless it comes up later in the game. I know I've had such and such effect whether I see it later or not. This is why choosing the ruler of Orlais counts as an important choice to me, even if it doesn't affect later missions.

[Hexoduen]

I wasn't even thinking KotOR 2, but that does apply. Like you said, it's just how simple/straightforward fooling around with end choices really is. You can be the kindest person in the world, then murder your party at the last second and become a Sith Lord. 

 

Choices there were about as self-contained as it gets. 

 

KOTOR 2   ...

[CronoDragoon]

KOTOR 2   ...

 

Oh KotOR 2 is a great game, it just does a terrible job at following up on 1's plot threads.

[WildOrchid]

Dao combat????