Does anyone else think Dragon Age is a huge disappointment?
The quests do seem MMORPGish, but more glaring is the way the quest-givers stand around blankly staring at you with a big yellow 3D "!" over their heads. Rather jarring, actually. Though you can turn off the "!"s.
In terms of immersion, where Dragon Age falls short for me (other than the yellow 3D exclamation marks) is in the lack of day-night cycles. Hell, BG1 had day-night cycles eleven years ago. It's always night in your camp and always a designated time of day in cities / dungeons. Hurk?
Third comment: the graphics issues don't seem to me to be a product of the engine, more the art direction (odd for me to say that about the company whose art direction came up with the gorgeous 2D backgrounds for the Baldur's Gate series). The Witcher uses the Aurora engine and its cities seem much more alive and vibrant than Dragon Age. Load up The Witcher and walk down the streets of Vizima and compare them to Denerim. Denerim and Redcliffe seemed bland and empty in comparison to me. CD Projekt seemed to spend more time making the buildings and streets feel like a real, gritty, medieval place.
Now, in terms of dungeons' BioWare's are much better than CD Projekt's, to me anyhow.
Also, The Witcher's characters are scaled properly for the size of the buildings. It seems to me that in Dragon Age, much like in Neverwinter Nights, the characters seem too small in comparison to buildings in exterior areas, when in over-the-shoulder view. In top-down view the scaling seems OK. Maybe that's the root of the problem.
That said, I still love the game, and plan on playing through it several times.
In terms of immersion, where Dragon Age falls short for me (other than the yellow 3D exclamation marks) is in the lack of day-night cycles. Hell, BG1 had day-night cycles eleven years ago. It's always night in your camp and always a designated time of day in cities / dungeons. Hurk?
Third comment: the graphics issues don't seem to me to be a product of the engine, more the art direction (odd for me to say that about the company whose art direction came up with the gorgeous 2D backgrounds for the Baldur's Gate series). The Witcher uses the Aurora engine and its cities seem much more alive and vibrant than Dragon Age. Load up The Witcher and walk down the streets of Vizima and compare them to Denerim. Denerim and Redcliffe seemed bland and empty in comparison to me. CD Projekt seemed to spend more time making the buildings and streets feel like a real, gritty, medieval place.
Now, in terms of dungeons' BioWare's are much better than CD Projekt's, to me anyhow.
Also, The Witcher's characters are scaled properly for the size of the buildings. It seems to me that in Dragon Age, much like in Neverwinter Nights, the characters seem too small in comparison to buildings in exterior areas, when in over-the-shoulder view. In top-down view the scaling seems OK. Maybe that's the root of the problem.
That said, I still love the game, and plan on playing through it several times.
- stanolis
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:45 pm
- Location: fighting for survival on Reach
- Contact:
NO! i have no idea why, but i am so attached to these characters. the decisions of kings and sacrifices, etc are plaguing my soul. (see below too). i want to help them, but i can't decide on what to do. AND i hate replaying a game 10 times to get it right.
AND
YES! for the lack of perfect endings. it is a game and as such there should be a freaking happy ending. i'm not sure that i can finish the game knowing that i have to. i'll guess i'll have to make a new character. in my world, nobody dies. i hate morrigan.
plus, game is hard as hell to play fluidly. i was running on normal for quite a bit. i finally gave up and am playing on super easy. yes, it is too easy now. the graphics do not bother me anymore.
AND
YES! for the lack of perfect endings. it is a game and as such there should be a freaking happy ending. i'm not sure that i can finish the game knowing that i have to
Spoiler
lose Al by saving loghain, or force Al to become king or sleep with morrigan
plus, game is hard as hell to play fluidly. i was running on normal for quite a bit. i finally gave up and am playing on super easy. yes, it is too easy now. the graphics do not bother me anymore.
Left-handers may be one of the last unorganized minorities in our society, with no collective power and no real sense of common identity.
GT: LEFThandedHERO
GT: LEFThandedHERO
Originally Posted by zippythezip
The graphics are not that bad, only I notice that dental care in the game is pretty poor Guess we all have different oppinions eh?
Hehe don't forget that it is a world in the middle ages! They didn't have any dental care back then! so I guess it is a realistic comment of the game!
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. " Oscar Wilde
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
They didn't have teeth back then, at least, not once you were into your middle years.Elevoros wrote:Hehe don't forget that it is a world in the middle ages! They didn't have any dental care back then! so I guess it is a realistic comment of the game!
And if that freaks anyone out, consider that a combined archeological-and-dental-surgeon team decided a few years ago that on evidence taken from several hundred skulls of the Late Kingdom, Egyptians lost their teeth in their twenties or earlier due to sand contamination in food.
Just to make this comment honest, I'll add that the poisoning system frustrates me greatly, and I even gave it it's own thread.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Having actually finished the whole game, I feel I can honestly say that Dragon Age is one of the best RPGs I have ever played.
A slightly dated graphics engine doesn't really bother me, my computer is slightly dated anyway so it evens out. The linear aspects of the game again, don't overly concern me. As with many RPGs the whole point of the game is the story, it has to get you for A to B, and Dragon Age plays to this linearity well, never feeling forced and very rarely staggering behind you as so many RPGs can be prone to, but continuing on at a very fluid pace. As someone mentioned before, a little greater urgency in the game by a countdown, calanders, etc would have been a nice touch but I'm just blueskying.
The story, the characters even the humour is all well written and (mostly) well implimented. The jumps in difficulty on the PC version are a little trying but it's nothing too serious. If I truely wanted to find fault with the game, I'm sure there are other bits I could pick out and drag through the mud, but I don't want to. I really enjoy this game.
I for one and a happy little boy again for Bioware to return to it's fantasy roots. It actually in a way feels like the production team has grown with me. The Forgetten Realms D&D setting was a bioware game for me at 15, Fereldan, is the world setting for me at 22. It just feels right.
Maybe they've been reading the same fiction as me?
A slightly dated graphics engine doesn't really bother me, my computer is slightly dated anyway so it evens out. The linear aspects of the game again, don't overly concern me. As with many RPGs the whole point of the game is the story, it has to get you for A to B, and Dragon Age plays to this linearity well, never feeling forced and very rarely staggering behind you as so many RPGs can be prone to, but continuing on at a very fluid pace. As someone mentioned before, a little greater urgency in the game by a countdown, calanders, etc would have been a nice touch but I'm just blueskying.
The story, the characters even the humour is all well written and (mostly) well implimented. The jumps in difficulty on the PC version are a little trying but it's nothing too serious. If I truely wanted to find fault with the game, I'm sure there are other bits I could pick out and drag through the mud, but I don't want to. I really enjoy this game.
I for one and a happy little boy again for Bioware to return to it's fantasy roots. It actually in a way feels like the production team has grown with me. The Forgetten Realms D&D setting was a bioware game for me at 15, Fereldan, is the world setting for me at 22. It just feels right.
Maybe they've been reading the same fiction as me?
- Phantom Lord
- Posts: 877
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Exiled - yet ...
- Contact:
My first post for years here.
At first I thought it was a disappointment, because DA:O was greeted as BG2's successor. Of course, no such successor will ever exist, for at least two reasons: BG2 was simply a unique masterwork and it was based on AD&D second edition, which is now dead.
DA:O seemed a bit too linear, or to say it in the words of my favorite comic I felt a bit "plot hammered" at first. But once the treaties need to be enforced, the world opens up and this feeling leaves.
The magic system is a bit weak, compared to BG2 / AD&D standards. One spell per level. Shattering being the only interesting combo (OMG what did we do with spells back in BG2 ...). Weapon talents are better developed, and planning a rogue or warrior can certainly be quite interesting. Controlling the party is difficult sometimes, basically because the GUI has some potential for improvement.
The storytelling level is quite high, some complexity seems to exist as well. Characters are well developed and are liked or disliked, which is great. And of course Bioware created a new world and a new game system, which is quite an accomplishment. Using AD&D is certainly easier.
Overall I try see DA:O as the BG1 of its era, because it's all new. Maybe there will be a BG2 of its era one day. And after being half through the game it's not a disappointment at all. It's just not the best RPG there ever was, but that may be accomplished by a successor.
At first I thought it was a disappointment, because DA:O was greeted as BG2's successor. Of course, no such successor will ever exist, for at least two reasons: BG2 was simply a unique masterwork and it was based on AD&D second edition, which is now dead.
DA:O seemed a bit too linear, or to say it in the words of my favorite comic I felt a bit "plot hammered" at first. But once the treaties need to be enforced, the world opens up and this feeling leaves.
The magic system is a bit weak, compared to BG2 / AD&D standards. One spell per level. Shattering being the only interesting combo (OMG what did we do with spells back in BG2 ...). Weapon talents are better developed, and planning a rogue or warrior can certainly be quite interesting. Controlling the party is difficult sometimes, basically because the GUI has some potential for improvement.
The storytelling level is quite high, some complexity seems to exist as well. Characters are well developed and are liked or disliked, which is great. And of course Bioware created a new world and a new game system, which is quite an accomplishment. Using AD&D is certainly easier.
Overall I try see DA:O as the BG1 of its era, because it's all new. Maybe there will be a BG2 of its era one day. And after being half through the game it's not a disappointment at all. It's just not the best RPG there ever was, but that may be accomplished by a successor.
to be honest i didn't expect much from D a
but when i played it, it was even worse xD
the graphics are ok animations also
story line a bit too linear
interactions are way too short(compared to bg2) those had fun comments
here is al serius and with purpose
the spells tottaly suck in my opinion like someone mention earlier what the hell hapenned to the spells from bg2?!?!
the combat system is interesting but lacks good control of your npc's
it's very easy to clamp enemies and launch a fireball to heaven for em
and the abilities tottaly ain't doing it(a rogue that can only pick locks) i mean what the hell?
with enough strenght u should be able to knock a chest open ^^
herbalism and the like i don't use em very often
since u can buy enough from the shops anyway
and if you got a healer in your party then you hardly need any extra potions
same goes for trap making
and your party only cositing of 4 people was also bad in my eyes
i liked the party of 6 people like in bg and iwd series
a party of 4 seems very small compared to a horde of darkspawn
well 6 too but well 6 is more a party
more interaction between the party members would also be a plus^^
on the other hand the voicing and character creation is very cool and nice
replayablity is also well done with the achievements
and different classes and races
but somehow i missed the dark elves and gnomes(A)
but oh well can't have it all
i think this game would score 7 or 8
it's beter than most rpg's i played since bg2
but still not topping with bg
:>
risen is also great game drakensang too
^^
divinity 2 also i hope have yet to install it xD
but when i played it, it was even worse xD
the graphics are ok animations also
story line a bit too linear
interactions are way too short(compared to bg2) those had fun comments
here is al serius and with purpose
the spells tottaly suck in my opinion like someone mention earlier what the hell hapenned to the spells from bg2?!?!
the combat system is interesting but lacks good control of your npc's
it's very easy to clamp enemies and launch a fireball to heaven for em
and the abilities tottaly ain't doing it(a rogue that can only pick locks) i mean what the hell?
with enough strenght u should be able to knock a chest open ^^
herbalism and the like i don't use em very often
since u can buy enough from the shops anyway
and if you got a healer in your party then you hardly need any extra potions
same goes for trap making
and your party only cositing of 4 people was also bad in my eyes
i liked the party of 6 people like in bg and iwd series
a party of 4 seems very small compared to a horde of darkspawn
well 6 too but well 6 is more a party
more interaction between the party members would also be a plus^^
on the other hand the voicing and character creation is very cool and nice
replayablity is also well done with the achievements
and different classes and races
but somehow i missed the dark elves and gnomes(A)
but oh well can't have it all
i think this game would score 7 or 8
it's beter than most rpg's i played since bg2
but still not topping with bg
:>
risen is also great game drakensang too
^^
divinity 2 also i hope have yet to install it xD
I found that there were a lot of flaws to this game, and yet also a lot of fantastic virtues.
The one thing that always put a on my face was that nearly every character in the game had their own distinct personality (..even if they spouted the same lines over and over.) In that respect BG2 didn't even come close, nor Torment. *And* there was even some companion interaction, but they nerfed it a bit IMO with only interaction between 2 party members at a time, with reasonably identifiable locations where such interactions would ensue, and again - with repetitive dialog. In this respect BG2 was superior.
In the end though, (for me) it has become a "play once" game. I enjoyed it the first time, but it's all to linear, eminently memorable, often tedious, and with the use of companions (..and there own types of builds), just to *familiar* - even when using other types of characters beyond the Origin intro.s. Why play a Rogue, when you already have through Leliana or Zevran? Why play a mage when you already have through Morrigan or Wynn? etc.. Further, the dynamics of the build are just to simplistic (talents and skill) to go through permutations of "I wonder what this build would be like?". Only in this respect would I consider it a "huge disappointment".
Still, with that caveat - I *mostly* had a good time with the game, and at about 50+ hours of gameplay the 65 US I spent (collectors edition) seems like a bargain at my age. On the other hand on the basis of other comments here, I've just purchased both Drakensang and Risen. :laugh:
So thanks for this thread!
The one thing that always put a on my face was that nearly every character in the game had their own distinct personality (..even if they spouted the same lines over and over.) In that respect BG2 didn't even come close, nor Torment. *And* there was even some companion interaction, but they nerfed it a bit IMO with only interaction between 2 party members at a time, with reasonably identifiable locations where such interactions would ensue, and again - with repetitive dialog. In this respect BG2 was superior.
In the end though, (for me) it has become a "play once" game. I enjoyed it the first time, but it's all to linear, eminently memorable, often tedious, and with the use of companions (..and there own types of builds), just to *familiar* - even when using other types of characters beyond the Origin intro.s. Why play a Rogue, when you already have through Leliana or Zevran? Why play a mage when you already have through Morrigan or Wynn? etc.. Further, the dynamics of the build are just to simplistic (talents and skill) to go through permutations of "I wonder what this build would be like?". Only in this respect would I consider it a "huge disappointment".
Still, with that caveat - I *mostly* had a good time with the game, and at about 50+ hours of gameplay the 65 US I spent (collectors edition) seems like a bargain at my age. On the other hand on the basis of other comments here, I've just purchased both Drakensang and Risen. :laugh:
So thanks for this thread!
Played the PC version of this game for roughly two plus weeks and gave up on it three days ago. Not that I have any exalted expectations for this game, but I got bored of it. Found the story rather predictable, the trial-and-error nature of the combat which get on your nerves rather quickly and the gameplay feels bleh for me. Sure it's better than Mass Effect, but that's about it.
Not to mention that it feels like a crowd pleaser as what someone from another forum pointed out. You don't have to look far to tell what elements they borrowed from other games, such as the Witcher-esque racism between humans and non-humans all the way to the companions influence mechanic from Obsidian's games.
Another thing to point out: the in-game graphical options are next to abysmal for a PC game. All it contains is resolution, texture settings, graphical settings and screen settings. That's it. More detailed settings are found outside the game in some configuration menu. I've seen console ports have more settings than this if you ask me. Did it run fine on my machine? Sure it did, but that doesn't mean you should skimp on the settings.
Lucky that I got this as a present from a friend, so it is not a big loss for me.
Not to mention that it feels like a crowd pleaser as what someone from another forum pointed out. You don't have to look far to tell what elements they borrowed from other games, such as the Witcher-esque racism between humans and non-humans all the way to the companions influence mechanic from Obsidian's games.
Another thing to point out: the in-game graphical options are next to abysmal for a PC game. All it contains is resolution, texture settings, graphical settings and screen settings. That's it. More detailed settings are found outside the game in some configuration menu. I've seen console ports have more settings than this if you ask me. Did it run fine on my machine? Sure it did, but that doesn't mean you should skimp on the settings.
Lucky that I got this as a present from a friend, so it is not a big loss for me.
''They say truth is the first casualty of war. But who defines what's true? Truth is just a matter of perspective. The duty of every soldier is to protect the innocent, and sometimes that means preserving the lie of good and evil, that war isn't just natural selection played out on a grand scale. The only truth I found is that the world we live in is a giant tinderbox. All it takes...is someone to light the match" - Captain Price
- feenicks007
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:56 am
- Contact:
Poor choices
This game failed to even come close to my expectations.
Leveling was weak. I went through as a rogue and after level 10, didn't care what I options I had when I leveled. None of them really allowed me to create a unique character. Morrigan was the same way. I chose to go "cold" with her, and once I had every spell opened, I didn't care about anything else she could get. Her shapeshifting was ultimately useless (took to long, wasn't worth it).
Half of the skills you can chose aren't worthwhile, or don't work smoothly. I appreciate them adding "traps" so that as a rogue I can actually do more than just swing a sword. Still it took to long to collect all the pieces and recipes to make even a decent trap. The tactics set up was nice, but horribly incomplete. As Morrigan, I tried to set up "blizzard" on a cluster of enemies over the size of 3. Not allowed. You can only set up "blizzard" when an enemy assaults a party member. So your party needs to be hit by the spell as well.
Next the storyline was very simple. None of the choices you make matter in the least. In Orzamar, it doesn't matter who you chose as king, they end up doing the same exact thing. Neither one was better than the other. I understand not making one truly evil and one a hero, but still some kind of serperation so I felt better about my choice would be nice. Most quests didn't matter, because you could always just fight your way out of every one.
The Specialties were the worst add on. Allowing for 4 additional skills to a character doesn't really give the depth that a specialty should. There were a couple of items that were only for a certain specialty, but that wasn't enough to make it worthwhile. I held onto an Arcane warriors sword for 6 levels before I was finally able to create an arcane warrior. After I accomplished the task, it wasn't even worth it.
This game failed to even come close to my expectations.
Leveling was weak. I went through as a rogue and after level 10, didn't care what I options I had when I leveled. None of them really allowed me to create a unique character. Morrigan was the same way. I chose to go "cold" with her, and once I had every spell opened, I didn't care about anything else she could get. Her shapeshifting was ultimately useless (took to long, wasn't worth it).
Half of the skills you can chose aren't worthwhile, or don't work smoothly. I appreciate them adding "traps" so that as a rogue I can actually do more than just swing a sword. Still it took to long to collect all the pieces and recipes to make even a decent trap. The tactics set up was nice, but horribly incomplete. As Morrigan, I tried to set up "blizzard" on a cluster of enemies over the size of 3. Not allowed. You can only set up "blizzard" when an enemy assaults a party member. So your party needs to be hit by the spell as well.
Next the storyline was very simple. None of the choices you make matter in the least. In Orzamar, it doesn't matter who you chose as king, they end up doing the same exact thing. Neither one was better than the other. I understand not making one truly evil and one a hero, but still some kind of serperation so I felt better about my choice would be nice. Most quests didn't matter, because you could always just fight your way out of every one.
The Specialties were the worst add on. Allowing for 4 additional skills to a character doesn't really give the depth that a specialty should. There were a couple of items that were only for a certain specialty, but that wasn't enough to make it worthwhile. I held onto an Arcane warriors sword for 6 levels before I was finally able to create an arcane warrior. After I accomplished the task, it wasn't even worth it.
Well - I must admit that DAO is amongst the very best cRPGs I've played bar none.
I question all the peoples complains about "lack of consequence", because in games like BG/BG2 there wasn't much consequence either. I could kill a dragon or I couldn't - it had no effect on the game over all, I could do a quest or not, and well - it didn't matter much. I could bug my party so they would leave me, but I can that here as well.
In those aspect DAO is not much different.
The writing/story in the game is high compared to so many other games - and also previous Bioware games - sure the story is cliche, but frankly - show me a "fantasy-hero-to-save-the-day" that isn't?
The tactics system is very well done and provide a lot of options for having a decent party without having to micromanage each individual strike. The combat bears many similarity to that of MMOs, which I think might irk some of the traditionalists - but I think the fluidity of it is much better then say KOTOR or Mass Effect. Although I wouldn't have minded an action queue in this game like KOTOR had.
Graphics wise, I think the game does what it sets out to do. I've never been a sucker for graphics, but I think the game looks nice enough with varied enough equipment (although helmets could use some work) that it looks interesting.
I simply think too many people have too much nostalgia for the "good old days" or had too high expectations from the word go, because they fell for hype and thus are disappointed based on that.
Many people where blown away by BG1 and BG2, so they carry a "torch" for those games.
That or they prefer RPGs of a different style like Morrowind and Oblivion and don't care much for such story driven games.
And yes - I also "love" BG2, and have played it often - but I am also a realist knowing the dangers of nostalgia.
Compared to the other Bioware RPGs on the market, and non-Bioware RPGs, I think this game is currently only passed by Fallout 1+2 and Baldur's Gate 2.
NwN 1+2, KOTOR 1+2, BG1, Mass Effect and so on all fall short on various points compared to DAO.
My main problems with DAO is the simplistic approach to various class roles. Rouge or Warrior doesn't matter much outside opening locks/disarming traps.
Then again - I normally never like rogues in ordinary RPGs, but in DAO it was fun because they could carry their own in combat.
And also the simplistic nature of favor which was easily handled with gifts. A good idea, but too easy to use. Enchantment could also have been expanded for armor.
So for me it is a solid 8 out of 10 for me, and few games get that high rating from me.
I question all the peoples complains about "lack of consequence", because in games like BG/BG2 there wasn't much consequence either. I could kill a dragon or I couldn't - it had no effect on the game over all, I could do a quest or not, and well - it didn't matter much. I could bug my party so they would leave me, but I can that here as well.
In those aspect DAO is not much different.
The writing/story in the game is high compared to so many other games - and also previous Bioware games - sure the story is cliche, but frankly - show me a "fantasy-hero-to-save-the-day" that isn't?
The tactics system is very well done and provide a lot of options for having a decent party without having to micromanage each individual strike. The combat bears many similarity to that of MMOs, which I think might irk some of the traditionalists - but I think the fluidity of it is much better then say KOTOR or Mass Effect. Although I wouldn't have minded an action queue in this game like KOTOR had.
Graphics wise, I think the game does what it sets out to do. I've never been a sucker for graphics, but I think the game looks nice enough with varied enough equipment (although helmets could use some work) that it looks interesting.
I simply think too many people have too much nostalgia for the "good old days" or had too high expectations from the word go, because they fell for hype and thus are disappointed based on that.
Many people where blown away by BG1 and BG2, so they carry a "torch" for those games.
That or they prefer RPGs of a different style like Morrowind and Oblivion and don't care much for such story driven games.
And yes - I also "love" BG2, and have played it often - but I am also a realist knowing the dangers of nostalgia.
Compared to the other Bioware RPGs on the market, and non-Bioware RPGs, I think this game is currently only passed by Fallout 1+2 and Baldur's Gate 2.
NwN 1+2, KOTOR 1+2, BG1, Mass Effect and so on all fall short on various points compared to DAO.
My main problems with DAO is the simplistic approach to various class roles. Rouge or Warrior doesn't matter much outside opening locks/disarming traps.
Then again - I normally never like rogues in ordinary RPGs, but in DAO it was fun because they could carry their own in combat.
And also the simplistic nature of favor which was easily handled with gifts. A good idea, but too easy to use. Enchantment could also have been expanded for armor.
So for me it is a solid 8 out of 10 for me, and few games get that high rating from me.
Insert signature here.
feenicks007 wrote:This game failed to even come close to my expectations.
Leveling was weak. I went through as a rogue and after level 10, didn't care what I options I had when I leveled. None of them really allowed me to create a unique character. Morrigan was the same way. I chose to go "cold" with her, and once I had every spell opened, I didn't care about anything else she could get. Her shapeshifting was ultimately useless (took to long, wasn't worth it).
Half of the skills you can chose aren't worthwhile, or don't work smoothly. I appreciate them adding "traps" so that as a rogue I can actually do more than just swing a sword. Still it took to long to collect all the pieces and recipes to make even a decent trap. The tactics set up was nice, but horribly incomplete. As Morrigan, I tried to set up "blizzard" on a cluster of enemies over the size of 3. Not allowed. You can only set up "blizzard" when an enemy assaults a party member. So your party needs to be hit by the spell as well.
Next the storyline was very simple. None of the choices you make matter in the least. In Orzamar, it doesn't matter who you chose as king, they end up doing the same exact thing. Neither one was better than the other. I understand not making one truly evil and one a hero, but still some kind of serperation so I felt better about my choice would be nice. Most quests didn't matter, because you could always just fight your way out of every one.
The Specialties were the worst add on. Allowing for 4 additional skills to a character doesn't really give the depth that a specialty should. There were a couple of items that were only for a certain specialty, but that wasn't enough to make it worthwhile. I held onto an Arcane warriors sword for 6 levels before I was finally able to create an arcane warrior. After I accomplished the task, it wasn't even worth it.
This is a particularly good post on some of the more notable, (game-killer), faults of the game.
I'd point out a few things though..
With certain spell combinations (..and I don't mean that phrase in the game's use, but rather in a generic sense), you can create a much more powerful character. In fact, of any of the class structures for Dragon Age, the Mage "class" is by far the most interesting with respect to leveling due to having several *different* types of effects. Still, the *system* itself is incredibly weak when compared to D&D (BG's NWN's) for any edition. The variety of offensive effects however were not (..and the animation for those effects were usually *better*).
The storyline *itself* was actually pretty complex, and in fact a little to complex and poorly written in many instances. (..every single treaty member having problems all at the same time precisely when needed and NOT completely orchestrated by your enemy? Stretches the imagination to the breaking-point and beyond IMO.) But the variability of the storyline (and everything else for that matter)? ..Yeah, that is pretty poor in this game, and why I quit half-way through my second game (..been there, done that).
I don't think anyone here is complaining about the typical scenario this game used. It's pretty common in most games, including the highly acclaimed ones. What I assume they (and me included) are complaining about is the way how the story is told, which is predictable.Xandax wrote:The writing/story in the game is high compared to so many other games - and also previous Bioware games - sure the story is cliche, but frankly - show me a "fantasy-hero-to-save-the-day" that isn't?
I'll point out some of the points in spoilers:
Spoiler
I played a warrior character from the Human Noble origin and it starts out with both the main character's father and Arl Howe trading pleasantries. You'd assume they were good friends, until the latter's betrayal. This turning point took me by surprise, to be honest.
Then fast forward to the Grey Warden's camp in Ostagar where you'll see King Calian and his advisor, Teryn Loghain, arguing about getting reinforcements from the Orlesians, their former occupier. After concluding the argument and battle plans, the latter made a snide remark which implies that he is up to no good and what do you know? He screwed King Calian and withdrew from the battle. Now that one, I can see from a mile away.
Then fast forward to the Grey Warden's camp in Ostagar where you'll see King Calian and his advisor, Teryn Loghain, arguing about getting reinforcements from the Orlesians, their former occupier. After concluding the argument and battle plans, the latter made a snide remark which implies that he is up to no good and what do you know? He screwed King Calian and withdrew from the battle. Now that one, I can see from a mile away.
''They say truth is the first casualty of war. But who defines what's true? Truth is just a matter of perspective. The duty of every soldier is to protect the innocent, and sometimes that means preserving the lie of good and evil, that war isn't just natural selection played out on a grand scale. The only truth I found is that the world we live in is a giant tinderbox. All it takes...is someone to light the match" - Captain Price
Well - predictable story is a common "flaw" in these stories, exactly because it is complex.DesR85 wrote:I don't think anyone here is complaining about the typical scenario this game used. It's pretty common in most games, including the highly acclaimed ones. What I assume they (and me included) are complaining about is the way how the story is told, which is predictable.
I'll point out some of the points in spoilers:<snip>
Then again - some people were "surprised" by the Revan "twist" in KOTOR, so....
And the Bhaalspawn "twist" in BG1, lack of twists in BG2 and so on.
Because we know these stories because they're universal - it is very difficult to come up with something truly surprising which doesn't throw the majority of the audience away due to complexity of story.
For example KOTOR2 had a very deep story - poorly implemented, but deep nevertheless - yet many didn't catch the story (possible due to implementation) and thus many feel it is sub-par to KOTOR1 which was obvious and simplistic.
As for the Human Noble "twist" in the prologue - the only reason it is surprising, is because the story haven't started yet and we've been told nothing about the characters. If talking to the "librarian" (can't remember his name), then even that twist should come as no surprise as we're told some background information.
So once you've played, read, watched a handful of these stories, I'd argue that if just paying some attention that being "surprised" and obviousness are difficult factors to eliminate. And then not remembering/seeing the obviousness of other games (like the favorite games) when doing a comparison to another game is a huge disfavor and making it biased.
BG1 and BG2 were obvious and predictable as well.
Insert signature here.
What?Xandax wrote: ..and BG2 were obvious and predictable as well.
BG1 was very obvious. but BG2.. Not for most people on their 1st play-through. Granted certain side-quests were eminently predictable beyond "bad things are here that require killing", but the main plot was only hinted at in the beginning and really not revealed until the "lab/island". Even several side-quests were really obscure in nature (..Illithids, Kangax, Cult, both Dragons).
The main plot of BG2 was predictable as well. Come on - hero caught by bad guy, go after bad guy, kill bad guy - no deviation possible. What he needed you for was irrelevant as the motivation for going after him was Imoen.Scottg wrote:What?
BG1 was very obvious. but BG2.. Not for most people on their 1st play-through. Granted certain side-quests were eminently predictable beyond "bad things are here that require killing", but the main plot was only hinted at in the beginning and really not revealed until the "lab/island". Even several side-quests were really obscure in nature (..Illithids, Kangax, Cult, both Dragons).
The only "surprise" in BG2 was Yoshimo, and even that was - well.....
The side quests were what made BG2 great and made the game "epic" due to the scope of the game - but the story in itself wasn't all that.
And even the side quests were rather inconsequential. Most of the time it felt "strange" that the player should spend so much time roaming around when hunting the bad guy who took Imoen away and then afterwards is trying to basically destroy the world.
When looking at the game, BG2 is still top 2 of my cRPG ever - but I am not at least in the doubt that many people look very fondly and rose-tainted on it when comparing with newer modern games due to nostalgia.
Personal preferences are fine and all that, but BG2's story and the lack of immersion due to no consequence is very similar to many modern games. It was just the "first" big one for many.
Insert signature here.