173 réponses à ce sujet

[Auztin]

I mean I'm not into the RP aspect of playing a Templar in DAI. Especially if I'm someone who gets them off the lyrium. It works well as a 2hander though..

I think all of these specs should work well defensively or offensively and not be too dependent on specific gear and odd stats like Cunning. That's where Champ fails.

That comes down to headcanon or a dialogue option if asked in-game.Yeah,I agree specs should always be different as in pros/cons.That makes sense but other hand.You should be able to mod in those certain stats into armor/weapons or just throw an exclusive set of arms/armor for those specs like a champion armor/Templar armor/reaver armor.I've always sort of played from a RP/Story perspective so I am no expert on builds or stats.I just go with what fits.

[straykat]

That comes down to headcanon or a dialogue option if asked in-game.Yeah,I agree specs should always be different as in pros/cons.That makes sense but other hand.You should be able to mod in those certain stats into armor/weapons or just throw an exclusive set of arms/armor for those specs like a champion armor/Templar armor/reaver armor.I've always sort of played from a RP/Story perspective so I am no expert on builds or stats.I just go with what fits.

 

It's demanding on cunning.. So the axe is superior for the extra cloth slot to get that boost.

 

But a warrior should never need cunning to that extent anyways. Champion DPS wasn't such a bad choice in DAO (nor were you encouraged to use one weapon type). It's so heavily relegated towards tanks now that you have to think outside the box to make DPS work well.

[Realmzmaster]

Play on a harder difficulty, if you haven't. To deny it exists makes me think you might have not. All older Bioware RPGs required a little pausing and tactical thinking.

 

Funnily though, I think DA2 is underrated in this aspect and did better boss battles. Some of them have unique skills on high difficulties.

 

I don't get any of this out of DAI on nightmare. Some of it can be hard, but it's more often tedious. And it's perfectly fine in real time. Exactly what do you want to build off?

 

I play on Nightmare in all the games with friendly fire. IMHO Origins requires minimal tactics. The same with the other two DA2 and DAI. I play board, tabletop and electronic wargames.  (Everything from Panzerblitz to Close Combat.) that is tactical with a fair amount of strategy thrown in.

 

DA games require minimal tactics. I finds Blackguards by Daedalic Entertainment to be far more tactical.

 

Actually DAI allows better use of terrain and elevation than either DAO or DA2. That alone in my book tactically places it ahead of the other two.

[Realmzmaster]

That was the point of Origins. It was a spiritual successor to BG, everything from the dialogue system to combat.

DA2 and Inquisition is Mass Effect with swords and magic.

 

I disagree regarding the combat for both DA2 and Inquisition. It's barely even tactical and pause function almost never serves any point in DA2, even less in Inquisition. The only thing what DA2 did better than Origins is commanding issues for companions but even that was throwed out of the window when they tried to mix both Origins and DA2 combat and it ended up being nothing but a mess.

 

No it was not the spiritual successor. That is simply marketing hype. In fact DAI plays more like BG1 than DAO. DAI follows the design philosophy of BG1 closer than DAO.

[Akrabra]

No it was not the spiritual successor. That is simply marketing hype. In fact DAI plays more like BG1 than DAO. DAI follows the design philosophy of BG1 closer than DAO.

True enough, but i feel like DA:O plays more like BGII. So both fit do their job in that department. Dragon Age II is the odd one out, so far. 

[cJohnOne]

Well DA2 was sort of MassEffect2 with swords and magic and what's wrong with that since ME2 was a fun game.   DA2 also had better writing than ME2 and other DragonAge games.  DA2 had tactics and stuff that ME2 didn't have. And the combat was more party based with one more companion.

[Akrabra]

Well DA2 was sort of MassEffect2 with swords and magic and what's wrong with that since ME2 was a fun game.   DA2 also had better writing than ME2 and other DragonAge games.  DA2 had tactics and stuff that ME2 didn't have. And the combat was more party based with one more companion.

DA:II had better writing then Mass Effect 2 and DA:O/DA:I, yeah, no, i can't accept that. If you like the game better, that is just fine, but it did not have better writing in the slightest. Also the point is to seperate your franchises, not make them more alike. 

[Realmzmaster]

True enough, but i feel like DA:O plays more like BGII. So both fit do their job in that department. Dragon Age II is the odd one out, so far. 

 

 

BG2 and DAO are also more linear than BG1 and DAI. That is one reason why I like DAI and BG1 more than DAO and BG2. That is not to say I do not like DAO. I simply prefer DAI more. I also like DA2.   Execution in DA2 should have been much better, but it was still fun.

 

But YMMV.

[tanerb123]

They won't do it . Because it requires more time and effort which they don't have, Being part of a company like EA means tight release schedules and cost efficiency. They want games like NBA or Battlefield where they can release the same game every year and early teens will buy anyway. I strongly believe they regret their purchase of Bioware now. Look at DA:2, ME3 and DA:I. They are a shadow of their predecessors and I don't see that trend changing.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Well DA2 was sort of MassEffect2 with swords and magic and what's wrong with that since ME2 was a fun game.

The point is that Dragon Age doesn't need to copy mechanics from different games to be good, Origins was perfectly fine by doing it's own formula before DA2 came out and got "Mass Effected" with voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel and removal of companions customization and interaction.

 

In other words, stop removing stuff that isn't broken.

[tanerb123]

DA2 had awful writing. You had to fight the same guy even when you were supporting mages? It was pure lazy

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

DA2 had awful writing. You had to fight the same guy even when you were supporting mages? It was pure lazy

It was blatantly idiotic. Throw the story under the bus for the sake of adding a second boss fight.

"Hawke is on our side, and we're winning... I guess I'll turn into a blob now."

[cJohnOne]

Well ME2 was a shooter I'm pretty sure DA2 had more dialogue.  Picking one spot where you think an outcome is bad doesn't mean the overall amount of writing was deficient.  I say because I like DA2 I've played it enough to know it has comparatively better writing while other people who didn't give it a chance don't really see it.  I might be over generalizing.

 

DAI was more about exploring and DAO had a siimpler structure.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Well ME2 was a shooter I'm pretty sure DA2 had more dialogue. Picking one spot where you think an outcome is bad doesn't mean the overall amount of writing was deficient. I say because I like DA2 I've played it enough to know it has comparatively better writing while other people who didn't give it a chance don't really see it. I might be over generalizing.

DAI was more about exploring and DAO had a siimpler structure.

DA2 does have good storytelling in places. I enjoyed the tension in the opening scene of Act 3, particularly when my Hawke suggested he become the new viscount.

[animedreamer]

Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition were written by the same people who wrote Dragon Age: Origins, plus a few extra writers for DAI.

 

David Gaider was lead writer on Dragon Age content up until the final DLCs on DAI. Lukas Kristjanson, Mary Kirby and Sheryl Chee worked on all three games. Jennifer Hepler worked on DAO and DA2. They brought on a few more writers for DAI - Patrick Weekes and Sylvia Feketekuty came over from the Mass Effect team, and Brianne Battye was (as far as I know) a new hire. (An intern named Tonia Laird also wrote several quests on DA2, but she didn't stay on for DAI.)

 

We don't know who will be writing DA4 - most of the team has moved across to BioWare's mysterious new IP, which Gaider is now the lead writer for. The only person left in the Dragon Age writer's pit at the moment is Patrick Weekes, who is the new lead as of Trespasser. Presumably they will either move people around or hire more writers as production on DA4 steps up.

 

The only writer who worked on DAO and didn't contribute to the sequels is Jay Turner. He wrote most of Oghren and a bunch of side quests.

 

I think what the OP is really getting at is the feel of the game between each iteration, and that's something that has definitely changed. That may be because a lot of the creative design for Dragon Age Origins and the people who came up with it left the company during or after Dragon Age 2. Just saying people who worked on X game are still there isn't the same as having the same direction, or oversight of the project. You can say X wrote all three games but it's obvious to anyone who's played all three games (myself for example) that 2 and Inquisition don't play like Origins, nor do they capture the same feel of the "Dark Gritty World" Origins made Thedas out to be. Basically the game became PG-13 when it was original a very strong R rating.

[Wolven_Soul]

The lack of a feel to you is a sticking point whereas to me it not that much of a consideration. I want the games in a series to have a different feel. I find games that keep the same feel to be boring.

 

 I like many of the changes in DAI over DAO. DAO was far to close to the D & D stereotype. I would have preferred Baldur's Gate III than DAO if Bioware was going to go that route.

I for one like the fact that I could craft armor or weapons that could drastically change the attributes of the party members. I could have rogues go from cunning base to dexterity base to constitution base by changing the armor of weapons. I simply found the system in DAI to be more flexible.

 

Also as far as tactics and the tactics screen DA2 was superior to DAO from a programming standpoint. . DAI tactics were simplistic but did not get in the way of my managing the party.

 

The system in DAI is more flexible and suits my preference.

 

I heavily disagree to that.  A franchise should have a connecting feeling to it from one game to another.  There are ways to make it different enough to stay interesting, but keep the right feeling of the franchise.  Mass Effect did it.  However I feel about the ending, I will not say that the franchise was unable to keep the feeling of the universe intact while making them different enough to stay interesting.  There are other franchises that manage it as well.  DA simply does not.  The games are vastly different from one to the other, and it makes it hard to stay connected and immersed within the universe.

 

I like the fact that DA:O was close to a D&D style game.  While I would love to have a BG3, DA:O's style was just fantastic to me.  I don't mind that it was close to that style but not the same game as BG.  That's a good thing, I don't want the two franchises to be exactly the same after all.  

 

As for the crafting system, it was just rather bleh for me.  To much having to gather all kinds of crap, the armor styles were so boring until DLC's came out, and even even they were not all that great.  That, and the fact that I could not change what kind of slots were in the schematic really made it crappy for me.  There were some armors that I kinda liked the look of, but didn't want to use because they were the wrong slots.  As for changing between stats, that might have mattered more if the games combat actually required any kind of tactics.  It didn't, so changing stats really didn't make much of a difference.

 

And yes, I know that DA2's tactics were better than DA:O's, it's one of the reasons I said that it was a lot closer to the DA feel than Inquisition was.

[Realmzmaster]

I heavily disagree to that.  A franchise should have a connecting feeling to it from one game to another.  There are ways to make it different enough to stay interesting, but keep the right feeling of he franchise.  Mass Effect did it.  However I feel about the ending, I will not say that the franchise was unable to keep the feeling of the universe intact while making them different enough to stay interesting.  There are other franchises that manage it as well.  DA simply does not.  The games are vastly different from one to the other, and it makes it hard to stay connected and immersed within the universe.

 

I like the fact that DA:O was close to a D&D style game.  While I would love to have a BG3, DA:O's style was just fantastic to me.  I don't mind that it was close to that style but not the same game as BG.  That's a good thing, I don't want the two franchises to be exactly the same after all.  

 

As for the crafting system, it was just rather bleh for me.  To much having to gather all kinds of crap, the armor styles were so boring until DLC's came out, and even even they were not all that great.  That, and the fact that I could not change what kind of slots were in the schematic really made it crappy for me.  There were some armors that I kinda liked the look of, but didn't want to use because they were the wrong slots.  As for changing between stats, that might have mattered more if the games combat actually required any kind of tactics.  It didn't, so changing stats really didn't make much of a difference.

 

And yes, I know that DA2's tactics were better than DA:O's, it's one of the reasons I said that it was a lot closer to the DA feel than Inquisition was.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. I never thought D & D or AD & D was that good of a game system. Also for me the DA "feel" is still there. I had no trouble crafting the armor I wanted or needed. I also played the game crafting absolutely nothing.

 

As I stated tactics in DAO were minimal. It was easy to spamfest your way through the game with healing potions since you could have more than 99 of each level and they were on different cooldowns along with the injury kits. The injuries really did not slow down the party member. I think added more as a joke that having a real effect..

Arcane Warrior (like Knight Enchanter) was overpowered. The AI in DAO really did not go after the squishes (rogue and mage), so it was easy to park them in a safe spot (like set artillery pieces) and rain death on the enemy.

 

DA2 and DAI (especially on nightmare) goes after the squishes making the set artillery action problematic.

 

Do not get me wrong I like DAO, but to me it is no longer the best in the DA lineup. DAI fills that spot. Also DAI allows the use of elevation for taking out the enemy. That is something DAO and the old engine simply could not do. Cover and terrain can also be used far more effectively in DAI

 

But YMMV.

[Wolven_Soul]

Play on a harder difficulty, if you haven't. To deny it exists makes me think you might have not. All older Bioware RPGs required a little pausing and tactical thinking.

 

Funnily though, I think DA2 is underrated in this aspect and did better boss battles. Some of them have unique skills on high difficulties.

 

I don't get any of this out of DAI on nightmare. Some of it can be hard, but it's more often tedious. And it's perfectly fine in real time. Exactly what do you want to build off?

 

I found DA:O tactical even on normal.  With all of the utility spells that mages got in that game, it couldn't help but be tactical.  All the hexes and the curses were awesome, and it was a mistake to take them away from the mages. 

 

The only difference between difficulties in DA:I is how much damage the enemies take and dish out.  DA:I enemies are the sword and sorcery version of bullet sponges.  I also don't think I ever paused the combat outside of using potions.  There simply was never any reason to do so.

[Wolven_Soul]

It was blatantly idiotic. Throw the story under the bus for the sake of adding a second boss fight.

"Hawke is on our side, and we're winning... I guess I'll turn into a blob now."

 

Yeah, it was a shame to, because DA2 had the best concept, it was just so rushed that it couldn't use any of the potential that it gave itself.

[Wolven_Soul]

We will have to agree to disagree. I never thought D & D or AD & D was that good of a game system. Also for me the DA "feel" is still there. I had no trouble crafting the armor I wanted or needed. I also played the game crafting absolutely nothing.

 

As I stated tactics in DAO were minimal. It was easy to spamfest your way through the game with healing potions since you could have more than 99 of each level and they were on different cooldowns along with the injury kits. The injuries really did not slow down the party member. I think added more as a joke that having a real effect..

Arcane Warrior (like Knight Enchanter) was overpowered. The AI in DAO really did not go after the squishes (rogue and mage), so it was easy to park them in a safe spot (like set artillery pieces) and rain death on the enemy.

 

DA2 and DAI (especially on nightmare) goes after the squishes making the set artillery action problematic.

 

Do not get me wrong I like DAO, but to me it is no longer the best in the DA lineup. DAI fills that spot. Also DAI allows the use of elevation for taking out the enemy. That is something DAO and the old engine simply could not do. Cover and terrain can also be used far more effectively in DAI

 

But YMMV.

 

Y​es, we will have to agree to disagree.  I get that a lot in these forums, lol.  I thought both D&D and AD&D were just fine.  Definitely not as good as 3rd edition but still fine as a building block for what came later. 

 

None of the armor in DA:I, crafted or otherwise, was as good as that which we got in DA:O, neither in form or function.  And let's not even get started on the abysmal rings and amulets that we got in DA:I.

 

Tactics might have been minimal in DA:O, but at least they were there.  Outside of the use of elevation in DA:I, there really was not any tactics whatsoever.  And let's be honest, even that really didn't make that big of a difference.  You want to talk about spamfest, that's all DA:I combat was, with enemies that are the sword and sorcery version of bullet sponges.  At least in Origins a mage had hexes and curses, a mage could dominate a battlefield in that game the way no other class could in any of the games.

 

The AI not going after the squishes, as you say, in DA:O wasn't a bad thing really.  It meant that the tanks were doing their job in my opinion.  Although, in my games, they still went after my mages fairly often.  DA:I's tanks often felt useless.  And really, the enemies didn't have to go after the squishes, because the companion AI was so bad without the tactics system that more often than not they simply charge the enemies anyway.

 

Also, I never used the Arcane Warrior because when I make a mage, I want a mage, not a warrior mage. 

[Realmzmaster]

Y​es, we will have to agree to disagree.  I get that a lot in these forums, lol.  I thought both D&D and AD&D were just fine.  Definitely not as good as 3rd edition but still fine as a building block for what came later. 

 

None of the armor in DA:I, crafted or otherwise, was as good as that which we got in DA:O, neither in form or function.  And let's not even get started on the abysmal rings and amulets that we got in DA:I.

 

Tactics might have been minimal in DA:O, but at least they were there.  Outside of the use of elevation in DA:I, there really was not any tactics whatsoever.  And let's be honest, even that really didn't make that big of a difference.  You want to talk about spamfest, that's all DA:I combat was, with enemies that are the sword and sorcery version of bullet sponges.  At least in Origins a mage had hexes and curses, a mage could dominate a battlefield in that game the way no other class could in any of the games.

 

The AI not going after the squishes, as you say, in DA:O wasn't a bad thing really.  It meant that the tanks were doing their job in my opinion.  Although, in my games, they still went after my mages fairly often.  DA:I's tanks often felt useless.  And really, the enemies didn't have to go after the squishes, because the companion AI was so bad without the tactics system that more often than not they simply charge the enemies anyway.

 

Also, I never used the Arcane Warrior because when I make a mage, I want a mage, not a warrior mage. 

 

Most definitely disagree about the elevation. My rogue archers and mages had a field day taking out rifts on hilltops (especially in the Hinterlands with no way for the demos to scale them and their magic bolts hit the outcroppings. Took out many an enemy using cover and elevation. Use of terrain was also fun especially in JOH. I remember the rift that spawned the four pride demons. If the party used the fallen tree and branches as cover the party could pick off the pride demons with little damage.

If the enemy archers and mages are engaging your tanks without looking for your archers or mages the AI has a problem. The first action the AI should take is to look for the enemies that have the potential to control the battlefield. That is usually not the tank. The enemy tanks should be engaging the party tanks. The enemy archers and mages should be looking for your archers and mages or concentrate their firepower on your tanks to take them out quickly so that the party mages and archers can be mopped up.

 

Never had much problem with enemy mages even with hexes and curses. I ran a party with three rangers and a warrior. I sent out the pets first. The mages used their hexes and curses on them. The archers simply picked off the mages. Arrow of slaying made it very easy to take out a mage. In DAI I do the same thing with longshot and full draw.

[Wolven_Soul]

Most definitely disagree about the elevation. My rogue archers and mages had a field day taking out rifts on hilltops (especially in the Hinterlands with no way for the demos to scale them and their magic bolts hit the outcroppings. Took out many an enemy using cover and elevation. Use of terrain was also fun especially in JOH. I remember the rift that spawned the four pride demons. If the party used the fallen tree and branches as cover the party could pick off the pride demons with little damage.

If the enemy archers and mages are engaging your tanks without looking for your archers or mages the AI has a problem. The first action the AI should take is to look for the enemies that have the potential to control the battlefield. That is usually not the tank. The enemy tanks should be engaging the party tanks. The enemy archers and mages should be looking for your archers and mages or concentrate their firepower on your tanks to take them out quickly so that the party mages and archers can be mopped up.

 

Never had much problem with enemy mages even with hexes and curses. I ran a party with three rangers and a warrior. I sent out the pets first. The mages used their hexes and curses on them. The archers simply picked off the mages. Arrow of slaying made it very easy to take out a mage. In DAI I do the same thing with longshot and full draw.

 

The point was that the combat in DA:I is so basic, that it's really not necessary to use that elevation.  Nothing in the game is hard enough that I went out of my way to use any kind of elevation.  The enemies don't use tactics, why should I bother?

 

I still think that if the enemies are not going after the archers and mages, then the tanks are doing their job.  I always had my tanks set to pull an enemy off my mage the moment they got attacked.  Which is that tactics system DA:I is so lacking.  And maybe we were playing a different game, but I remember enemies going after my mages and archers even then.

 

And I wasn't referring to enemy mages, I was referring to my mages and how they were able wreck the battlefield.  

[vbibbi]

Yeah I thought the point of tanks was to aggro attackers and try to distract enemies away from mages and rogues.

I was rarely able to use elevation to my advantage. Due to the rubber banding between party members, and enemies being able to run as fast if not faster than me, it was near impossible to disengage from enemies and finding higher ground. It only happened if I already happened to be on an elevation and came across enemies below me. And that seems more like poor AI or path finding, as the enemies should theoretically try to find a path up to me rather than shuffle back and forth at the bottom.

[Realmzmaster]

I always scout out the use of terrain. Maybe because I am use to playing board and video wargames where elevation can be key. I scout the area out finding where a hilltop will lead.

Path finding has been a problem in most if not all crpgs. It would not matter in this case because the enemy would have to find a way up sheer cliffs or find the way my party came up. The first way just opens them up to my mages and archers taking them out. The second way will have the mages and archers picking them off long before they reach the party.

 

So I make effective use of terrain.

 

The combat in DAO is just as basic. You really do not need hexes or curses for the mages. It may be more interesting for the player, but really not necessary in combat.

If the warriors are holding aggro with a group of enemies that outnumber the party it tells me the enemy AI is lacking. Many of the battles in DAO I simply parked my archers and mages in a certain spot and rarely had to move them. DA2 and DAI does not allow that luxury.

[In Exile]

True enough, but i feel like DA:O plays more like BGII. So both fit do their job in that department. Dragon Age II is the odd one out, so far. 

 

Not at all. BGII was all about rock-paper-scissors magic. Well, either that or facerolling the game with a Kensai-Mage (well, that's not true either - this is a really tough combination to get right in terms of understanding the game, but still). DA:O's magic system is nothing like BGII's, and that's where all the action was really.