103 réponses à ce sujet

[attackfighter]

1. The combat is horribly implemented.

• You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.
• There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.
• The combat in general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like an MMORPG.

2. The plot and the way it's presented is dull.

• It's too narrative. Good stories have strong, emphasized plots with lots of action, drama, suspence, etc.. DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information (usually through text) for it to be of any intrest. Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking them).
• The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue (cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both boring and unrealistically principled.
• The plot lacks any real twists or suprises. In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum (which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear lol.

[AndreaDraco]

Ah! Here is the melancholic, BG2-is-better-than-DAO post of the day!

[attackfighter]

AndreaDraco wrote...

Ah! Here is the melancholic, BG2-is-better-than-DAO post of the day!

Work on your reading comprehension and stop being so defensive.

[Stippling]

While you're allowed your own opinion of the game, I find it strange that you essentially say that the game is bad and yet spend the time to tell the games community why it is bad. If I ever play a game and just don't like it, the last thing I want to do is waste more time with it by typing out a review on how awful it was.



I disagree with nearly all the beliefs you present here and found any possible understanding as a difference of opinion shattered when you threw in in Baldur's Gate 2 reference. It's a different game.

[attackfighter]

I disagree with nearly all the beliefs you present here and found any possible understanding as a difference of opinion shattered when you threw in in Baldur's Gate 2 reference. It's a different game.

Comics, books and movies can and are compared to one another, what exempts Dragon Age from this?

[Stippling]

The fact that day in and day out the game is referenced to this particular game also made by the same development company. You may be the exception, but 99.9% of the time, when Baldur's gate is mentioned, it is someone complaining that they loved Baldur's gate, thought this would be the new BG, and when it wasn't they didn't give it the light of day. they bring that bias and nostalgia into an entirely new game and get upset when it's not the same.

[attackfighter]

Stippling wrote...

The fact that day in and day out the game is referenced to this particular game also made by the same development company. You may be the exception, but 99.9% of the time, when Baldur's gate is mentioned, it is someone complaining that they loved Baldur's gate, thought this would be the new BG, and when it wasn't they didn't give it the light of day. they bring that bias and nostalgia into an entirely new game and get upset when it's not the same.

I brought up BG2 because:
1. It's in the same genre.
2. The devs referenced it as an inspiration.
3. DA was advertised as BG2's spiritual successor.
4. Despite what you may think, they are very similar games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

attackfighter wrote...

You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.

While it's true that the camera is too close to the party in the top-down view, I find switching between the two views pretty seamless, and routinely switched back and forth to get the field of vision I wanted.  Not a big complaint, really.

There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.

Again, not a big deal for me.  There are plenty of opportunities to play the characters differentlt, even if there's limited opportunity to build them differently (at least for non-mages).

you can't make tactical use of chokepoints

Yes you can.  Glyph of Repulsion.

I don't think you played with Mages enough.  Most of your objections are resolved by having a mage or two prepared with appropriate spells.

Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking them).

I disagree entirely.  If you go too far in the direction you describe you run the risk of turning the game into Mass Effect, where the player is no longer able to make any real decisions because the whole game is presented with pre-written cinematics.

The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue (cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both boring and unrealistically principled.

I think you missed a lot of nuance in the characters, especially your companions.

Given how little interaction the party has with Loghain, do you really think you'd ever understand why he does what he does?  What incentive would he have to explain it to you?  I find this aspect of DAO far more realistic than many other games that force exposition on you in unrealistic ways.

The plot lacks any real twists or suprises. In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum (which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear lol.

However, DAO gives you more options with regard to how or even if you do a lot of things, and that allows quite a lot of roleplaying freedom.  The only BioWare game that I think handled a twist especially well was KotOR, and the trouble with that was that it was always the same.  Whereas, DAO presents the PC with a series of potentially difficult choices, and each path through the game will find different decisions difficult or meaningful based on that character's personality.

[Schurge]

Attackfighter, you have to admit that your post sounds alot like an 'I wish this was Baldur's Gate' post.

There is a reason this wasn't Baldur's Gate III... II stunk on ice and so did Minsc (*puts on flame shield*) IMO.

I am finding the Dragon Age companions to be very interesting.

Modifié par Schurge, 11 février 2010 - 09:19 .

[Maria Caliban]

Stippling wrote...

I find it strange that you essentially say that the game is bad and yet spend the time to tell the games community why it is bad. If I ever play a game and just don't like it, the last thing I want to do is waste more time with it by typing out a review on how awful it was.

1. Not everyone is you.

2. It's possible to see flaws in a game and think it's good and/or enjoy it.

[Stippling]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Stippling wrote...

I find it strange that you essentially say that the game is bad and yet spend the time to tell the games community why it is bad. If I ever play a game and just don't like it, the last thing I want to do is waste more time with it by typing out a review on how awful it was.

1. Not everyone is you.

2. It's possible to see flaws in a game and think it's good and/or enjoy it.

I never stated otherwise. I agree, just remarking on my own curiosity.

Edit: And as far as I could tell, the OP didn't like the game all that much. When you don't enjoy the combat and the story, what's left? The... map?

Modifié par Stippling, 11 février 2010 - 09:23 .

[Petehog]

attackfighter wrote...



1. The combat is horribly implemented.

  You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack
that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards
'over the shoulder' view.

  There's a lack of
customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3
classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a
significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the
classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make
throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters
abilities.

  The combat in
general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character
positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for
example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still
magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely
make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a
fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying
to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like
an MMORPG.
 

 

There is already a user-made mod that addresses this issue and fixes this problem.

2. The plot and the way it's presented is dull. [list]

  It's too narrative.
Good stories have strong, emphasized plots with lots of action, drama,
suspence, etc.. DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information
(usually through text) for it to be of any intrest. Furthermore, videogames
have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers
did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not
a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page
taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking
them).

 

I disagree with this statement because I found the story of Dragon Age very compelling. You mention that the game plays like a book and that it is one of its flaws.  But another game, Planescape Torment, has one of the most compelling storylines within an RPG and the majority of its story was through text. Many who actually took the
time to play Planescape Torment mention that its storyline is superior to that of even Baldur’s Gate 2. Don’t believe me? Read here.

 http://www.amazon.co...65922946&sr=8-1

 
The dialogue choices and storyline involved in Dragon Age had many similarities to that of Planescape Torment than Baldur’s Gate 2. The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t say a game is flawed by telling a story
through text, because this game is not Baldur’s Gate 2. In many ways, it is a spiritual successor, but they are not to be compared.  

 

The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be
believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John
Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some
attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue
(cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch
character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for
doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being
pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS
LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both
boring and unrealistically principled.

I disagree with this statement as well. If you take Alistair for an example, he is a character which seems very believable and really begins to develop as the story progresses. Unlike a movie where a character is seen
for 2 to 3 hours, the characters in Dragon Age really begin to shine and show their personality with each passing day.

 

  The plot lacks any real twists or suprises.
In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark
and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In
DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire
thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail
because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum
(which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear
lol. 

First off, stop the comparisons to Baldur’s Gate 2. Because they are not the same game. Second of all, there were
many things in Dragon Age which had many flaws, but its story and twists was not one of them. Many events really had me turned upside down. I won’t list any of them here because this is a spoiler-free section.

Modifié par Petehog, 11 février 2010 - 09:31 .

[LightSabres]

I liked DA:O



I liked Baldur's Gate I & 2 (in fact I'm playing through them again right now...)



I agree with the OP that combat system needs a little work but I don't think it's so bad as to ruin the game.



I liked the story. It DID draw me in. The NPC characters didn't always have motives I understood but I gave them the benefit of the doubt since we really can't get into their heads to understand.



There is a Jon Irenicus (villians we love to hate) in this story. In fact their are two similar characters - Arl Howe, Loghain (to different extents) and one potentially VERY simliar one in the new expansion (The Architect).



I agree wholeheartedly with the chokepoint issue. I shouldn't need a spell to block a doorway if I can line up 2 or three guys in front of it.



Bottom line is you should be equating DA to Baldur's Gate, not BG2. It's on the same development level. The Dev's will take all this feedback from the users and make DA2 a much better game as a result

[AlanC9]

Sylvius is doing the heavy lifting here, so I'll just hit a couple of points.

..for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door)

In most games this is an AI exploit anyway. It certainly was in the IE games.

and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it)

So if the enemy can occupy the high ground they're sensible enough to do it? This is a problem?

DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information (usually through text) for it to be of any intrest.

The PC version doesn't force you to read the texts. 

Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this

Which specific things should they have shown us that they didn't?

What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do

You seem to be arguing in favor of silly and unrealistic characters. You can't actually mean that.

[Upper_Krust]

attackfighter wrote...

1. The combat is horribly implemented. at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.

It was never a massive problem for me, though I rarely played as an Archer.

There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar;

Disagree with this. I think there are lots of different talents, different weapons, different spells, different specializations etc.. I think 3 classes are fine. There is lots of customization in the game.

Where I might agree is that the Rogue is too like the Warrior, or more specifically that the Rogue doesn't have as many combat styles as the Warrior.

Mage ~ 4 Spell Trees
Warrior ~ 4 Weapon Trees
Rogue ~ 2 Weapon Trees

So I think there needs to me more to the Rogue...maybe a Whip/Spiked Chain weapon or Monk styled Unarmed Combat (although I was thinking more in terms of ninja - I suppose unarmed combat would be good for a fighter as well).

the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.

I think the Specializations are about as good as you want them without becoming overpowered.

The combat in general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like an MMORPG.

I don't necessarily believe that the problem is the games combat so much as the games enemies, which are generally devoid of any depth, thus you can easily defeat them without having to think much about it.

2. The plot and the way it's presented is dull.
It's too narrative. Good stories have strong, emphasized plots with lots of action, drama, suspence, etc.. DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information (usually through text) for it to be of any intrest. Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking them).

I think what a lot of gamers fail to realise is that Dragon Age has to sustain a story for 50-100 hours. That means you are going to have protracted 'rollercoaster' peaks and troughs where you build to one dramatic moment then have a lull before building to the next dramatic moment. That could mean a 'slower' bit of the game lasting 20-30 minutes even, whereas in a game lasting 10 hours a slow bit might be 2-3 minutes.

Where I do think the story can be criticised is in the middle act where we get no sense of impetus to the Darkspawn threat, I'd maybe have punctuated each gained ally by having some Darkspawn encroachment or attack.

The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue (cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both boring and unrealistically principled.

I disagree with this, I thought the characterisation was one of the games strengths.

Are there no eccentric characters, maybe I could agree with this, but Dragon Age is a new franchise and as such must start off establishing the sort of status quo before attempting the more eccentric.

Look at Origins compared to Awakening even. In origins, pretty much all the enemies (save probably the Broodmother) are pretty standard fantasy fare, but already we see the Children and the Spectral Dragon in Awakening are less 'classic' fantasy. Thats possible because Origins already established the 'baseline', now Bioware can branch out into more eccentric territory.

The plot lacks any real twists or suprises. In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum (which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear lol.

Well if you wanted to be hyper-critical you could ask what were the major plot twists in Lord of the Rings?

Personally I thought the climax of Ostagar, as well as the climax of Orzammar were both decent twists.

[Bratt1204]

[quote]attackfighter wrote...

1. The combat is horribly implemented.

• You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.
• There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.
• The combat in general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like an MMORPG.

2. The plot and the way it's presented is dull.

• It's too narrative. Good stories have strong, emphasized plots with lots of action, drama, suspence, etc.. DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information (usually through text) for it to be of any intrest. Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking them).
• The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue (cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both boring and unrealistically principled.
• The plot lacks any real twists or suprises. In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum (which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear lol.

[/quote
[*]
[*]You can always not play the game, that might solve some of your issues.

[soteria]

You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.

I actually kinda agree with this point. IMO, the problem is the range on staves and longbows is too long--farther than you can see, and beyond the range of any abilities. It opens up the possibility for AI exploiting and does annoy me a bit, although switching between views was a fine solution for me most of the time.

There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.

I have my own complaints about some of the talents, although in general I think Bioware did a great job, especially considering this if the first game using this engine and IP.

The combat in general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like an MMORPG.

This just isn't true. Watch this video if you don't believe me. Small changes in positioning can make the difference between success or failure in a number of fights.

The plot and the way it's presented is dull.

The rest of this is just opinion, and if you personally thought it was dull, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I'd bring up points where I disagree about it being dull or uninteresting, but this is the no spoilers section. Not much to say on this, here.

[Taiko Roshi]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Stippling wrote...

I find it strange that you essentially say that the game is bad and yet spend the time to tell the games community why it is bad. If I ever play a game and just don't like it, the last thing I want to do is waste more time with it by typing out a review on how awful it was.

1. Not everyone is you.

2. It's possible to see flaws in a game and think it's good and/or enjoy it.

+1

[plastic golem]

I find that combat is okay, though most of the battles are pretty forgettable and ordinary. The main issue I have with DA:O, and it's a problem that is common to a lot of CRPGs, is that the story, the quests, and the combats do not compliment one another, but rather the quest and combat detract from the story.

The story itself is, I think, quite good: an interesting game world, a competent (if not prize-winning) story,  top notch writing and voice acting, and often imersive sound and graphics. Yet, once I reach Lothering, the pacing falls flat. I haven't finished the game (I've re-started four times after my interest flagged mid-game) but I get the sense that, far from an imminent danger, the blight will wait patiently until I have gathered all of the resources I need to defeat it, and only then will the danger be imminent.

In BG1, there were a lot of Fedex quests: go somewhere, kill some banal enemy, grab some token, return and get some gold and (more importantly) XP. BG 2 had less of this, but in DA:O it is back with a vengeance. There are a lot of base-tagging quests: visit the same handful of locations, find the quest icon on the map, click on something, maybe kill an easy foe, and return for a reward. You don't have to do those quests, but there is no penalty (other than tedium) for doing them, whereas you lose valuable resources for not doing them. The same goes for looting every chest, bag, barrel, and crate strewn around the realms, or reading every book you see. You don't have to do this if you find it tedious, but it is also tedious to die over and over because you didn't loot enough gold to buy level-appropriate gear.

Every time I really start to get into the story and feel a real sense of urgency and consequence, something in the game inevitably intrudes to remind me that I am not in a desperate race to stop the blight before it's to late or die trying: defeating the blight is all but assured if I just persevere and grind through long enough, and death, while also inevitable, just means I have to reload and try the last fight again. There is no such thing as taking a chance; no such thing as an action with a meaningful consequence (at least with respect to the main plot). The real challenge of the game, it reminds me, is to explore: to visit every location, find every item, hear every line of dialog, and discover the secrets that make frustratingly hard fights amazingly simple. That's also fun, in its own way, but it doesn't fit well with telling an epic story full of tension and urgency. I wish the developers had decided which kind of game they wanted to make and concentrated on doing it well, rather than trying to make an exploration and discovery game with some tactical combat and choose your own adventure elements thrown in and masquerading as the main event.

Although DA:O inevitably gets compared to Baldur's Gate (which is a great game that has claimed more of my life than I care to think about) I'd rather compare it with a game I think got it astoundingly right: Star Control 2. It had a lot of combat and, truth be told, a lot of grinding (scouring planet after planet for resources) but it was the most immersive game world I've ever been in. I felt like my actions had real consequences (and, in fact, they did) and that I was in a race against time (which, in fact, I was) so I had to gauge whether certain actions were likely to pay off in resources more than they cost me in time. That was 18 years ago with a game that ran on a 286 and fit on one (maybe two) floppies. I'd like to think that, with the experience, talent, and technology available to game developers today, they could do it one better.

[AndreaDraco]

attackfighter wrote...

AndreaDraco wrote...

Ah! Here is the melancholic, BG2-is-better-than-DAO post of the day!

Work on your reading comprehension and stop being so defensive.

Gee, thank you. My reading comprehension is fine. And excuse me for being... bored, more than defensive: have you the slightest idea about how many threads there are saying that DA's story is dull because BG2 was better? There is a search feature, and it would be nice not to have gazillions of thread dedicated to the same old story.

[Draelorn]

While I love the game and the story, I think it is very transparent when it doesn't need to be. I like to be kept in the dark and always guessing, but maybe that's me. The characters really carried the story imo, and that's a good thing. I'm just looking forward to DA2 having a few more double-takes and jaw-dropping surprises. I'm not too concerned though, since Bioware is one of the few companies that make great sequels because they listen.

[attackfighter]

Schurge wrote...
Attackfighter, you have to admit that your post sounds alot like an 'I wish this was Baldur's Gate' post.

I brought up BG2 twice and only as examples. This paranoid attitude towards any mention of BG2 says a lot about this forums community...

And as far as I could tell, the OP didn't like the game all that much.
When you don't enjoy the combat and the story, what's left? The... map?

I felt the game was dissapointing and mediocre. Mediocre, as in I thought it was average (I'm sure many fanboys here will still take that as an insult).

There is already a user-made mod that addresses this issue and fixes this problem.

There's a mod that fixes level scaling in Oblivion, but that doesn't absolve the game of it's problems.

But another game, Planescape Torment, has one of the most compelling
storylines within an RPG and the majority of its story was through
text. Many who actually took the time to play Planescape Torment
mention that its storyline is superior to that of even Baldur’s Gate 2.
Don’t believe me? Read here.

Most people who took the time to play PS:T would also agree that it was too wordy. An excellent story on paper maybe, but it'd be more appropriate as a book. Also, despite the length of DA:O's story it was still rather generic and sophomoric.

The
point I’m trying to make is that you can’t say a game is flawed by
telling a story through text

I'll agree that a game isn't automatically flawed for relying on text, however DA:O failed to pull it off (and it felt more like a cop out for poor storytelling then something the devs intentionally did).

If you take Alistair for an example, he is a character which seems very
believable and really begins to develop as the story progresses.

I agree that Allistair grew throughout the character, however it wasn't very enticing or believable. All he did was whine about everything, and his main motive (not wanting to take responcibility) was very lame imo.

There is a Jon Irenicus (villians we love to hate) in this story. In
fact their are two similar characters - Arl Howe, Loghain (to different
extents)

You barely got to see Howe at all and Loghain was somewhat decent until [MINOR SPOILER AHEAD] his sudden 'enlightenment' at the end [SPOILER OVER]. Both villains were rather generic, and niether their roles or voice acting made them very memorable.

plastic golem: I completely agree with your post (except for the Star Control bit since I never played it).

[errant_knight]

It simply takes too much time to rebut every point when there are so many points that I disagree with so utterly. I'll just say I couldn't disagree more. It's like we played two different games.

[Some Dude On The Internet]

Well, if it helps, just think of DAO as a Dating Sim with occasional combat. You get great character interaction, lots of 'bad end' scenarios, and disappointing sex scenes.

[Sylixe]

attackfighter wrote...

1. The combat is horribly implemented.

• You can only view a small area of your sight range with the 'birds eye' view, so in order to attack that archer shooting at you from across the map you have to enter the awkwards 'over the shoulder' view.
  
• There's a lack of customization. Many of the talents have the same effect; there're only 3 classes (and no, the specializations don't effect those classes in a significant enough way for them to be considered subclasses); two of the classes (warrior and rogue) are incredibly similar; the choices you make throughout the game only have minor effects at best on your characters abilities.
  
• The combat in general is shallow. Everything is about the talents and spells; character positioning only matters in regards to area of effect spells or backstabs, for example you can't make tactical use of chokepoints (enemies will still magically slip through your two warriors gaurding a door) and you can rarely make tactical use of highground (it's either given to you at the start of a fight or there's so many traps/enemies already on it that it'd be futile trying to take it and utilize it); this leads to dull combat that feels too much like an MMORPG.

2. The plot and the way it's presented is dull.

• It's too narrative. Good stories have strong, emphasized plots with lots of action, drama, suspence, etc.. DA:O focuses too much on feeding you useless information (usually through text) for it to be of any intrest. Furthermore, videogames have the benefit of being able to show you what's going on - the writers did not capitalize on this and so the game plays out like a book, which is not a good thing in a visual medium (it would be like a comic with 90% of the page taken up by text bubbles and then 10% filled with lifeless characters speaking them).
  
• The characters sacrifice a lot in an attempt to be believable, yet they still fail in that regard. To elaborate, there're no John Irenicuses' or Minscs', none of the characters are eccentric in any way (some attempt to be, but fail since it's only protrayed through half-hearted dialogue (cough that Golem cough). What you get in DA:O is a bunch character trying too hard to make you believe that they have actual reasons for doing what they do (Morrigan and her "I'm zelously committed to being pragmatic and unscrupulous >:D", or Loghains "I RLLY HATES ORLAIS LOL"), this comes off as trying too hard and makes the characters seem both boring and unrealistically principled.
  
• The plot lacks any real twists or suprises. In Baldurs Gate 2 I'd never have thought I'd be making a detour to Underdark and meeting a silver dragon, yet the plot was crazy enough that I did . In DA:O it was all layed out for me beforehand, and I could predict the entire thing after about 5 hours of playing - I'm going to avoid going into detail because of the "NO SPOILERS ALLOWED" sign on this forum (which doesn't seem to stop anyone else...), but my point should be clear lol.

[*]Welcome to your first experience with a single player MMO.  Companies do not release games in the RPG genre anymore that require much thought beyond spamming one or two abilities in combat.  If you want something more tactical you are going to have to go for the strategy games to get any real strategic depth.