82 réponses à ce sujet

[aries1001]

Having just finished the BG series (yes, I am a very slow player ), personally I can say that Vancian spell-casting is not my cup of tea e.g. I don't much like it or care for it. The final battle in BG2 was (is) and example of this. You'll need to memorize spells beforehand. As you have no idea of what you'll need, you're sort of doomed, if you don't know what awaits you. A mana based magic system could be OK, I'd guess, provided that the devs. implemented it well e.g. made it so that there were cool-down periods and so.



At any rate, the DA game series is not DnD based. As such it's using s a different system for magic than the DnD games; they are different systems just like apples and oranges are different fruits, each ok and good in their own right.

[Gill Kaiser]

Well basically I like the DA:O spell-system better, but I preferred the vast selection of spells in BG2, including out-of-combat utility spells, protection spells, rare spells, etc. So, if DA2 just has a wider selection of interesting spells, I'll be happy.

I also like the way some spells can interact with each other in DA:O, and I'd like to see more of that.

[dragon_83]

aries1001 wrote...

Having just finished the BG series (yes, I am a very slow player ), personally I can say that Vancian spell-casting is not my cup of tea e.g. I don't much like it or care for it. The final battle in BG2 was (is) and example of this. You'll need to memorize spells beforehand. As you have no idea of what you'll need, you're sort of doomed, if you don't know what awaits you.

I haven't played BG2 for a while, but I remember that this is not the case exactly. I remember, that Irenicus had several protection spells, which had to be removed, before you can hit him. Now in the last hours of BG, I always memorized several spells which remove protection from enemies. Just in case, who knows what will I face. Sometimes I didn't need them at all, but if did, they were at my disposal. That is why I don't understand the negative feelings about vancian spellcasting. Is it that bad that you had to think ahead? At higher levels, a mage could have memorized 2 or 3 spells from every school of magic. So if you choose some offensive spells, some defensive spells,some debuff spells, you are good, whatever you face. Of course if someone is shooting away every high level spell for the firs low class enemy he/she sees, then he/she deserves to be doomed. But even then, your fellow party members are there for a reason.

[Legbiter]

I like Bioware's homebrew system just fine. The only thing I miss about the old DnD spellcasting are the intricate mage battles like we had in BG2. But like the OP that may just be nostalgia on my part.

[AlanC9]

dragon_83 wrote...

I haven't played BG2 for a while, but I remember that this is not the case exactly. I remember, that Irenicus had several protection spells, which had to be removed, before you can hit him.

Yeah, Irenicus had a fairly standard protection suite, though of course as a high-level mage he had all the goodies. But there was nothing special about him; by the time you get to that level you have to have learned how to defeat mages.

Is it that bad that you had to think ahead? At higher levels, a mage could have memorized 2 or 3 spells from every school of magic. So if you choose some offensive spells, some defensive spells,some debuff spells, you are good, whatever you face.

By that time you should have all kinds of scrolls available too, not to mention a certain wand that's very effective at stripping spell protections.

[aries1001]

It is entirely true that in the BG games, most high ranking spell casters need to have their protections removed. As such, you will need to use spells that remove these protections. Of course, I should have remember (but I didn't) that the final fights in BG2 would require summoned monsters or high level solars etc. The problem in the final fight in BG2 (as I see it) is that you can't rest at all - unless you're very lucky I'll always use magic missile, and arrows to disrupt any spellcasting from enemy mages.



Vancian spellcasting is very good to have in your game, if you know what you're facing. You need to know what spells to learn, even for level 1 players. With a mana system, like in the Dragon Age games, you don't need this. You're free to cast any spells you like...as long as you have enough mana.

[I Valente I]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

There is a certain level of subjectivity regarding things like immersion and attention to detail, but to claim DAO has none at all implies you've either got standards so high that it isn't actually possible to produce a cRPG you like, or you're one of these nuts who are still whinging that DAO isn't Baldur's Gate.

In either case, it isn't really conducive to discussion.

Do me a favor and don't backseat moderate. OK lill buddy?

The thread title is "DA vs. Old School". To say that "old school" is defined merely by a clumsy and unwieldy magic system (Vandian spellcasting) which made playing casters in tabletop a boring chore is an incredibly narrow view. There are already "Old School" cRPGs that outclass DA in every department except for graphics, and they make DA look like Diablo with a facelift. So no, my standards are NOT unattainable.

Now kindly sit down and shut up until you can come up with something more intelligent to say.

take it easy mate. He made a good point. No backseat moderation from where I'm looking. You can't use absolute words like "none" "never" "always" etc. and expect people not to take them for what they are. Seems to me like you don't really understand what he said. FYI, you can't just state that there are better "old school" rpg's and give no evidence to support your argument. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? "oh well he says there are already old school rpg's that outclass DA, he doesn't name any or say in what way but I guess I'll believe him."

[Damar Stiehl]

I Valente I wrote...
take it easy mate. He made a good point. No backseat moderation from where I'm looking. You can't use absolute words like "none" "never" "always" etc. and expect people not to take them for what they are. Seems to me like you don't really understand what he said. FYI, you can't just state that there are better "old school" rpg's and give no evidence to support your argument. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? "oh well he says there are already old school rpg's that outclass DA, he doesn't name any or say in what way but I guess I'll believe him."

A lack of experience on your part does not necessarily constitute a problem on mine. You only need to rewind a few years to find: Planescape, Baldur's Gate (both of them), original Fallouts, Witcher, Realms of Arcania series and possibly a few more that I can't think of right now.

If you played any of the above, then by all means, tell me how DA:O did better in terms of storytelling (as generic as they come), immersion (don't get me started), gameplay mechanics (ripped straight from MMOs) or anything else BESIDES graphics and or other superficial qualities.

If, on the other hand, DA is your first cRPG (or second after WoW or some similar piece of trash), then you are not qualified to pass judgement. In that case YES, you are supposed to just take my word for it.

[frayjog]

Damar Stiehl wrote...


A lack of experience on your part does not necessarily constitute a problem on mine. You only need to rewind a few years to find: Planescape, Baldur's Gate (both of them), original Fallouts, Witcher, Realms of Arcania series and possibly a few more that I can't think of right now.

If you played any of the above, then by all means, tell me how DA:O did better in terms of storytelling (as generic as they come), immersion (don't get me started), gameplay mechanics (ripped straight from MMOs) or anything else BESIDES graphics and or other superficial qualities.

If, on the other hand, DA is your first cRPG (or second after WoW or some similar piece of trash), then you are not qualified to pass judgement. In that case YES, you are supposed to just take my word for it.

You're stating your opinion as fact.  I've played most of the games you've mentioned, and quite a few older ones, too.  In my opinion, DAO is on par with all of them except the BG series.

What you see as quality in immersion, storytelling, and gameplay does not determine the actual quality of them.  Some people think DAO is the best cRPG ever.  Cool, I'm glad they enjoyed it so much.  All you're doing is shooting people down for not sharing your opinions.  Grow up.

[0mar]

The biggest problem with Dragon Age's combat is that it's poorly thought out.



Warriors are relegated to agro control. They do only moderate amounts of damage. Agro control is boring in a single player game because victory is (almost) assured. It's different when you're doing a 20 man raid and success is not guaranteed. In that sense, agro control becomes a vital part of strategy.



Rogues are pure DPS. They do nothing else. A DW rogue with momentum is a blender, but that's it. He/she can literally do nothing else, save for picking the locks on ****ty chests.



Mages are warriors and rogues combined and more. There are far too many spells that instantly end a battle. Fireball -> blood wound. Everything else is just details. There are buffs, but they are mostly superflous because the mage is doing 75% of the work. Why bother adding a bonus to attack or defense when the entire battlespace is stunned and taking massive damage over time. At that point, the battle is over with.



Finally, none of the encounters in Dragon Age are well-thought out. Most encounters go like this: A bunch of lowbies attack you (bandits, hired goons, darkspawn). Every 10th battle, you face the same group of lowbies but with a "ranked" character, which is nothing more than a lowbie with more hitpoints. Finally, every 30 or so battles, you fight the same group of lowbies but this time, they are led by a "boss" that has even more HP than a ranked enemy with maybe one special ability. The entire process is a complete bore. There is no need for tactics when 99% of all battles cannot be lost, period. The worst is Awakenings. Here you are level 30+ and still fighting the same tired battles you were fighting when you were level 10. 5 genlocks, 2 hurlocks and a hurlock alpha is simply not a challenging fight, not at level 10 and certainly not at level 30. And yet, this is literally the paradigm for the 99% of the game.



Fights that didn't follow this paradigm were actually quite fun, albeit, still far too easy. There are simply too many poorly balanced skills (I'm looking at you mana clash).

[DaveDash]

A few points:

• The oldschool D&D casting system was not as bad as everyone is making out. It just required a bit of preperation and fore-thought. This was PART of what a Wizard was all about. In BG/BG2 there were a few spells you could memorise that made your Wizard indestructable and could be used in all situations. Magic Missile, Those fire stones that IGNORED magic resistance, Scull Trap, Horrid Wilting. Put "Protection from Magic" on all your party members and run around dropping Horrid Wiltings everywhere and I guarentee your mages won't be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
• WoTC did away with the oldschool casting system in 4E. It works really well. All classes now have a selection of "at will", "encounter" and "daily" powers.
• I would have loved to have seen DA use the 4E system. 4E is very CRPG friendly, very well balanced, and would offer a lot of replayability given the wide selection of options available to chose from. It would have allowed for a much wider variety of monsters and NPC's too. Given how new 4E is of course I fully understand why this was not feasable.

[DaveDash]

0mar wrote...

The biggest problem with Dragon Age's combat is that it's poorly thought out.

Warriors are relegated to agro control. They do only moderate amounts of damage. Agro control is boring in a single player game because victory is (almost) assured. It's different when you're doing a 20 man raid and success is not guaranteed. In that sense, agro control becomes a vital part of strategy.

Rogues are pure DPS. They do nothing else. A DW rogue with momentum is a blender, but that's it. He/she can literally do nothing else, save for picking the locks on ****ty chests.

Mages are warriors and rogues combined and more. There are far too many spells that instantly end a battle. Fireball -> blood wound. Everything else is just details. There are buffs, but they are mostly superflous because the mage is doing 75% of the work. Why bother adding a bonus to attack or defense when the entire battlespace is stunned and taking massive damage over time. At that point, the battle is over with.

Finally, none of the encounters in Dragon Age are well-thought out. Most encounters go like this: A bunch of lowbies attack you (bandits, hired goons, darkspawn). Every 10th battle, you face the same group of lowbies but with a "ranked" character, which is nothing more than a lowbie with more hitpoints. Finally, every 30 or so battles, you fight the same group of lowbies but this time, they are led by a "boss" that has even more HP than a ranked enemy with maybe one special ability. The entire process is a complete bore. There is no need for tactics when 99% of all battles cannot be lost, period. The worst is Awakenings. Here you are level 30+ and still fighting the same tired battles you were fighting when you were level 10. 5 genlocks, 2 hurlocks and a hurlock alpha is simply not a challenging fight, not at level 10 and certainly not at level 30. And yet, this is literally the paradigm for the 99% of the game.

Fights that didn't follow this paradigm were actually quite fun, albeit, still far too easy. There are simply too many poorly balanced skills (I'm looking at you mana clash).

I wouldn't agree with this. The combat in the game was thought out. Mobs were placed strategically and often mixed with traps. The main problem was once you got the hang of the game, the lack of variety made combat rather predictable.

I did find it infuriating though battles that started with a cutscene often put you in an extremely bad position while the monsters were spread out and ready.

[I Valente I]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

I Valente I wrote...
take it easy mate. He made a good point. No backseat moderation from where I'm looking. You can't use absolute words like "none" "never" "always" etc. and expect people not to take them for what they are. Seems to me like you don't really understand what he said. FYI, you can't just state that there are better "old school" rpg's and give no evidence to support your argument. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? "oh well he says there are already old school rpg's that outclass DA, he doesn't name any or say in what way but I guess I'll believe him."

A lack of experience on your part does not necessarily constitute a problem on mine. You only need to rewind a few years to find: Planescape, Baldur's Gate (both of them), original Fallouts, Witcher, Realms of Arcania series and possibly a few more that I can't think of right now.

If you played any of the above, then by all means, tell me how DA:O did better in terms of storytelling (as generic as they come), immersion (don't get me started), gameplay mechanics (ripped straight from MMOs) or anything else BESIDES graphics and or other superficial qualities.

If, on the other hand, DA is your first cRPG (or second after WoW or some similar piece of trash), then you are not qualified to pass judgement. In that case YES, you are supposed to just take my word for it.

Your response is amusing. With comments like "sit down until you have something intelligent to say" I would think that you would at least stop and think before you post whatever you do. If you had, you would have perhaps realized that I never took any position for or against your said "other old school" games in comparison to DA, so your argument telling me to list reasons why Dragon Age is better than Baldur's Gate is irrelevant. Secondly, there is no 'lack of experience' on my part. I have played every game you mentioned with the exception of Realms of Arcania. No I will not argue for or against any of them, I have my opinion but they are not relevant atm.

And let's say IF I had not played any of these games, and just played my first RPG after WoW, then the last thing I would want to do is take "your word for it", which up until now seems to be pure biased elitism. You, again, give no evidence to support your argument except for the fact that old school rpg's exist and you know their names.

[Damar Stiehl]

I Valente I wrote...
Your response is amusing. With comments like "sit down until you have something intelligent to say" I would think that you would at least stop and think before you post whatever you do. If you had, you would have perhaps realized that I never took any position for or against your said "other old school" games in comparison to DA, so your argument telling me to list reasons why Dragon Age is better than Baldur's Gate is irrelevant. Secondly, there is no 'lack of experience' on my part. I have played every game you mentioned with the exception of Realms of Arcania. No I will not argue for or against any of them, I have my opinion but they are not relevant atm.

And let's say IF I had not played any of these games, and just played my first RPG after WoW, then the last thing I would want to do is take "your word for it", which up until now seems to be pure biased elitism. You, again, give no evidence to support your argument except for the fact that old school rpg's exist and you know their names.

All right. I'm going to try. I'm going to really TRY and pretend you're not just talking in circles trying to hide the lack of an actual point.

Trying now... still trying... nope, can't do it. Sorry.

Try reading what you write next time, and maybe it'll come out better. Seriously. Or should I say srsly?

Careful, your WoW is showing.

Modifié par Damar Stiehl, 29 mars 2010 - 02:58 .

[Nukenin]

***munches popcorn***

[AlanC9]

Damar Stiehl wrote...
If you played any of the above, then by all means, tell me how DA:O did better in terms of storytelling (as generic as they come), immersion (don't get me started), gameplay mechanics (ripped straight from MMOs) or anything else BESIDES graphics and or other superficial qualities.

Isn't this the part where you're supposed to make an actual case?  As opposed to just assuming that your point is so obvious that everyone will naturally agree with you. I hate calling pot-kettle-black on someone whose handle I don't recognize, but you're not doing any better than your counterpart here.

@ Nukenin: I'm going for booze, myself. Is there a drinking game for idiotic forum spats?

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 mars 2010 - 03:30 .

[Nukenin]

AlanC9 wrote...

[…]@ Nukenin: I'm going for booze, myself. Is there a drinking game for idiotic forum spats?

We'd have no liver left!  

Also, just in case anyone accuses me of failing to contribute to the vitriolic atmosphere here, let me offer this bit:

It's Realms of Arkania, with a 'K'.  The 'K' appearing at the position I've indicated by bolding, underlining, and coloring it bloody red.  Also acceptable are Das Schwarze Auge or The Dark Eye.  Not a single bloody 'C' in any of your options.

I finally have that trilogy again thanks to GOG.  One of these days I'll actually try to play 'em again.

But back on the topic at hand, yeah, <Alistair voice> no liver would be bad.

[SphereofSilence]

0mar wrote...

The biggest problem with Dragon Age's combat is that it's poorly thought out.

Warriors are relegated to agro control. They do only moderate amounts of damage. Agro control is boring in a single player game because victory is (almost) assured. It's different when you're doing a 20 man raid and success is not guaranteed. In that sense, agro control becomes a vital part of strategy.

Rogues are pure DPS. They do nothing else. A DW rogue with momentum is a blender, but that's it. He/she can literally do nothing else, save for picking the locks on ****ty chests.

Mages are warriors and rogues combined and more. There are far too many spells that instantly end a battle. Fireball -> blood wound. Everything else is just details. There are buffs, but they are mostly superflous because the mage is doing 75% of the work. Why bother adding a bonus to attack or defense when the entire battlespace is stunned and taking massive damage over time. At that point, the battle is over with.

Finally, none of the encounters in Dragon Age are well-thought out. Most encounters go like this: A bunch of lowbies attack you (bandits, hired goons, darkspawn). Every 10th battle, you face the same group of lowbies but with a "ranked" character, which is nothing more than a lowbie with more hitpoints. Finally, every 30 or so battles, you fight the same group of lowbies but this time, they are led by a "boss" that has even more HP than a ranked enemy with maybe one special ability. The entire process is a complete bore. There is no need for tactics when 99% of all battles cannot be lost, period. The worst is Awakenings. Here you are level 30+ and still fighting the same tired battles you were fighting when you were level 10. 5 genlocks, 2 hurlocks and a hurlock alpha is simply not a challenging fight, not at level 10 and certainly not at level 30. And yet, this is literally the paradigm for the 99% of the game.

Fights that didn't follow this paradigm were actually quite fun, albeit, still far too easy. There are simply too many poorly balanced skills (I'm looking at you mana clash).

Yep mate. I was playing on Nightmare and it's still a bloody breeze and one long bore. 

[Mlai00]

@ Damar Stiehl:
If you hate DAO so much, why are you even here?

@ Ppl who think game's too easy, or abilities are all spam:
Use some gameplay mods, for christ sake.  Or mod the game yourself.  Disable all mana/health regeneration during exploration (leave stamina alone), so you don't start each battle in tip-top shape.  Put longer cooldowns on potions, so they can't be spammed during battles.  Make the game semi-vancian yourself, with just a few value tweaks.

@ Vancian magic:
Yeah I've played it in cRPGs.  It's cumbersome.  You want immersion-breaking?  How about the whole concept of resting during a quest?  Resting inside a dungeon?  Resting inside an enemy castle?  How exactly does that work IRL?  I always feel like my party must be hiding in a closet like Metal Gear Solid.

I have no nostalgic bias for vancian magic because I've played with mana magic before I encountered vancian magic.  Mana magic makes so much more intuitive sense, there's practically no comparison.  Like the Almagest versus De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

Modifié par Mlai00, 29 mars 2010 - 12:50 .

[dragon_83]

Mlai00 wrote...


@ Ppl who think game's too easy, or abilities are all spam:
Use some gameplay mods, for christ sake.  Or mod the game yourself.  Disable all mana/health regeneration during exploration (leave stamina alone), so you don't start each battle in tip-top shape.  Put longer cooldowns on potions, so they can't be spammed during battles.  Make the game semi-vancian yourself, with just a few value tweaks.

Well, that is easier said than done. I can't mod the game, and I have neither the will nor the time to learn how the
toolset is working. As for mods made by others, I haven't seen any which fixes the abilities/item spamming. But I have to admit, this is a good idea. I hope someone will make some mods that do this.

As for the immersion-breaking "sleeping in dungeon" question. I can't argue with that, that is immersion breaking. But if done right, most of the time you can't even rest near the enemy. Just like in BG.

Modifié par dragon_83, 29 mars 2010 - 01:05 .

[soteria]

All right. I'm going to try. I'm going to really TRY and pretend you're not just talking in circles trying to hide the lack of an actual point.



Trying now... still trying... nope, can't do it. Sorry.



Try reading what you write next time, and maybe it'll come out better. Seriously. Or should I say srsly?



Careful, your WoW is showing.

No, actually, he has a point. Really, all you did was list some old RPGs and state that they're superior. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better than forcefully state your opinion to sway any of us on the fence.



Unless you're just here to get your jollies being rude, in which case I'd say you're doing an upstanding job.

[Andari_Surana]

The whole idea of limiting mage spells to a specific number(Vancian) system and dungeon crawling can easily be balanced in computer-gaming by assuming the party has rested between every encounter.  

This way mage doesn't have to go through entire game waiting for something unexpected to whip out his good spells. And it provides some more strategy in that you can pick your spells ahead of the encounter. And additionally, you can run out of spells and mana pots aren't going to save you.

Additinoally, in BGII most scrolls (i guess the closest thing to mana pots in BG) casted at a spell scroll level (which was usually very low), whereas if you had learned the spell it would cast at your caster level. Thus many scrolls were ineffective because your enemy could easily out-roll the save on the scroll. Some spell scrolls were still good, e.g. breach, but the benefit of having a ton of scrolls was limited - u weren't going to beat your opponents save using something like a petrify scroll.

Modifié par Andari_Surana, 29 mars 2010 - 11:44 .

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Damar Stiehl wrote...
If you played any of the above, then by all means, tell me how DA:O did better in terms of storytelling (as generic as they come), immersion (don't get me started), gameplay mechanics (ripped straight from MMOs) or anything else BESIDES graphics and or other superficial qualities.

but you're not doing any better than your counterpart here.

You love pretending you're judge Amy so much, don't you?

[soteria]

Andari_Surana wrote...

The whole idea of limiting mage spells to a specific number(Vancian) system and dungeon crawling can easily be balanced in computer-gaming by assuming the party has rested between every encounter.  

This way mage doesn't have to go through entire game waiting for something unexpected to whip out his good spells. And it provides some more strategy in that you can pick your spells ahead of the encounter. And additionally, you can run out of spells and mana pots aren't going to save you.

Additinoally, in BGII most scrolls (i guess the closest thing to mana pots in BG) casted at a spell scroll level (which was usually very low), whereas if you had learned the spell it would cast at your caster level. Thus many scrolls were ineffective because your enemy could easily out-roll the save on the scroll. Some spell scrolls were still good, e.g. breach, but the benefit of having a ton of scrolls was limited - u weren't going to beat your opponents save using something like a petrify scroll.

The problem with the "rest every fight or so" idea is that as far as I could tell it wasn't really intended behavior (since resting was often restricted in BG/NWN for various reasons).  More importantly to me, resting meant recasting every last buff spell.  In a PnP game that would be a matter of saying, "I'm casting the following spells..." In BG and NWN that meant you spent 1-3 minutes recasting buffs every time you rested.  And that sucked.