Does anyone else think Dragon Age is a huge disappointment?
galraen wrote:Well I've got everything I can out of this game now, didn't take long compared to many other games, unfortunately very few mods out there that extend the life of the game.
Pro: Not many, combat system was OK, story line wasn't too bad.
Origin idea was good, and so were some of the origins
Cons.
Antique engine, which lead to terrible load times even on a fairly fast PC and small maps, which meant frequent area loads which exacerbated the load time problem.
Too unstable, crashed far too often, and without warning, inexcusable given how old the engine is.
Fake dialogue options where you were given the illusion of being able to make choices, but in reality you wound up with just one. Not even good illusions either, it was clear before you reached Ostagar that the dialogues were nearly all fake.
Far too many uses of the forced conversation cheat.
Game world is miniscule, and side quests add almost nothing, they are far too short almost all of them are go here, kill one bunch of enemies, return for pitiful reward.
My final analysis, poor game, ranks even below KOTOR2 which used the same engine as DA:O of course! Amazing that Obsidian, who I hate, can actually make a better game with Ye Olde Bioware engine than Bioware can!
So the big question is will DA2 be more of the same with the tired engine, fake dialogue etc., or will they actually come out withj something new? The former is pretty much odds on I think which mean I won't be buying it that's for sure. Well maybe if I find it for $10 in a second hand shop, just for a laugh!
I never objected to the load times. For me all were under a minute (excepting initial load and traveling to major points), and all were at transitions where you expected something different from the previous load. So I didn't find it breaking the feeling of "immersion". Additionally I thought the graphics were quite good (..pc version). Overall I don't think the game was antiquated.
It also found that it rarely crashed UNTIL using add-ons. Awakenings was the worst IMO.
Nor was the game world "miniscule" IMO. Each Origin, Ostegar, Kockari Wilds, Ostegar Tower, Lothering, Redcliff town, Redcliff castle, Breclian Forest 1, 2, and 3, Breclian Ruin (multi-level), Orzammar/Frostback Mountains, Multiple Deep Roads, Haven + Mountain, Denrim with multiple locations, Lake Calenhad Docks, Mage Tower, Multiple Fades... and of course several mini-maps for side-quests and occasional ambushes. In fact I think this was one of it's better attributes - BUT its development was often either *over*-done or under-done. NONE of the cities/towns were large enough, and none had the ability to really "roam". Because of this interaction beyond quests were largely non-existent. (i.e. when every thing is "quest driven" it starts feeling more like work then fun.) Conversely, several quest maps were far to protracted, tedious, and without any real meaning. The Deep Roads? Perhaps acceptable given the lore. Haven's Mountain? Not a chance. That was just a console "level-game".
I also think the combat system for *magic* was pretty good, the rest of it was mediocre at best.
I'd agree with the rest, but was it a bad game or even a mediocre game? I don't think so, at least not for one play-through and when compared to most other games of its genre.
Sorry for deleting my post when you were in the middle of posting a reply Scottg, but it occurred to me that I was actually repeating a lot of what I'd already written.
They may have tarted up the graphics a bit to make use of the additional power available now, but effectively it's the same engine they used in NWN and Knights of the Old Republic; and it shows.
By the way, have you ever tried setting off an area of effect spell in the middle of Denerim? Go one let rip with a storm of the century, which is ridiculously overpowered, but it won't have any effect at all, pathetic!
It's also crazy the way the most wanted people in the country, you and Alistair, can wander everywhere, everybody recognises you miraculously, but no one ever calls for the guards; and even the guards ignore their duty and actually give you quests!!!
They may have tarted up the graphics a bit to make use of the additional power available now, but effectively it's the same engine they used in NWN and Knights of the Old Republic; and it shows.
By the way, have you ever tried setting off an area of effect spell in the middle of Denerim? Go one let rip with a storm of the century, which is ridiculously overpowered, but it won't have any effect at all, pathetic!
It's also crazy the way the most wanted people in the country, you and Alistair, can wander everywhere, everybody recognises you miraculously, but no one ever calls for the guards; and even the guards ignore their duty and actually give you quests!!!
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
galraen wrote:Sorry for deleting my post when you were in the middle of posting a reply Scottg, but it occurred to me that I was actually repeating a lot of what I'd already written.
They may have tarted up the graphics a bit to make use of the additional power available now, but effectively it's the same engine they used in NWN and Knights of the Old Republic; and it shows.
By the way, have you ever tried setting off an area of effect spell in the middle of Denerim? Go one let rip with a storm of the century, which is ridiculously overpowered, but it won't have any effect at all, pathetic!
It's also crazy the way the most wanted people in the country, you and Alistair, can wander everywhere, everybody recognises you miraculously, but no one ever calls for the guards; and even the guards ignore their duty and actually give you quests!!!
No prob.s..
It's not like there is a lot of traffic here now anyway. Yeah, Dragon Age's Eclipse engine has a fair chunk of coding from NWN's Aurora - but while it presents a similar perspective the graphics aren't just better, they are different, and the interaction is mostly improved. (..and really, just how different should the perspective be? Personally I'd prefer 1st person exclusively, but that doesn't apply to stop-motion gaming.)
Apparently the dialog system is pulled from Mass Effect, but frankly NWN's 2 has a similar system and it was released before Mass Effect.
Graphically Dragon Age is distinctly different from NWN'2, which is different from NWN's. NWN's I'd describe as high *uniform* 3D detail sometimes overlaying large segments of crude 2D pictures. NWN also had very poor/simplistic terrain with respect to changes in elevation. NWN 2 lowered the level of 3D detail and put a "sheen" (or plastic wrap) on everything 3D. Most of the underlying 2D art in NWN2 is buried under 3D. NWN2 also vastly improved upon terrain/elevation changes.
By contrast Dragon Age is *mostly* 3D art, or high level textures on 2D art, *except* for the underlying ground "tiles" - which are yet again, pretty poor. Terrain is similar to NWN 2. The level and *nature* of detail in Dragon Age is different (at least for the PC). It emphasizes detail with respect to color shading. The "wrap" effect for each element isn't really plastic like, instead it seems more like a high level detail anime.
Distance views are also quite a bit different between the 3 games. NWN just seemed to suffer in a loss of detail with greater distance. NWN 2 had a fog-like effect to more distant objects. Dragon Age has a haze-like effect that again presents a surrealistic anime-look, i.e. *shaded* detail.
Yeah, there is very little "splash damage" effect written into the game, for objects or people. In fact for people if they don't have a "circle" around them (..blue or red), you pretty much can't effect them physically. I think this is yet another dumbing-down "feature" *particularly* for use with most console gamers. It seems that anyone who doesn't have a friend or foe circle is "pivotal" to the game's progression.
Heaven forbid you take out Denerim's Watch commander with a spell, and have his people attack you - because if you did ..OMG, you wouldn't have those quests! :speech: :laugh:(..With a really good game you should be able to do just that, with written exceptions that allow for some of the quest via an alternate route, AND it should have "civil" consequence in the game - vendor response variations, civil unrest, potential imprisonment, etc..) Lazy frick'n developers..
..and the "wanted" thing is ridiculous as well.
"I'm here in Denerim, the heart and capital of Ferelden - *precisely* where Logain (my arch-enemy) is currently ..with the authority and force of men to at least try and arrest me.. ALL without a disguise, and "thumbing" my nose at that world - practically running in a political campaign of opposition - glad-handing every vendor, priest, knight, and officer in sight!"
"the graphics aren't just better, they are different" i.e. tarted up, which adds nothing to gameplay, which to me, and I'm sure you, is what really matters.
EA/Bioware aren't the only ones to sacrifice gameplay for shiny and pretty graphics, although they do a poor job in that respect in relation to other games such as Oblivion.
To me the game doesn't look particularly better than K2:Sith Lords, and plays worse if anything, although not having missing content and having a weird thing called an ending does balance that to some extent.
It isn't a terrible game, and if you could get it for $15 or less then do so, but nobody should pay anywhere near the full asking price, it simply isn't worth it.
PS The postman has just delivered Planescape: Torment, so the 'Do not disturb' sign is going up, catch you later!
EA/Bioware aren't the only ones to sacrifice gameplay for shiny and pretty graphics, although they do a poor job in that respect in relation to other games such as Oblivion.
To me the game doesn't look particularly better than K2:Sith Lords, and plays worse if anything, although not having missing content and having a weird thing called an ending does balance that to some extent.
It isn't a terrible game, and if you could get it for $15 or less then do so, but nobody should pay anywhere near the full asking price, it simply isn't worth it.
PS The postman has just delivered Planescape: Torment, so the 'Do not disturb' sign is going up, catch you later!
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
Way before it is considered 'cool' among developers to make console-oriented games, these mechanics are already in use in MMOs for as long as I can remember. Heck, even the sword or battle icon that appears when hovering your cursor over an enemy or certain item is used extensively in those games.Scottg wrote:Yeah, there is very little "splash damage" effect written into the game, for objects or people. In fact for people if they don't have a "circle" around them (..blue or red), you pretty much can't effect them physically. I think this is yet another dumbing-down "feature" *particularly* for use with most console gamers. It seems that anyone who doesn't have a friend or foe circle is "pivotal" to the game's progression.
In an interview with MMORPG, I recall Bioware's Greg Zeschuk and/or Ray Muzyka pointing out that they are inspired by MMOs during Dragon Age's development particularly with the use of different colours to determine the level of an enemy as one of the examples.
''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
What I liked about DA:O was the setting and the characters. What disappointed me though was the depictions of the setting and characters.
The game world just did not look convincing in the same way Baldur's Gate's was. Maps were very small and everything just felt too fragmented. For example, in Denerim there is this Inn that you can visit and enter. The problem is, you never get to see what the outside of the inn looks like... The depiction of the city of Denerim is simply pathetic compared to that of the city of Baldur's Gate or Athkatla.
And of course, there is also the lack of dates and day/night cycles. Yet another missing detail. Even the Grand Theft Auto series has day and night cycles. And Dragon Age doesn't. Such an omission, among many other omissions, makes the game world seem shallow and hard to believe. Dragon Age just lacks atmosphere, which is unforgivable for an RPG.
And of course, it doesn't help that the characters models just look horrible also. Elves in particular had these HUGE oversized forearms and hands, which is just gross.
Overall, Dragon Age fails to convince me that Ferelden is a living and breathing game world. I think that BG actually had better looking environments and better looking characters. Graphically, BG is the superior game.
I didn't really like the story either. There is no explanation, for example, why almost all conversations revolve around YOUR character and not any of the others. The interactions overall just seemed kind of pointless. Even BG didn't force all conversations upon your main character, and that character is even more important story-wise than the main character in DA:O.
I think Dragon Age simply did not move the RPG genre forward at all, and it actually took a few steps backwards in some respects. I think there is the lack of detail and atmosphere that make RPGs great.
The game world just did not look convincing in the same way Baldur's Gate's was. Maps were very small and everything just felt too fragmented. For example, in Denerim there is this Inn that you can visit and enter. The problem is, you never get to see what the outside of the inn looks like... The depiction of the city of Denerim is simply pathetic compared to that of the city of Baldur's Gate or Athkatla.
And of course, there is also the lack of dates and day/night cycles. Yet another missing detail. Even the Grand Theft Auto series has day and night cycles. And Dragon Age doesn't. Such an omission, among many other omissions, makes the game world seem shallow and hard to believe. Dragon Age just lacks atmosphere, which is unforgivable for an RPG.
And of course, it doesn't help that the characters models just look horrible also. Elves in particular had these HUGE oversized forearms and hands, which is just gross.
Overall, Dragon Age fails to convince me that Ferelden is a living and breathing game world. I think that BG actually had better looking environments and better looking characters. Graphically, BG is the superior game.
I didn't really like the story either. There is no explanation, for example, why almost all conversations revolve around YOUR character and not any of the others. The interactions overall just seemed kind of pointless. Even BG didn't force all conversations upon your main character, and that character is even more important story-wise than the main character in DA:O.
I think Dragon Age simply did not move the RPG genre forward at all, and it actually took a few steps backwards in some respects. I think there is the lack of detail and atmosphere that make RPGs great.
No it isn't, I've finished at-least 5 times and I'm planning to play it some more in the future, that game is simply captivating...Scottg wrote:I wish I could go back and play that again..
PS:T is exclusively a play-once game.. but it takes time to thoroughly explore that single play-through.
"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
Ok, I just played through it recently, so I'll add my 2 cents.
First off, I played it on the PS3, which may have been part of the problem to begin with, but I digress.
It was a lot of good ideas, but the execution was kind of mixed. It was nice to see them do something other than D&D rules, and I thought it worked really well. The storyline started out interesting, but then ended up being rather linear. They did away with the good/evil spectrum, and your actions were just judged by those around you. But in the end, you could totally mock someone's beliefs, but then give them a couple of knick knacks your dog dug up (literally) and everybody can like you in the end anyway. I thought the combat system was good for mages, but physical combat was a bit twitchy (ex. telling your PC to attack, and then he waits, and waits, and waits until the enemy decides to stop moving; bashing them with your shield 20 feet away).
Perhaps another problem was that I FINALLY played Fallout 3 right before I dove into DAO, and I thought the choices were somewhat disappointing. There were usually 2, maybe three ways to solve a quest, and like the dialog, it's pretty much the standard good, evil, and neutral choices.
I really don't get too picky over graphics, since they all get outdated pretty quickly. I think going for an individual style is more important. I still play BG2 and still think the graphics are beautiful, dated as they are. DAO may be a bit outdated, but they are still good.
Overall, DAO was above average. It's not a bad game, but for all the buzz and the hype, I thought it would have been better. At least Peter Molyneaux wasn't calling it the greatest game of all time. But when the hype far exceeds the quality, its always a bit of a letdown.
First off, I played it on the PS3, which may have been part of the problem to begin with, but I digress.
It was a lot of good ideas, but the execution was kind of mixed. It was nice to see them do something other than D&D rules, and I thought it worked really well. The storyline started out interesting, but then ended up being rather linear. They did away with the good/evil spectrum, and your actions were just judged by those around you. But in the end, you could totally mock someone's beliefs, but then give them a couple of knick knacks your dog dug up (literally) and everybody can like you in the end anyway. I thought the combat system was good for mages, but physical combat was a bit twitchy (ex. telling your PC to attack, and then he waits, and waits, and waits until the enemy decides to stop moving; bashing them with your shield 20 feet away).
Perhaps another problem was that I FINALLY played Fallout 3 right before I dove into DAO, and I thought the choices were somewhat disappointing. There were usually 2, maybe three ways to solve a quest, and like the dialog, it's pretty much the standard good, evil, and neutral choices.
I really don't get too picky over graphics, since they all get outdated pretty quickly. I think going for an individual style is more important. I still play BG2 and still think the graphics are beautiful, dated as they are. DAO may be a bit outdated, but they are still good.
Overall, DAO was above average. It's not a bad game, but for all the buzz and the hype, I thought it would have been better. At least Peter Molyneaux wasn't calling it the greatest game of all time. But when the hype far exceeds the quality, its always a bit of a letdown.
Peter Molyneux didn't design this game. Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk are the ones in charge. Either way, both them and Molyneux (plus other 'personalities') are known for over-hyping their games, with the latter normally getting more flak from press and gamers alike for failing to live up to them.wampum wrote:Overall, DAO was above average. It's not a bad game, but for all the buzz and the hype, I thought it would have been better. At least Peter Molyneaux wasn't calling it the greatest game of all time. But when the hype far exceeds the quality, its always a bit of a letdown.
That's why I view whatever these personalities say with a level of scrutiny (not all of them, but a lot of them tend to over-hype their games).
''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
I know he didn't. Just saying it could have been worse when it comes to overhyping, like Molyneaux saying the first Fable would be the greatest RPG of all time.DesR85 wrote:Peter Molyneux didn't design this game. Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk are the ones in charge. Either way, both them and Molyneux (plus other 'personalities') are known for over-hyping their games, with the latter normally getting more flak from press and gamers alike for failing to live up to them.
That's why I view whatever these personalities say with a level of scrutiny (not all of them, but a lot of them tend to over-hype their games).
I'm biased on this one, because the original Fable is definitely my favorite game. Ever. But yeah, it could have been heaps worse.wampum wrote:I know he didn't. Just saying it could have been worse when it comes to overhyping, like Molyneaux saying the first Fable would be the greatest RPG of all time.
"And on the third hand..."
(Quick! Get an octopus!)
(Quick! Get an octopus!)
I have to disagree since you do not count in specializations and general skill set.masteralef wrote:Pretty much what Scottg says above me: you generally end up with a fixed party:
Warriors (tank or DPS) will generally have Wynne and either Leliana or Zevran, with the 3rd spot left open for tank or dps, whichever you didn't pick.
Rogues (dual wield or archery) will generally have Wynne, leaving two slots open. But if you're playing the traditional style (tank, dps, rogue, healer), then one of those two slots would go to Alistair or Shale, as a tank, leaving only open open slot.
Mages (DPS) would generally have Wynne (healing), Alistair/Shale (tank), and Leliana/Zevran (rogue).
Mages (healing) would typically have Leliana/Zevran (rogue) and Alistair/Shale (tank).
All of this means that your reasonable ability to, say, toss Oghren, dog, Morrigan and/or Sten together in a party and see what happens is severely curtailed, since you'll probably end up with only one of them in your party. It would be a lot more pleasant to have a few more characters available for your active party in order to improve interaction and improve replay value.
My best party so far was:
PC as full primalist blood mage
Morrigan
Leilianna
Oghren
Cheating somewhat (I know), but my favourite set up is
- PC mage,
- Morrigan,
- Wynne (healing/buffing and a bit of attack),
- Leliana as archer
- PLUS extra-dog-slot