103 réponses à ce sujet

[attackfighter]

DeriusE wrote...

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.

You didn't read what I wrote. The min and max levels encompass the players level for most of the game, so effectively there are only two parts (out of about 8) where the players level is significant.

[Murphys_Law]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

Murphys_Law wrote...

Because this isn't BG3.  This is a different game with different goals.  Stop claiming Bioware made "mistakes" when it is pretty clear they made concious, DIFFERENT THAN BG2, design choices.  You don't like those choices fine, but please stop trying to act like any variance from the ALMIGHTY GOD of BG2 is a failure.  You act as if "BG2 is the best RPG ever made" is a fact when it is just your opinion.  Time to stop living in the past.

Thrust me mate, this is not MY opinion only. It is something that is wildly accepted between the written press everywhere. From PC gamer to RPG gamer etc. Like it or not BG2 saga just so happens to gather the highest possible grades and of course praise. Like it or not there is something called "STANDARDS" that need to be met in order to put a game to the test. If these STANDARDS  are not met (like Dragon Age) then whats the point?

Its the same as anything in the world. Something is -the best- no matter how you look at it. Whether you like it or not is completely and utterly irrelevant since what YOU like holds true for yourself only. The fact of the matter however is that even after all these years in both written press and internet sites BG2 saga just happens to be the BEST among millions of players. 10 years and still the best. This is something remarkable. Take a look at metacritic for example for DAO. When the game first released it had a reader review score of 9.2+. Today its 8.4 and in a year or so it will get even lower. Do you know why? Because the game has ZERO complexity, its as straightforward and as simple as you can possibly get. Players are not stupid, the game fails to catter to either to those that love a good story (OMG BIG  BAD DRAGON, LETS  SLAY  IT) nor the combat afisionados. Its just an average toss and for a game that was in development for 6+ years its just a shame.

P.S. Its not our fault that Bioware went on and advertised the game as the "spiritual successor" to Baldurs Gate and inevitably we go on with this comparison. Dragon Age is poor by any standard set by any previous western RPG (especially with the modern Witcher), it just so happens to fail misserably when compared to BG2.

Reviews do not equal truth.  A review is an opionion of someone who knows how to write (hopefully) and that is about it.  An average score that is just a bunch of reviews averaged, it really does not give us anything concrete and is only used to try and make it sound like that number is what the game is.  You make it sound as if this average score is the word of God or some other deity from the metaphysical.  This is especially laughable because the difference from BG2 and Dragon Age is insignificant.  You are acting like the 1point-ish difference has some deep meaning beyond what it actually is....an average number of only reviewer opinions.  I am not even going to touch the glaring oversight of stating BG2 is the best game ever when essencially it is a sequel that had it's nuts and bolts built in BG1.  A more fitting comparson would be BG1, but I expected you go to the easy route and compare it to a well polished sequel. 

You and the OP are reading WAY too much into "spirtual successor to BG".  This does not mean in any way this game was meant to be BG3 and that has been said many times by developers.  Some elements are similiar to BG2 and that is why it is a "spirtual successor".  Party-based pausable combat being the most obvious, but there are others.  They made many different design choices and took risks.  Sorry, but I do not give much credit to a company that just rehashes their most sucessful game over and over just so a few rabid fans get their fix.  I don't even like every design descion they made (but love some others that are different from BG2), but I still recongize it as one of the best RPGs I have ever played.  Bioware is not going to release a "best game ever made" title everytime and to expect such is dellusional, on a personal level, and from a reviewer "average score" standpoint.

Modifié par Murphys_Law, 18 février 2010 - 01:45 .

[soteria]

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

Minor spoilers ahead:



Unless you make certain choices, you can buy unlimited elfroot and unlimited lyrium dust, making cheap potions in infinite quantities a possibility for anyone with the herbalism skill.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I agree with not being able to block a door and things like that. Was that really that hard to implement?