83 réponses à ce sujet

[Wade Iceblade]

Some people seem to suggest that you can pull your camera back to an isometric view, well this is not true. Isometric view is a distorted perspective view, what you get isn't.



I have to agree with the OP, the game fels more like upgraded NWN. It could modded to be more like BG though. Just waiting for someone to do it .

[Made of Beasts]

macayle wrote...

i think i can answer one of your issues easily. Bioware no longer has the online rights to use D&D rule sets. Turbine does. I am also sure that since they produced BG I and II along with NWN that used D&D that if they produced a came with a very similar rule set they would have been tied up in court a bit agruing how this was not a D&D game.

This is horrible.  Turbine are shysters and DDO online is only fun in short bursts.  I was hoping to play something more like NWN I will admit, but after the first couple hours I am hooked.  My biggest problem so far is running into bugs for a game that has DLC for sale on the release day?  Thats one of those jokes that isn't funny. 

And as for the thread title...   Death of the DnD classic?  Maccayle has me thinking so now                                   Back to playing now!

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Brentra wrote...

Ok, um, some of the comments on here about the 360 version of the game are a little bologna. A lot of people are blowing the differences between the two way out of proportion.

In a month or two, the PC version will look and play nothing like its console counterparts, so the sole fact that the computer version is modding-friendly already makes all the difference in the world in this comparison.

All of the offical mods will be released via x-box live. As for unoffical mods, yes, that is a major difference between the PC and Console versions. Of course, if you are a gamer like me who never bothers with anything but offically released mods anyway, this isn't going to be a difference that really matters.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

HemisH wrote...

PC: Full camera control (can pull back to an isometric angle), the ability to select the entire party at once, full UI with a hotbar, user-made mods and access to the toolset.

Console: Camera limited to behind-the-back with some zooming, can only control one character at a time, button mapping for potions and a few of your combat talents as well as a radial menu, official DLC only, less enemies in big battles.

And that is about the long and short of it. These are the real differences between the two. Although, the way it is expressed in this post, it makes the console version seem like its hands down inferior. Personally, I like the fact that my mabari hound has access to warrior talents. I also like the movement style a whole lot more. I also like the fact that the tactics section of the group AI is a little more robust. And I am not so bothered by the inability to tell the whole group to do something at once (though it can be a little anoying at times) because its not hard for me to pause the game, and cycle through four NPCs telling them to attack the same target.

The camera angle thing is really anoying though. That I agree on 100%. In that area, the PC version is hands down superior to the console version.

Modifié par The-Cyber-Dave, 08 novembre 2009 - 12:14 .

[cocaholic]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

HemisH wrote...

PC: Full camera control (can pull back to an isometric angle), the ability to select the entire party at once, full UI with a hotbar, user-made mods and access to the toolset.

Console: Camera limited to behind-the-back with some zooming, can only control one character at a time, button mapping for potions and a few of your combat talents as well as a radial menu, official DLC only, less enemies in big battles.

And that is about the long and short of it. These are the real differences between the two. Although, the way it is expressed in this post, it makes the console version seem like its hands down inferior. Personally, I like the fact that my mabari hound has access to warrior talents. I also like the movement style a whole lot more. I also like the fact that the tactics section of the group AI is a little more robust. And I am not so bothered by the inability to tell the whole group to do something at once (though it can be a little anoying at times) because its not hard for me to pause the game, and cycle through four NPCs telling them to attack the same target.

The camera angle thing is really anoying though. That I agree on 100%. In that area, the PC version is hands down superior to the console version.

I love how people just make stuff up.  You can select your whole party on 360 by pressing LB/RB at the same time.

Modifié par cocaholic, 08 novembre 2009 - 12:42 .

[The-Cyber-Dave]

REALLY!!!?



****g A! That is awesome! I had no idea I could do that...



Well, that will certainly make my life easier.

[Inhuman one]

I prefer the more medieval style although I would have liked to see this carried over into armor designs as well with more medieval designs instead of big steel armors with huge shoulderplates.



But then again, I always prefered the image of earlier knights in chainmail with a surcoat over that of a late knight in full plate armor.



The combat in Dragon Age is a lot better than any D&D system would be since its not a math quiz but more an actual battle which I prefer. D&D was never designed for computer games so naturally it would always be flawed for videogames.

[Yard Waste]

Gacatar wrote...

Oh, you're playing on 360.
Seriously, get it for the PC. It's almost a different game.

Hit the nail on the head.
Most of the reviews I have read confirm this. 360 also has the worst graphics for this game.
If you want to RPG and compare it to the past, at least use the same platform for both games.

[Mr_Joey]

I think the death of DnD occured long before DA came into being.Why bother getting rights to a ruleset and then be confined to those same rules with what you can create in your game? Seems better to build the mechanics to support a vision/world than tailor your gameto the ruleset.



Dragon Age seems to have borrowed several concepts (UI, talent trees,mana/stam usage, etc), from MMO's such as WoW.

Why would that be? MMO's are the money makers for the PC, The MASSES are familiar with the mechanics, hence a large potential customer base. That's how i see this game so far; a cross between BG and WoW. For my part, they seemed to have picked the best part of both and left out the bad.....

I prefer DA origions to DnD because the mechanics are "behind the scenes" in DA, I don't have to worry about min/maxing and bothering so much with loot allocation (to achieve max stats like MMO's and some DnD games require), I can spend more time enjoying content/story and focusing on strategy. The game could be better,but I imagine that Bioware felt the need to dumb it down ( eh, maybe lighten it up would sound better) to be more accessable to the masses/console peeps.

no offence to console players, I know many of you are good RPG/strategy players. Just seems most go for the twitch based or hack-n-slash "PHAT LEWT" type games. Hopefully games like Dragon Age, The Witcher (similar type game to DA) and Mass Effect will revive interest in single player RPG's. I don't think DnD could accomplish that anymore...

[Noxxio]

Spellcasters and healers in particular have been blessed by bioware's more action oriented design. In Baldur's Gate you really couldn't build an effective healer that would be meaningful during combat. It was much more effective to prevent damage from taking place rather than healing it in real time. DA:O has taken a queue from WoW and made healers essential in battles with the difficulty scaled harder and up. DnD is too constricting and often leads to min/maxing powergaming to be successful.

[Brentra]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Brentra wrote...Ok, um, some of the comments on here about the 360 version of the game are a little bologna. A lot of people are blowing the differences between the two way out of proportion. In a month or two, the PC version will look and play nothing like its console counterparts, so the sole fact that the computer version is modding-friendly already makes all the difference in the world in this comparison.

All of the offical mods will be released via x-box live. As for unoffical mods, yes, that is a major difference between the PC and Console versions. Of course, if you are a gamer like me who never bothers with anything but offically released mods anyway, this isn't going to be a difference that really matters.

Er, not a PC gamer, I take it.  "Officially released mods" can only stand for a limited number of bug fixes or minor/non-free DLCs that don't usually affect the core gameplay in any notable way. Player created mods can count in thousands and some of them can change the gameplay and game visuals quite radically. Ever heard of a little "unofficial" mod called Counter-Strike? Or what about more recent Oblivion's mods? When Bethesda's attention was focused on selling those infamous $2 horse armor DLCs, Oblivion was already saved (to reasonable extent) by several player-created mods that removed those ridiculous all-world-monsters-level-with-me design limitations and other restrictions and bugs that pretty much made the original game unplayable. Civilization IV, Warcraft 3, Fallout 3, Unreal Tournament and dozens of other games were either saved or improved in the same manner. So no, I'm not a gamer like you. In fact I think that never bothering with anything but offically released mods is pretty much stupid.

Modifié par Brentra, 08 novembre 2009 - 02:05 .

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Think what you like. To many unoffical mods destroy the games in my opinion. You are free to not agree. You are free to enjoy your PC version. I'll enjoy my X-box version.

By the way, counter strike was released in stores, making it an "officially released" mod.

And yes, I am not a PC gamer. As PC games are released, the hardware requirements grow exponentially from year to year. Trying to keep a PC up to spec for new games is too expensive for my tastes. I prefer to spend that money on new games instead of new hardware. With an x-box, all I need is my x-box. Its lasted me quite a few years of gaming already. I am sure eventually I will have to buy a next generation system. But, there is no news of one on the horizon, so it seems like I will get quite a few more years out of my 360. I also prefer to play games with a controller than with a mouse and keyboard. It is just more fun for me.

Other than the ability to get a wider angle view of the group (so you can see the whole group at the same time) I really don't see the PC version of the game offering me anything I really want. Better graphics, maybe, if the PC version actually has better graphics. But then, being able to get those better graphics probably requires a ridiculous investment in terms of hardware, which again, I am not interested in doing.

I mean, hell, even when I did PC game I tended to not like non-official content. There were some NWN (one, I never got a chance to play 2 because I stopped playing PC games by then) stuff that was sort of neat. But nothing that I considered truly spectacular.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Also, being able to download player made mods doesnt change the fact that a lot of the claims made about the xbox version of the game in this thread are outright lies. No ability to "spacebar pause?" Oh wait, xbox version has that. Can't highlight your whole group? Oh, wait, you can. PC version is harder? Not as of the last PC based patch. And I am not sure I would be happy with a harder game seeing as I have to play it on casual/normal as is. Xbox version is designed so that you only play one player at a time? No, thats a lie too. So, what are the actual differences? The ability to zoom out farther with the PC version. The ability to get more talents with the mabari hounds on the console version. The ability for people to mod the PC version with unofficial content. That is it. 

If one of those differences are important to you, the game will seem drastically different to your perspective. If not, it will not. To me, the PC and the xbox version seem like pretty much the same thing.

Modifié par The-Cyber-Dave, 08 novembre 2009 - 02:44 .

[Mr_Joey]

The-Cyber-Dave-
Pc gaming doesn't require as much cash to stay useable for gaming as you think...
I built my own, still using dual-core proc. the initial investment is higher but if you build/buy a system with a decent motherboard you only need to upgrade graphics card in a few years. And newest, expensive graphics cards not required either.
The industry tries to make you think you need the newest processors and 500 dollar graphics cards
to boost sales. I can play all the newer games with my subpar computer (by today's standards)
on high graphics settings with a resolution of 1680 X 1050.
The cheap prebuilt puters are different though, they cut too many corners limiting upgradeability
(weak power supplies, poor cooling, integrated graphics etc) and have to be replaced soon to keep up with gaming.

Modifié par Mr_Joey, 08 novembre 2009 - 02:59 .

[1101]

Desalbert wrote...

[This discusses my initial reaction to the Xbox 360 version of the game]


 [i]My focus: Dragon Age: Origins is not the spiritual successor I had in mind. I understand it is not an AD&D game. However, does the fact that Bioware's first fantasy rpg (in years!) is not an AD&D title, but more-so like Mass Effect in approach mean that the clasic AD&D style is close to being dead and gone? What's more, is Dragon Age's style better in your opinion, than the AD&D approach?

 

I am still early in the game, but at this point anyway, I do consider the claim that DA (the PC version, at least) is the "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate to be a valid one, based on the following two criteria, which are the most important for me in an RPG:

1) Storyline, character interaction, etc. You know, "Role-Playing".
2) Deep, challenging (but not insane), pausible, tactical combat. (I despise "FPS"-style RPGs)

A lack in either of these areas would be a deal-breaker for me, and, after the Fallout 3 letdown on point 2, I wouldn't have even bought the game if Bioware had removed the bird's-eye view tactical combat system.

Baldur's Gate II is the best computer RPG I have ever played, by a long way (Fallout I is 2nd-place). And---Begin Rant---that comes in spite of the AD&D rules that it uses, which I loathe almost as much as FPS hack-n-slash. "Realistic" game mechanics represent my third-most important criteria, and for me, BG2 utterly fails in that department. However, it did the first two things so well that I hardly noticed the otherwise intolerable AD&D rules system running underneath (and no, I don't keep up with the AD&D rules changes).

I know I sound hard on AD&D, but the first P-n-P RPG I played was Runequest, which has game mechanics that appeal to me in both a "common sense" and "realistic" way. When I was first introduced AD&D, I couldn't believe a game with such "artificial" and bizarre game mechanics was considered to be THE defining RPG experience--the magic system with its "memorize a spell for use, then it's gone until you rememorize and rest" mechanics, the combat system with its "heavy plate armor makes it harder for people to hit you" rather than reduce damage when you do get hit, the class system which sets artificial boundaries on your character for game balance, rather than a more "reality"-based model that recognizes the fact that time itself contrains the amount that one can learn or specialize in, or the "experience level" system which, among other things, promotes a character's Hit Points such that a sufficiently "experienced" humanoid fighter can take more damage than a house-sized dragon--it amazed me that the game could be so successful---End Rant (and nothing personal, Desalbert)---.

The Dragon Age game mechanics fixes some things I didn't like about BG2 (but obviously not everything), and at the same time replaces some of the few mechanics I did like in BG2 (like "static" characteristics, and "real" death, to name two). So, no, I'm not disappointed that DA doesn't use "classic AD&D style" rules, I'm disappointed that Bioware built a system from scratch but still didn't "get it right" from my point of view. However, at least they kept the same overall combat system interface, thank the Maker. (Thanks, Bioware!) And I do prefer the DA system overall, compared to the AD&D rules system. (Darklands and Jagged Alliance 2, and Fallout, to a certain extent, are the best computer game examples of my preferred style of game mechanics for character building, though I would change a few things there as well)

My biggest irritation with the game is the over-the-top, gratuitous, horror-movie style graphics - don't need it, don't want it (Shame, Bioware!). If this is what "bleeding-edge", state-of-the-art graphics means, then just give me BG2 graphics, please. Dark and gritty "mature" content is one thing, but this aspect of the game may be the thing that ultimately ruins it for me; I certainly can't play it in the presence of my family, which means I can't play it as nearly as much as I'd like.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Mr_Joey wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave-
Pc gaming doesn't require as much cash to stay useable for gaming as you think...
I built my own, still using dual-core proc. the initial investment is higher but if you build/buy a system with a decent motherboard you only need to upgrade graphics card in a few years. And newest, expensive graphics cards not required either.
The industry tries to make you think you need the newest processors and 500 dollar graphics cards
to boost sales. I can play all the newer games with my subpar computer (by today's standards)
on high graphics settings with a resolution of 1680 X 1050.
The cheap prebuilt puters are different though, they cut too many corners limiting upgradeability
(weak power supplies, poor cooling, integrated graphics etc) and have to be replaced soon to keep up with gaming.

Yea. I can see how that would be true. Only problem is, I am not tech savy enough to build my own computer, and way to busy to take the time to learn how to be tech savy enough at this point in time in my life. Between my school (just about to start my PhD), my daughter, my partner, and the rest of life, I can score a bit of time at the end of the day to play RPGs. I don't have the time to also learn how to build a computer, and build a computer, so that I can get a chance to play them. Maybe at some other point in time in my life. Right now, console gaming is far more convenient for my lifestyle.

And none of that changes the fact that the differences between the 360 dragon age and PC dragon age are not nearly as big as some people in this thread have tried to make out. There are some differences. They are not that drastic.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Huh. I really like the gratuitous violence. I mean, I can't play it in front of my daughter either. But, its presence makes the game more fun for me when I do get to play (after my daughter has gone to bed).



Different folks, different strokes, I guess.

[Malecite00]

Why the hell does everyone keep quoting this "spiritual successor" crap? I understand some people wanted Baldurs Gate 3, but this is DRAGON AGE. I really really like the break from the traditional D and D style game, keep in mind also that this was NEVER advertised as such.

[1101]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Different folks, different strokes, I guess.

No argument there, and I imagine I'm in the minority. 

[Noxxio]

1101 wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Different folks, different strokes, I guess.

No argument there, and I imagine I'm in the minority. 

Actually I'd imagine you're in the majority, the violence in this game or more specifically the gore is a bit too Tarantino'ish to the point that it becomes more pop than gritty, sometimes less is more.

Modifié par Noxxio, 08 novembre 2009 - 04:01 .

[1101]

Malecite00 wrote...

I really really like the break from the traditional D and D style game...

I agree.

Malecite00 wrote...

Why the hell does everyone keep quoting this "spiritual successor" crap? I understand some people wanted Baldurs Gate 3, but this is DRAGON AGE...keep in mind also that this was NEVER advertised as [BG3/AD&D rules].

True, it never was advertised as BG3, but, in that case it would be the "actual successor" to BG2. However, it has, in fact, been consistently advertised as the "spiritual successor" to BG, as Bioware "returning to its roots". Some people are disappointed that their definition of what constitutes "spiritual successor" is not the same as Bioware's, and they are simply expressing that disappointment in a constructive manner, and asking if others are disappointed by the same lack of features that are important to them.

Modifié par 1101, 08 novembre 2009 - 04:28 .

[1101]

Noxxio wrote...

...specifically the gore...becomes more pop than gritty, sometimes less is more.

Beautifully stated.

Modifié par 1101, 08 novembre 2009 - 04:33 .

[Krynis]

From what I can see your NOT saying its a bad thing per say, merely curious how we feel about it, on that standpoint I've rather enjoyed the differences, as a long time D&D fan its fun to play games with D&D rules but honestly a lot of the time I prefer games that in-body the SPIRIT of D&D not some set of ever changing rules, the entire time playing this game on my first play through I could imagine how this would play out at table top.



Perhaps part of the reason I can see how this would play out at table top is due to my DM in table top constantly striving to make his campaigns his own often with his own monsters (largely based on modifying others as to keep things from going crazy) and almost always using his own worlds (I think the ToE 3.0 remake is the only pre made we've ever run since we started 10 years back)



to sum it up I feel so long as keep the spirit of what D&D is I will prefer it to straight up D&D games. (not to say I won't play BG3 if the rumors from elseware are true)

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Noxxio wrote...

1101 wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Different folks, different strokes, I guess.

No argument there, and I imagine I'm in the minority. 

Actually I'd imagine you're in the majority, the violence in this game or more specifically the gore is a bit too Tarantino'ish to the point that it becomes more pop than gritty, sometimes less is more.

I would argue that the game is more "pulp than gritty," rather than pop. And the whole pulp thing suits me just fine. That is why I like it. Makes the game feel very sword and sorcery to me.

[phordicus]

i don't think you have any idea what "spiritual successor" means. every one of your complaints details ways in which DAO doesn't have its rules directly derived from d&d. if you were expecting some bioware-controlled evolution of that ruleset, you really misled yourself.



the spiritual succession is all about the NPC interaction, the epic-but-not-cheesy plot, and the hard line between class roles (that WotC ****ed up long ago).

[pscantland]

Brentra wrote...

Desalbert wrote...
What is more, if you’re a mage, forget about (1) having a grand spell
book to memorize spells in,  (2) a limit of casts per day, or (3) even
a long casting period in battle. 
 

 Pure AD&D was fine for tables and dices. When it comes to videogaming, however, it looks pretty much ridiculous. What exactly was so 'realistic', attractive or logical about having a mage to
take an eight-hour-long nap after casting a couple of pretty
low-profile spells? If my mage has a long-term memories and regenerating mana pool, I see it as progress, not as death of anything.

Well, actually I was thinking about the combat rules of Dragon Age and basically found it... s**k.  A system TOO COMPLEX for a human to understand is not a good system.  I dare you to understand and then show the difference between 12 of dexterity and 25.  In Baldur's Gate where you invested your hard-earned attributes were worthy of every bit you threw at them... not here, not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think it s**k because of it outputing non-sense results, I think it s**k because the little grip we have over it.  That's an RPG and RPG used to be like that... strategic thinking, long-term plans, no simple "right-click here and hope for the best. The AI wants your good, sure it want you to win... it'll make you win, believe us".

Is there anything more useless than the "armor penetration" number ?!  Open up your manual page 24 and tell me... why isn't it simply "more damages" or "less armor" ?

I am happy and understand why Bioware had to setup a world different than D&D but quite frankly the D&D combat system (SECOND EDITION) practicality was just, well... unbeatable !  A "rock-paper-scisor" (that's what we got in a certain way in DA) combat system that's been built over the zillion of night-hours spent roleplaying D&D all over the world. 

No guessing why there's no combat log in DA... they would span 5 lines for any simgle blow !  *sigh*