It's odd too in the sense that having fewer fans, depending on whom you speak to, is looked on as a positive, making one part of a select group.
This again makes me wonder about Shattered Steel, Bioware's first ever game. I doubt more people like Shattered Steel than they did BG1. Was BG1 looked upon as main stream at the time?
BG1 was not mainstream. The d&d bits and the Forgotten Realms had a huge following, though.
Try doing the puzzles in the Mythal temple without jumping, then get back to me.
BG1 was not mainstream. The d&d bits and the Forgotten Realms had a huge following, though.
Well, perhaps not in the larger gaming community. But among RPG enthusiasts? Far as I recall, Bioware chose the single most popular pen and paper rule set to implement for BG.
Given that some like to look at more recent Bioware efforts (especially their action RPG's) and talk about them "selling out" for profit, what's to stop us from saying the same about Baldur's Gate, right at the start? They chose the most popular rule set to appeal to the pen and paper crowd.
I definitely think DA:O is better, but the over emphasis on auto attack is not something which just Inquisition suffers from. More abilities by necessity makes combat more dynamic b/c even after you have exhausted certain skills, you just switch over to a different one. This is another frustrating aspect of low level gameplay that can be seen as early as BG. Want to play a Wizard? Level 1, cast a spell, and use your slingshot autoattack unless you happen to have a wand on you.
It's also why I love high level DA:O play as an Arcane Warrior b/c at high levels, any hardy foe I can kill with just spells (since I still have a crap ton of mana) and any basic darkspawn mooks will die in a matter of seconds to basic autoattack, potentially triggering the awesome execution animations.
that's the beauty of it - it depends entirely on your playstyle, and it doesn't automatically make the combat more dynamic. you can choose 3-4 skills and still beat the game. you can use any situational ability when you think it's approperiate and speed-up the encounter. you can autoattack and still obliterate any hostile NPC.
as for level 1 wizard - those guys always felt like oxygen wasters that die of mosquito bite. level 1 warriors were OP in comparison. but the equation changed in endgame. in DA:I it seems... very well balanced.
for some reason i don't like it balanced. endgame difficulty drop for mage classes (Arcane Warrior or not) was a reward for the first half of the game.
that's the beauty of it - it depends entirely on your playstyle, and it doesn't automatically make the combat more dynamic. you can choose 3-4 skills and still beat the game. you can use any situational ability when you think it's approperiate and speed-up the encounter. you can autoattack and still obliterate any hostile NPC.
as for level 1 wizard - those guys always felt like oxygen wasters that die of mosquito bite. level 1 warriors were OP in comparison. but the equation changed in endgame. in DA:I it seems... very well balanced.
for some reason i don't like it balanced. endgame difficulty drop for mage classes (Arcane Warrior or not) was a reward for the first half of the game.
Yeah, I'm actually with you on that. Most of what I loved about DA:O's gameplay was due to the lack of balance (although I've seen more than a few people rage about how OP Mages are). Deep Roads is usually one of the last areas I visit in DA:O and by that point, I have most of my mainstay Blood Mage/Arcane Warrior abilities and can devastate pretty much anything I come across single handedly.
DA:O had Loghain. He was the antagonist in that game, not the Archdemon. the archdemon was more or less a natural disaster you had to work towards stopping.
While I'd argue that Howe is the bigger antagonist, Loghain's presence is actually not that big throughout the story. His biggest "villainous" action in the entire game is the retreat at Ostagar, and that doesn't even affect the Warden directly, since whether he charged or not would not have changed the situation in the tower. After that, the most you get are some lowly NPC's that attack you for the bounty, and Zevran, which is probably the only real challenge, and it wasn't even Loghain himself that sought him out. Despite being branded as outlaws with a bounty on your head, hardly anyone ever attempts to collect. There's no roving bands of soldiers hunting for Grey Wardens that you come across. Loghain is busy fighting in a civil war, but that doesn't really get in the way of what you're doing either. Personally, I think that Loghain is a tad overrated as an antagonist. He does even less to you directly than Corypheus, funnily enough, and is even easier to defeat.
I don't think Howe gets enough credit as being the real bad guy of the game. Loghain just seemed to be the guy that had no choice but to put up with this crap.
I would be cool with that ...
And I would be very curious what they would do with their creative autonomy!
If CD PRoject Red can do it - why shouldn't they be able to do the same?
Well do not overestimate CD Project Red, its also a stock corporation with a free flow of 44.25% shares on the market. That makes them higly vulnerable for a hostile takeover.
Well do not overestimate CD Project Red, its also a stock corporation with a free flow of 44.25% shares on the market. That makes them higly vulnerable for a hostile takeover.
They're listed on the Polish gaming stock exchange. So a hostile takeover is a bit unlikely.
While I'd argue that Howe is the bigger antagonist, Loghain's presence is actually not that big throughout the story. His biggest "villainous" action in the entire game is the retreat at Ostagar, and that doesn't even affect the Warden directly, since whether he charged or not would not have changed the situation in the tower. After that, the most you get are some lowly NPC's that attack you for the bounty, and Zevran, which is probably the only real challenge, and it wasn't even Loghain himself that sought him out. Despite being branded as outlaws with a bounty on your head, hardly anyone ever attempts to collect. There's no roving bands of soldiers hunting for Grey Wardens that you come across. Loghain is busy fighting in a civil war, but that doesn't really get in the way of what you're doing either. Personally, I think that Loghain is a tad overrated as an antagonist. He does even less to you directly than Corypheus, funnily enough, and is even easier to defeat.
I don't think Howe gets enough credit as being the real bad guy of the game. Loghain just seemed to be the guy that had no choice but to put up with this crap.
The best comparison for Corypheus (I feel) is Saren. I think Saren was a much better villain overall, but (like Corypheus himself) he only really confronts the protagonist on two separate occasions and the rest of the story deals with either preventing his plans or dealing with his subordinates.
Loghain I also feel is overrated. I think the idea behind him was good, but as implementation goes, he's a far cry from the brilliant general we're told he is (compared to Sun Li for example). The extent of his plans seems to involve sending the occasional bounty hunter after the Wardens.
While I'd argue that Howe is the bigger antagonist, Loghain's presence is actually not that big throughout the story. His biggest "villainous" action in the entire game is the retreat at Ostagar, and that doesn't even affect the Warden directly, since whether he charged or not would not have changed the situation in the tower. After that, the most you get are some lowly NPC's that attack you for the bounty, and Zevran, which is probably the only real challenge, and it wasn't even Loghain himself that sought him out. Despite being branded as outlaws with a bounty on your head, hardly anyone ever attempts to collect. There's no roving bands of soldiers hunting for Grey Wardens that you come across. Loghain is busy fighting in a civil war, but that doesn't really get in the way of what you're doing either. Personally, I think that Loghain is a tad overrated as an antagonist. He does even less to you directly than Corypheus, funnily enough, and is even easier to defeat.
I don't think Howe gets enough credit as being the real bad guy of the game. Loghain just seemed to be the guy that had no choice but to put up with this crap.
You don't have to do anything directly to be a decent antagonist. The PC and Alistair weren't really any main threat to oghain to begin with either. Just some witnesses to what he did. He was focused on gaining the power in Denerim for most of the time. Once you became a problem, though, he upped his game.
Well yeah, Loghain is easier to defeat. He is a regular human being, and not a Mary Sue like Cory. Still, Loghain actually does something to try and hinder you a few times. Cory does nothing at all.
Howe is only a real badguy if you play as a human noble, really.
You don't have to do anything directly to be a decent antagonist. The PC and Alistair weren't really any main threat to oghain to begin with either. Just some witnesses to what he did. He was focused on gaining the power in Denerim for most of the time. Once you became a problem, though, he upped his game.
Well yeah, Loghain is easier to defeat. He is a regular human being, and not a Mary Sue like Cory. Still, Loghain actually does something to try and hinder you a few times. Cory does nothing at all.
Howe is only a real badguy if you play as a human noble, really.
Loghain's idea of hindering is to send a few bounty hunters after the protagonist. The Orzammar, Circle, (and Dalish Elf) situations don't even really have anything to do with Loghain.
Corypheus' idea of hindering is to burn Haven to the ground and to murder your people.
Well, perhaps not in the larger gaming community. But among RPG enthusiasts? Far as I recall, Bioware chose the single most popular pen and paper rule set to implement for BG.
Given that some like to look at more recent Bioware efforts (especially their action RPG's) and talk about them "selling out" for profit, what's to stop us from saying the same about Baldur's Gate, right at the start? They chose the most popular rule set to appeal to the pen and paper crowd.
For the pen and paper crowd, d&d set in the Forgotten Realms was the most popular thing to do, yes. Not sure if it was the most mainstream rpg on the PC, though. The Ultima games were top dog in the 80s and 90s. Until EA pretty much forced a takeover and milked Origin til it was dry. Actually very much like what they are doing to DA, come to think of it. They introduced jumping, removed auto attack, and several other rpg bts and made the whole thing more of an action game. U9 was extremely dumbed down, if I remember correctly. That one had the famous "What is a paladin?" line in it.
Quite right. And they delivered exactly what they promised with BG. They didn't dumb the game down either, just to cater to people who have never touched an rpg before. You got exactly the product they told you you would get for your money. No lies about the game having over 20 different ending, when it only has 3 endings (ME3) for example.
For the pen and paper crowd, d&d set in the Forgotten Realms was the most popular thing to do, yes. Not sure if it was the most mainstream rpg on the PC, though. The Ultima games were top dog in the 80s and 90s. Until EA pretty much forced a takeover and milked Origin til it was dry. Actually very much like what they are doing to DA, come to think of it. They introduced jumping, removed auto attack, and several other rpg bts and made the whole thing more of an action game. U9 was extremely dumbed down, if I remember correctly. That one had the famous "What is a paladin?" line in it.
Quite right. And they delivered exactly what they promised with BG. They didn't dumb the game down either, just to cater to people who have never touched an rpg before. You got exactly the product they told you you would get for your money. No lies about the game having over 20 different ending, when it only has 3 endings (ME3) for example.
So basically, they did go for popular mechanics instead of good game mechanics. I wouldn't have used DnD otherwise.
Speaking as someone who hates ME3 (and followed its development closely), I'm not likely to give BG extra credit since I didn't follow their development. ME3 had 3 terrible endings, with a very homogenized presentation, amidst far too much pre-release hype. But for me, what Bioware told gamers back in '98 isn't really relevant to how I view their game since I didn't have to deal with pre-release hype when playing Baldur's Gate.
So basically, they did go for popular mechanics instead of good game mechanics. I wouldn't have used DnD otherwise.
Speaking as someone who hates ME3 (and followed its development closely), I'm not likely to give BG extra credit since I didn't follow their development. ME3 had 3 terrible endings, with a very homogenized presentation, amidst far too much pre-release hype. But for me, what Bioware told gamers back in '98 isn't really relevant to how I view their game since I didn't have to deal with pre-release hype when playing Baldur's Gate.
The 2ed edition of D&D was pretty damn good. But maybe not for PC gaming. It s heavily focused on actual roleplaying. Combat mechanics and such are secondary in that edition. A lot got lost in translation.
Truth be told back in those days, there weren't that many really good mechanics. Not for crpgs anyway. But they were still better than 3 classes, 8 abilities, and only being able to use 2 weapon styles for 2 of the classes and 1 for mage. More options for you to make your own character. Not just pick 1 out of 5.
The 2ed edition of D&D was pretty damn good. But maybe not for PC gaming. It s heavily focused on actual roleplaying. Combat mechanics and such are secondary in that edition. A lot got lost in translation.
Truth be told back in those days, there weren't that many really good mechanics. Not for crpgs anyway. But they were still better than 3 classes, 8 abilities, and only being able to use 2 weapon styles for 2 of the classes and 1 for mage. More options for you to make your own character. Not just pick 1 out of 5.
I can't really speak to the tabletop value of second edition. As a cRPG, I found BG to be heavily focused on combat (like most Bioware games) and more than a bit bland in terms of providing me with leveling up options, which is often a static affair. Other than say Warrior proficiencies, leveling up doesn't really give me much to do. Not to mention, the potential for being one shot early on I think works better for games like XCOM than it does for story-based games.
I won't dispute customization options, which I do give D&D credit for (I think NwN2 had a huge variety on that front). My ideal approach to role-playing (based on table-top): is maximum customization of my own character possible, minimal customization of everyone else's character, essentially the Bioware companions.
I hope a lot of things break away from EA. They're the reason Gran Turismo will never have Porsches. Sonomonbeeches.
Well, stock options are something that employees get, not members of the general public. As for buying ordinary stock, there's no separate Bioware stock to be purchased, just stock in EA. But if you've got enough money to purchase enough shares of EA to have a significant vote on the board, go for it.
There's enough complaining about paying $15 for DLC 
Gamer stock take-over?
I don't think so... 
I hope a lot of things break away from EA. They're the reason Gran Turismo will never have Porsches. Sonomonbeeches.
No non-NFS racing title can have Porsches. For every Forza game since Forza 3, we've been stuck with RUF, the Porsche knock-offs. I think Forza 4 had a Porsche car pack DLC, but that was a 1-time thing. Forza Horizon 1 and Horizon 2, and Forza 5 all don't have any Porsche models.
The only consequence is for the fellow who croaks. Not the inquisition or the inquisitor.
Seriously? Nobody would remove the support from you if you leave the champion of Kirkwall to die? Or Loghain, one of the biggest heroes in Ferelden history? Surely someone would react negatively to that and decide not to support you anymore?
Its hard not to oversimplify it when it is simplified in the game itself. He could at least have attacked one of my keeps. Or tried to send some assassins to kill me or whoever else. Blackmail someone in the inquisition. Just...something. The is a phrase that goes something like this "The strength of the protagonist is measured by the threat of the antagonist". Given the passive state of Cory, the inquisitor is pretty much a wuss.
DA:O has auto attack. It has the radial menu. It has a tactics screen where you can set up what your companions are to do during fights. None of these require any button mashing.
Play DA:O on hard. Let the AI do everything, and put it up on youtube. Lets see how far you get. I bet spiders and marbari might prove difficult when they overwhelm you. The dragons and the broodmother too.
The Mythal temple puzzle required jumping.
The only people who would be affected by Hawke's death are Varric, the mages, and the Templars. Of those 3, only Varric can possibly be present. The Wardens don't care about Hawke, they have no reason to.
No, you really did oversimplify it.
I also love how your response to "I can let the game practically play itself" is "lol turn the difficulty up to max and see how far you get!" I shouldn't need to point out why that's a poor point to make, but I have the lingering feeling I'll have to.
You know, I'm starting to think that for many people, DA:I falls into a kind of "uncanny valley" of game design, in the sense of being almost but not quite like Origins is far worse than not being like Origins at all. Because while some things have changed compared to DA:O, they're still fundamentally very similar games, the changes are really minor on an overall scale.
Overall I think the changes combined add up to a game that is very different from Origins.
A few examples:
In Origins we had ability points that mattered at each level up, now they're hidden away in a long list 'cause they're not important 
We had 80 spells, now we have 20 
We had 40 quickbar slots, now we have 8
We had 200+ different condition settings for tactics, now we have what, 10?
Dragon Age has been streamlined so much I can hardly recognize it.
That's not to say I find Inquisition a bad game, but if I were to rate them I'd give Origins 9.5 /10 and Inquisition 8.5 /10, mainly because of the differences in the gameplay mechanics.
Overall I think the changes combined add up to a game that is very different from Origins.
A few examples:
In Origins we had ability points that mattered at each level up, now they're hidden away in a long list 'cause they're not important
We had 80 spells, now we have 20
We had 40 quickbar slots, now we have 8
We had 200+ different condition settings for tactics, now we have what, 10?
Dragon Age has been streamlined so much I can hardly recognize it.
That's not to say I find Inquisition a bad game, but if I were to rate them I'd give Origins 9.5 /10 and Inquisition 8.5 /10, mainly because of the differences in the gameplay mechanics.
In previous games, you couldn't even acquire all of the skills. Playing DA2 again yesterday and on a whim I decided to console command myself to the level cap (50) to see how high my stats could go, and I still didn't have enough ability points to fill out all of the trees. Same goes for Origins, you can't take every ability due to not having enough points. Why would you ever need 40 hotkeys for abilities? It's not like you're playing pre-WoD World of Warcraft, where some classes literally had upwards of 50 keybinds.
In previous games, you couldn't even acquire all of the skills. Playing DA2 again yesterday and on a whim I decided to console command myself to the level cap (50) to see how high my stats could go, and I still didn't have enough ability points to fill out all of the trees. Same goes for Origins, you can't take every ability due to not having enough points. Why would you ever need 40 hotkeys for abilities? It's not like you're playing pre-WoD World of Warcraft, where some classes literally had upwards of 50 keybinds.
I can't even take every ability yeah, as it should be in my opinion. Having 80 spells to choose from gives a lot more diversity in both gameplay and character build, and for me also more replayability. It's a matter of options. I like more options, not fewer as in Inquisition.
Think of it as hairstyles, I prefer a wide selection of hairstyles 
I'drather have 20 spells that all do something usefull, than 80 spells of which half are trash, a quarter or something is very, very situational (and thus almost a waste of skillpoint), a few you will only take because you need another spell that's higher up the chain, and the rest being vastly overpowered turning the game into a snoozefest.
I'm pulling these ratios out of thin air btw. Lets just say I wasn't very impressed with the spellbook in DA:O. Had they given me 80 spells that were all more or less useable, I'd be extatic.
You're not entirely off-base. In the entire Archery tree in DAO, literally only 2 talents were viable (and they were both at the end of the tree, so you had to keep wasting points to get at them, making Archery a total waste of a play style).
Loghain's idea of hindering is to send a few bounty hunters after the protagonist. The Orzammar, Circle, (and Dalish Elf) situations don't even really have anything to do with Loghain.
Corypheus' idea of hindering is to burn Haven to the ground and to murder your people.
The thing is, even burning Haven was a failure on Cory's part - he didn't manage to prevent the breach being closed, he lost a large portion of his army and he allowed the entire leadership of the Inquisition including the Herald escape. Sure, he killed a few people and drove the Inqiusition off temporarily, but in the end, it was an utter failure. As were his actions at the conclave. Yeah, he blew stuff up, but he failed to bind the anchor to himself. And every other event involving him in the game was an outright success for the Inquisition. For all that he managed to kill a lot of people and hurt many more, he never once succeded at anything he tried to do over the course of DA:I.
Cory was an utterly pathetic and ineffectual villain.
Retour en haut