103 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

You would be wrong on BOTH counts. Disable the leveling and play the game and you don;t even notice a difference on ANY difficulty setting. However that is what the system is supposed to do. I also assume you never played Oblivion, which was the big introduction game to such a leveling system. Just as a refresher to that system it was very easy to beat the main storyline of the game as a level one as well.

You keep on saying this. I ask again--have you even tried what you're talking about? You don't have a proper understanding of how level scaling works in Dragon Age. Hint: It's not the same as Oblivion.

[AlanC9]

The problem with this sort of thread is that even BG fans can disagree with the particulars of what BG did well. For instance:

plastic golem wrote...
In DA:O, you are basically told when to fight. You can't (AFAICT) attack anyone you're not supposed to

I'd call this a feature, not a bug. I've never seen an RPG yet where this worked well. The BG-series reputation mechanic was feeble. The TES games were far worse.

There are no partial victories or partial losses: you fight until everyone on one side is dead, and if you win, everyone on your side is back to full health.

In practice, not much of a distinction. In BG2 you'd just rest and raise whoever bought it.

Resources replenish automagically between fights so there is little concept of resource management or conserving health or magic for the next fight: you just hit as hard as you can with everything you can all the time.

That's exaggerating. Consumables don't replenish. As for mana and stamina, calling their recharging "automagical" reveals some intellectual confusion. There's no reason why magical energies must require a day or even an hour to recharge

Sure, you can get by in DA:O with less resource management. Whether this bothers you or not is a matter of taste.

You can't kill bystanders or turn allies into enemies by fireballing them or otherwise making indiscriminate use of AoE spells.

Again, this just doesn't work in an RPG that's trying to take consequences seriously.

, more consequences for choices made

I don't see this in the BG games  at all. I can think of plenty more alternative paths through DA:O offhand.

[plastic golem]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem with this sort of thread is that even BG fans can disagree with the particulars of what BG did well. For instance:

Not a problem, as long as everyone understands that each person is expressing an opinion based on their own experience. None of us can speak on behalf of anyone else, just as none of us can declare someone else's opinion invalid.

I'd call this a feature, not a bug. I've never seen an RPG yet where this worked well. The BG-series reputation mechanic was feeble. The TES games were far worse.

It's not just reputation (which was a pretty good mechanic that could have been improved upon, I think). For example, you could just attack Mae'var when you first met him, making the quest end differently. You could sneak up on an enemy you thought you'd have to fight eventually and get the drop on him, rather than be forced to bring your whole party into the room, have a short conversation, whereupon he turns hostile and his minions spawn around you so that, irrespective of your ability to assess the situation and plan tactically, your party is ambushed because the game devs decide that is what is supposed to happen.

In practice, not much of a distinction. In BG2 you'd just rest and raise whoever bought it.

If they aren't permanently killed. But whatever resources you spent are gone, so you don't have them when you go back to fight them again. BG didn't get this down perfectly by any means, but DA:O moves backwards, not forwards. You don't really get to run away, nurse your wounds, and come back later when you're better equipped.

That's exaggerating. Consumables don't replenish. As for mana and stamina, calling their recharging "automagical" reveals some intellectual confusion. There's no reason why magical energies must require a day or even an hour to recharge

The issue is one of strategic versus tactical planning. If I get my full complement of powers for each and every encounter, I only have to think as far as the end of the battle. If I must manage my resources across multiple encounters, I have to weigh the value of using a power now versus saving it for later. In DA:O, a battle typically opens with me using all of my strongest powers (depending on the specific situation). In a BG battle, I'd try to hold those in reserve in case I needed them later. Even if I retreat to rest up, I may be attacked en route to a safe location, so I need to keep a reserve so that I can at least make a getaway in that case. In DA:O, these are not really considerations. The biggest issue is running out of injury kits, and the resulting death spiral.

Once again, a dimension that was present in BG that could have been improved upon but was instead minimized or dropped. I understand why (I think) but that doesn't mean I appreciate it.

I don't see this in the BG games  at all. I can think of plenty more alternative paths through DA:O offhand.

Speaking strictly of dialog options, I think I agree with you. Decisions you make when talking to others can foreclose on certain possibilities, and in this respect DA:O does improve on BG. But in all other respects, DA:O guides you through everything. Looting chests and pickpocketing is consequence-free in DA:O. There is no chance of losing an ally in combat. There is no real reason not to fireball a mixed group of dwarves and darkspawn because nothing seriously bad can happen as a result.

In some respects, a lot of this is basically illusory because both games push you towards one basic ending and one basic path with a few non-intersecting branches that relatively quickly join the main trunk, and where, in spite of the story's insistence that you are racing against the clock, it is perfectly clear that you can take as much time as you want and still be sure to arrive at the critical place precisely in the nick of time. It seems to me that games could evolve beyond this, but developers seem to be very reluctant to do so.

[soteria]

The issue is one of strategic versus tactical planning. If I get my full complement of powers for each and every encounter, I only have to think as far as the end of the battle. If I must manage my resources across multiple encounters, I have to weigh the value of using a power now versus saving it for later. In DA:O, a battle typically opens with me using all of my strongest powers (depending on the specific situation). In a BG battle, I'd try to hold those in reserve in case I needed them later. Even if I retreat to rest up, I may be attacked en route to a safe location, so I need to keep a reserve so that I can at least make a getaway in that case. In DA:O, these are not really considerations. The biggest issue is running out of injury kits, and the resulting death spiral.

But that only mattered for mages, and in practice it meant I usually just never used my spells. Effectively, I saved my spells until I reached an encounter that caused me to wipe once or twice--the rest of the time I just had my kensai/thief run around one-shotting everything with backstab while the group was left on hold.



I would agree that potions should be rarer than they are on higher difficulties--they already drop less often. I would also suggest that they should have double or triple the cooldown. The thing about BG was you really didn't have to think about the next fight except in very rare circumstances. Probably 95% of the time you could just rest, with a few exceptions (such as the end of TOB). The only reason to hold back on spells was if you didn't want to rest and have to recast all your buffs--something DA:O improves on via sustains.

[AlanC9]

plastic golem wrote...

Not a problem, as long as everyone understands that each person is expressing an opinion based on their own experience. None of us can speak on behalf of anyone else, just as none of us can declare someone else's opinion invalid.

Treu, but some of us keep saying stuff like "if Bioware markets DA:O as a 'spiritual successor' to Baldur's Gate, then a lot of Baldur's Gate fans are left with the conclusion that either that was a shameless marketing ploy to try to sell to the BG fan base...." Granted, "a lot" isn't really much of a statement, since even a minuscule percentage of BG fans can be a lot of people, but the rhetorical intent is obvious.

Come to think of it, wasn't that you?

It's not just reputation (which was a pretty good mechanic that could have been improved upon, I think). For example, you could just attack Mae'var when you first met him, making the quest end differently. You could sneak up on an enemy you thought you'd have to fight eventually and get the drop on him, rather than be forced to bring your whole party into the room, have a short conversation, whereupon he turns hostile and his minions spawn around you so that, irrespective of your ability to assess the situation and plan tactically, your party is ambushed because the game devs decide that is what is supposed to happen.

I'll grant you a case for cases where it's possible or mandatory for there to be combat. But making it possible to attack anyone, and have the game respond appropriately, doesn't strike me as being a worthwhile expenditure of development time.

If they aren't permanently killed. But whatever resources you spent are gone, so you don't have them when you go back to fight them again.

In BG2 the resource cost was zero. Jaheira gets Harper's Call before you're out of the first dungeon, IIRC.

BG didn't get this down perfectly by any means, but DA:O moves backwards, not forwards.

I don't consider this a backward move.

The issue is one of strategic versus tactical planning. If I get my full complement of powers for each and every encounter, I only have to think as far as the end of the battle. If I must manage my resources across multiple encounters, I have to weigh the value of using a power now versus saving it for later.. In DA:O, a battle typically opens with me using all of my strongest powers (depending on the specific situation). In a BG battle, I'd try to hold those in reserve in case I needed them later. Even if I retreat to rest up, I may be attacked en route to a safe location, so I need to keep a reserve so that I can at least make a getaway in that case. In DA:O, these are not really considerations. The biggest issue is running out of injury kits, and the resulting death spiral.

So resource planning is still in, it just doesn't extend to your most powerful abilities. And in turn, the individual battles are balanced to assume that you are using all of your abilities.

[Sylixe]

soteria wrote...

You would be wrong on BOTH counts. Disable the leveling and play the game and you don;t even notice a difference on ANY difficulty setting. However that is what the system is supposed to do. I also assume you never played Oblivion, which was the big introduction game to such a leveling system. Just as a refresher to that system it was very easy to beat the main storyline of the game as a level one as well.

You keep on saying this. I ask again--have you even tried what you're talking about? You don't have a proper understanding of how level scaling works in Dragon Age. Hint: It's not the same as Oblivion.

I thought i was making it clear i had but i guess i need to say YES i have done it and YES it works just like that.  It was actually my last ditch effort to make the game harder.  The bosses do NOT have a set level and defeating them is just as easy as if you leveled up.  This game has some very basic AI coding and setups for modding that are far behind the times actually.  I swear this games story was worked on for 4 and a half years and they threw in some combat at the last minute to sell it.

soteria wrote...

But that only mattered for mages, and in practice it meant I usually just never used my spells. Effectively, I saved my spells until I reached an encounter that caused me to wipe once or twice--the rest of the time I just had my kensai/thief run around one-shotting everything with backstab while the group was left on hold.

I would agree that potions should be rarer than they are on higher difficulties--they already drop less often. I would also suggest that they should have double or triple the cooldown. The thing about BG was you really didn't have to think about the next fight except in very rare circumstances. Probably 95% of the time you could just rest, with a few exceptions (such as the end of TOB). The only reason to hold back on spells was if you didn't want to rest and have to recast all your buffs--something DA:O improves on via sustains.

To an extent yes but what rings true here is that you say after you would wipe 2-3 times.  Where in this game would you even have a chance of wiping?  Discounting the people who have no idea abotu tactics or prefer to open a door guns blazing there is no way you can wipe on an encounter in this game on NIGHTMARE!  Even if you run using those 2 tactics you can still pull off the encounter by chaining pots down. 

I will agree that repeated resting wasa  clear cheat in the BG series but later titles from bioware, that had that mechanic, severly punished you for doing that.  Just like in a P&P game session where your DM has a  strict time table for resting.  In that instance you cannot just simply use a "Rest" to reset your spell of doom or your one shot melee abilities.  DAO hasneither of those setups to limit you.  The only way to limit yourself is to force yourself not to use everythign available to you.  If that was supposed to be the case than they should have taken certain abilities and instead of a reset timer make them one shot while in agro.

Modifié par Sylixe, 16 février 2010 - 03:53 .

[devSin]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
Wear a piece of red dragon armor in BG2 and you have a chance that one of the bastards will hunt you down. Use a spell of "blur" and some people you talk to will complain that you give them eye strain. Try to "penetrate" a thieves base with a paladin in your party and watch your cover get blown because of this pompus bastard. 

... All this even before i start putting in the amazing mods created so far.

For posterity, all those are completely false for vanilla SoA. You can make the sexy eyes at every single dragon in the game with red dragon armor and red dragon shield and red dragon helmet, and they won't care a bit. There are no state checks on blur to run audio feedback or offer special dialogue. And you can easily keep Keldorn on a leash around the Shadow Thieves.

BG2 > DA, I'm sure I'd agree, but stick to reality when arguing it!

Modifié par devSin, 16 février 2010 - 05:10 .

[Aldandil]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

You really believe that all BG2 had against DAO  is that it was simply bigger? What about the attention to detail? What about complexity of the world itself where fates and facts intertwined? What about the little things that triggered different effects around the world, from a forbiden item to something unexpected that really did impact your world and/ or your party. Wear a piece of red dragon armor in BG2 and you have a chance that one of the bastards will hunt you down. Use a spell of "blur" and some people you talk to will complain that you give them eye strain. Try to "penetrate" a thieves base with a paladin in your party and watch your cover get blown because of this pompus bastard.

There are simply too many things, far more than simply sheer size that make BG2 far greater than DAO. Its especially incredible that BG2 is 10 years old now and its especially funny that DAO cant compare with it. All this even before i start putting in the amazing mods created so far.

I'd say that attention to detail is involved in the concept of size, especially in your example of getting chased down for finding a silver blade (not red dragon armor). That is simply more content. Then again, DA:O has examples of that, too, some random encounters that spawn from the Circle tower for instance. I'll admit, I had never tried had anyone say that Blur effects strained their eyes in BG2, but if that's true, it's really cool. Having your partymembers caring about what is going on around them exists in DA:O too. Look for all the "Morrigan disapproves"-threads. BG2 did it great, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the so-called spiritual successor.

Sylixe wrote...
You would be wrong on BOTH counts.  Disable the leveling and play the
game and you don;t even notice a difference on ANY difficulty setting. 
However that is what the system is supposed to do.  I also assume you
never played Oblivion, which was the big introduction game to such a
leveling system.  Just as a refresher to that system it was very easy
to beat the main storyline of the game as a level one as well.

You
could NEVER beat BG in such a manner because your abilities and spells
were ALL tied to a leveling and advancing system.  The bosses for each
chapter were also a STATIC level mob that never changed.  This meant
you had to do some work before even thinking of attempting said bosses.

As
time has shown DAO and Oblivion have both tried different directions to
use this type of leveling.  Both have come up short trying to be
something that they aren't.  At the very least the Oblivion community
basically recoded the game for bethesda to make it a much better
experience.  Perhaps in a year or so someone in the DAO community can
do the same.

You say BG had no challenge or choice?  I am
calling you out on that right now.  So i want to know exactly how you
had say a cleric in your group with iminfinite healing?  How about a
warrior with infinite knockdown?  The list can be made as long as you
like but in the end DAO provides no resource management at all.  You
just pound the same attack repeatedly in between auto swings. 
Realistically all you do is setup any encounters as you like and front
load everything you have onto them.  Go collect your loot and rinse and
repeat.  The real shocker in DAO to me is that boss fights are almost
all the EASY encounters in game.  The climax boss of the whole story
gimps himself mid fight!!! 

You haven't understood the level scaling of DA:O. It is limited so that it stays within certain levels (much as it was in BG2 by the way, but in BG2 they added more and stronger types of enemies rather than simply made the existing ones harder, which I think is a better way to do it), so  most bosses only scale between level 10 and 16 or something like that. Playing through DA:O on level one would most likely be impossible, because not only do you not have enough hit points, you don't have enough abilities either.

I'm not saying BG didn't have challenge or choice. I'm saying that it didn't have a significantly larger amount of challenge or choice than DA:O. Remember that we're doing a comparative study here. Furthermore, you don't have infinite healing nor infinite knockdowns in DA:O. They are limited on a fight to fight basis by cooldowns and mana/energy. I feel about as limited in my use of abilities in DA:O as I did in BG; I can use more abilities in DA:O, that is true, but I didn't need to use heal as often in BG, for example, so it's not really an issue. In BG, it was often enough to have warriors auto-attack and mages using their slings. BG2 did involve challenges, but once you had gotten the hang of the combat system, it's not as if it's incredibly hard (much like DA:O, somewhat challenging the first time through, but once you know what you're doing, you can chew through most encounters pretty easily). Granted, Kangaxx and Twisted Rune are a lot harder than anything DA:O has to offer, unless you cheese through Kangaxx.

[soteria]

I thought i was making it clear i had but i guess i need to say YES i have done it and YES it works just like that. It was actually my last ditch effort to make the game harder. The bosses do NOT have a set level and defeating them is just as easy as if you leveled up. This game has some very basic AI coding and setups for modding that are far behind the times actually. I swear this games story was worked on for 4 and a half years and they threw in some combat at the last minute to sell it.

No, you didn't, and I'm highly skeptical that you really beat the whole game at level 1 on nightmare.

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Fumbleumble!

Fumbleumble wrote...

Huh?.... did I miss a meeting?

When did RPG's become all about the multiple wave, tactical combat?

There have always been tactical aspects to combat in virtually every RPG I can remember. Its also a big aspect of Dragon Age Origins...thats why they have a whole section that lets you set a characters TACTICS. Thats why they give you multiple spells and talents and items. Deciding which to use in any given moment is a TACTICAL decision.

I think you guys are playing the wrong genre....and would you try not to turn the genre that I like, in to the genre that you like.

The genre already IS like that, no one is saying change it, we are simply saying improve it.

The combat in an RPG is a MEANS, not an END...the only prerequisites for an RPG system is that it has the ability to deal with combat AND reflect the mulitutdes of talents needed to work your way through a series of senarios that include combat AND dialog, puzzles and other non-combat related situations.

Conversely, the story is an END, not a MEANS. Without a 'game' to play, Dragon Age becomes a movie, not a game.

In pnp RPG's, (the only reason you actually have 'crpg's today or the genre would be something else entirely, which is exactly where it's heading :<) the combat was certainly a fun part of the game, but it wasn't the be all and end all of it.

No one is suggesting combat is the be all and end all of an RPG. What we are suggesting are ways to improve the combat to make that side of the game more involved and interesting.

I would much rather that the powergamers and combat drones went and played an mmo to show off their leetness as opposed to coming to a well, loved but minority genre and ****ing and moaning about why they can't show their leetness in a genre that was never intended for that use.

I do not begrudge people wanting to improve the Clothing and Equipment in Dragon Age. Or those who want more romantic options. So I find it weird that you are so vociferous in voicing your disapproval of improving the combat.

I can only put this down to a sort of knee jerk fear of the casual gamer. Of course, if you had read my suggestions (earlier in this thread) you would have seen they don't change the game for Casual Gamers so there is nothing for them to worry about.

Please, would you people just step away from the forum, you are ruining my genre.

I don't believe improving the combat (in the ways I have mentioned) will ruin anything. But I'd be happy to respond to assuage any specific fears you have on the matter.

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 16 février 2010 - 06:55 .

[Sylixe]

soteria wrote...

I thought i was making it clear i had but i guess i need to say YES i have done it and YES it works just like that. It was actually my last ditch effort to make the game harder. The bosses do NOT have a set level and defeating them is just as easy as if you leveled up. This game has some very basic AI coding and setups for modding that are far behind the times actually. I swear this games story was worked on for 4 and a half years and they threw in some combat at the last minute to sell it.

No, you didn't, and I'm highly skeptical that you really beat the whole game at level 1 on nightmare.

Actually yes i did but you know if you are in denial that's just fine.  I never said i beat the game on nightmare with a level 1 character either.  Actually i had the game on normal just to see if it was possible and it was very doable and never played much different than the normal game. 

However i did beat the game on my first run through with it on nightmare after playing it on hard for the first hour.  You do realise you COULD beat the game on any setting with a level 1 though if you wanted to by simply Exploiting the Z Axis, Walls and the mobs constant knack for coming at you one at a time?  It would probably take you damn near 100+ hours to do it though and i definetly don't have the time for that.

What i did say on another post was that i beat Oblivion as a level 1 character, which many people have and is well documented.  This game plays almost exactly like Oblivion, in regards to the leveling system but with a few small differences. 

Modifié par Sylixe, 16 février 2010 - 06:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

plastic golem wrote...
In DA:O, you are basically told when to fight. You can't (AFAICT) attack anyone you're not supposed to

I'd call this a feature, not a bug. I've never seen an RPG yet where this worked well. The BG-series reputation mechanic was feeble.

There were instances where the mechanic worked well.  The ability to attack and kill Shandalar in TotSC was a high point of the game.  You weren't supposed to attack him, and when attacked he fled rather than fight back, so killing him was really difficult, but it was a wonderful roleplaying moment.

There are no partial victories or partial losses: you fight until everyone on one side is dead, and if you win, everyone on your side is back to full health.

In practice, not much of a distinction. In BG2 you'd just rest and raise whoever bought it.

In fact, I would argue that DAO does this better than BG2 because of the injury mechanic.  BG2 would have won if they'd implemented the proper AD&D permanent loss of constitution for being resurrected, but they didn't, so DAO beats BG2 on this count.

Resources replenish automagically between fights so there is little concept of resource management or conserving health or magic for the next fight: you just hit as hard as you can with everything you can all the time.

That's exaggerating. Consumables don't replenish. As for mana and stamina, calling their recharging "automagical" reveals some intellectual confusion. There's no reason why magical energies must require a day or even an hour to recharge

This is something I do think BG did better.  DAO's focus on tactics at the expense of strategy bothers me a lot.

soteria wrote...

The thing about BG was you really didn't have to think about the next fight except in very rare circumstances. Probably 95% of the time you could just rest, with a few exceptions (such as the end of TOB). The only reason to hold back on spells was if you didn't want to rest and have to recast all your buffs--something DA:O improves on via sustains.

I think BG actually handed this a bit better than that.  Reloading in an outdoor area in BG would cause the monsters to respawn, so you could no longer be confident that you'd cleared out part of the map.  And since resting carried the risk of ambush, and ambushes were often among the more difficult fights (and thus necessitated a quick save before resting), resting more than once per area meant that the area would sometimes grow more dangerous.  If you were exploring areas that were a higher level than you, this wasn't something you could really handle.

BG's system did a good job of encouraging strategic planning in this way.

I don't know if BG2 used the same respawning system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylixe wrote...

The bosses do NOT have a set level and defeating them is just as easy as if you leveled up.

Some of the optional fights do, though.

Revenants have a minimum level of 14, so you can't possibly defeat them at level 1.

[Cancermeat]

how do you guys feel about how some armor changes value if you leave it in the warchest?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cancermeat wrote...

how do you guys feel about how some armor changes value if you leave it in the warchest?

It doesn't make any sense in the setting.  I'd call it a bug.

[soteria]

Actually yes i did but you know if you are in denial that's just fine. I never said i beat the game on nightmare with a level 1 character either. Actually i had the game on normal just to see if it was possible and it was very doable and never played much different than the normal game.



However i did beat the game on my first run through with it on nightmare after playing it on hard for the first hour. You do realise you COULD beat the game on any setting with a level 1 though if you wanted to by simply Exploiting the Z Axis, Walls and the mobs constant knack for coming at you one at a time? It would probably take you damn near 100+ hours to do it though and i definetly don't have the time for that.



What i did say on another post was that i beat Oblivion as a level 1 character, which many people have and is well documented. This game plays almost exactly like Oblivion, in regards to the leveling system but with a few small differences.

What did you do, play on normal through the origin and decide level scaling didn't matter?



As I said, you really don't understand how level scaling works in DA:O. Certain monster types have minimum levels. Certain groups of enemies have a minimum level--it's called a "gating" encounter, to let you know if you need to go level some more. A level one character would never make it inside Orzammar, because the enemies wouldn't scale low enough.



The game does not play like Oblivion. The only similarity is that monsters scale UP to your level, but the inverse is not universally true.

[DeriusE]

Sylixe wrote...

soteria wrote...

I thought i was making it clear i had but i guess i need to say YES i have done it and YES it works just like that. It was actually my last ditch effort to make the game harder. The bosses do NOT have a set level and defeating them is just as easy as if you leveled up. This game has some very basic AI coding and setups for modding that are far behind the times actually. I swear this games story was worked on for 4 and a half years and they threw in some combat at the last minute to sell it.

No, you didn't, and I'm highly skeptical that you really beat the whole game at level 1 on nightmare.

Actually yes i did but you know if you are in denial that's just fine.  I never said i beat the game on nightmare with a level 1 character either.  Actually i had the game on normal just to see if it was possible and it was very doable and never played much different than the normal game. 

However i did beat the game on my first run through with it on nightmare after playing it on hard for the first hour.  You do realise you COULD beat the game on any setting with a level 1 though if you wanted to by simply Exploiting the Z Axis, Walls and the mobs constant knack for coming at you one at a time?  It would probably take you damn near 100+ hours to do it though and i definetly don't have the time for that.

What i did say on another post was that i beat Oblivion as a level 1 character, which many people have and is well documented.  This game plays almost exactly like Oblivion, in regards to the leveling system but with a few small differences. 

The level scaling in DA:O is NOT the same as in Oblivion. It scales in small amounts in different areas, and certain foes will only scale so high, but it would be impossible to beat DA:O in its entirety as a level 1. I dare you to try.

Stop exaggerating, it doesn't help you make your point.

[Destrier77]

One thing im confused by on my playthrough so far, is people complaining about the potions being too easy to come by and you spamming them.



First thing i would say is as with some people in fallout, which people complained had the same problem with stimpacks, you dont have to use them. If you think its too easy then dont use them so much, simple! If im playing fallout, i play dead is dead to make it more difficult, and if i spam stimpacks i find im quite quickly skint.



This is exactly the same in DA. I would say there are not a lot of health and lyrium potions about, and if you spam them you will soon get through them. They are damn expensive to buy too!!



Am i missing something? Also, when you are using the health packs, you character drinks them, which i think is amazing and an advancement on old games, it takes a second or two to do this and this makes it harder, while you are drinking you are not fighting and quite often you are still being hit.



I dont understand why some people complain about this.



Im on ps3 on second hardest difficulty.

[attackfighter]

DeriusE wrote...
The level scaling in DA:O is NOT the same as in Oblivion. It scales in small amounts in different areas, and certain foes will only scale so high, but it would be impossible to beat DA:O in its entirety as a level 1. I dare you to try.

Stop exaggerating, it doesn't help you make your point.

Dragon Age is very linear, so despite the small range of level scaling it still ensures that you're the same level as most of your enemies. The only time you're weaker than your enemies is in the first of the 4 midgame quests and the only time you're stronger is in the last of the 4 midgame quests.

Despite the differences in mechanics, the result of DA:O's level scaling is the same as Oblivion's.

[soteria]

Dragon Age is very linear, so despite the small range of level scaling it still ensures that you're the same level as most of your enemies. The only time you're weaker than your enemies is in the first of the 4 midgame quests and the only time you're stronger is in the last of the 4 midgame quests.



Despite the differences in mechanics, the result of DA:O's level scaling is the same as Oblivion's.

Not really. Two of the main areas are significantly easier than the rest if you go there first. I'm pretty sure one of them would be impossible to enter at level 1--I can barely get in at level 7. At level 10, it's easy. In Oblivion, everything was easy at level 1, and just got easier if you set up your character so you were only using secondary skills. It's a totally different levelling system, and DA:O has checks in place to stop the scaling from ever dropping below a certain level.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

In Oblivion, everything was easy at level 1, and just got easier if you set up your character so you were only using secondary skills.

Indeed, I did this by accident when I played Oblivion.  Pretty soon I was summoning Storm Atronachs to kill mudcrabs.  Good times.

[Cancermeat]

I think they should have made better looking trees,hehe.

[Bibdy]

So, all it takes to make an RPG, in some people's minds, is the ability to kill innocent bystanders and become a criminal?

[DeriusE]

attackfighter wrote...

DeriusE wrote...
The level scaling in DA:O is NOT the same as in Oblivion. It scales in small amounts in different areas, and certain foes will only scale so high, but it would be impossible to beat DA:O in its entirety as a level 1. I dare you to try.

Stop exaggerating, it doesn't help you make your point.

Dragon Age is very linear, so despite the small range of level scaling it still ensures that you're the same level as most of your enemies. The only time you're weaker than your enemies is in the first of the 4 midgame quests and the only time you're stronger is in the last of the 4 midgame quests.

Despite the differences in mechanics, the result of DA:O's level scaling is the same as Oblivion's.

Not really. Not only is the acutal leveling system different from Oblivion, DA:O also puts a min and max to it that would make attempting to do what you can in Oblivion impossible in DA:O. It is not possible to beat DA:O as a level 1 on any difficulty setting.

Comparing DA:O's level scaling to Oblivion's is simplifying things to the point that your comparison is worthless.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

What do you think of this idea - Nightmare (Plus) difficulty Loops.

For those gamers wanting an extreme challenge in Dragon Age (and I am not one of them), have a variation on the Nightmare Difficulty - lets call it Nightmare Plus. On the first playthrough its the same as Nightmare. Next time you play it, the game gets harder and harder each playthrough. Bioware could make this aspect appealing by having one unique uber-item available (for each class) on each new playthrough.

Got the idea thinking about Gradius V from Konami, where the game gets harder on each of the 256 playthrough loops. Not saying Dragon Age would require that many (its a much longer game). But it would maybe be fun for 10 loops - just enough to get one new uber-item (for each class) for each slot.