Dragon Age FAQ

[SimpleComplexity]

Each dialogue scene is probably designed like a movie. Obviously you can`t kill guys who will play a role in that movie later. Having lots of C&C in a movie would result in making a new movie for every path you have chosen. C&C will look like this: "Oh you evil evil man have killed an entire village... Anyway, where was i.... ah yes, can ya help me out at something?" etc.

 

[Wilco]

Just saving time from the save/reload repetitiveness of previous games. Not really a big issue at all.

It significantly changes the dynamics. In BG/IWD you had to make sure that none of your party members died because prices for ressurection were stingy, especially early on. In NWN2 you just have to make sure that at least one character survives and then simply rest away the wounds (or spam Heal in KotORs) once the battle is over.

Not only that. Characters wouldn't get xp from kills after their death. At least for a D&D noob the fights could be very challenging. Reload sometimes simply didn't cut it. In some fights I simply accepted a party-member's death happy that I even managed to win the fight. So it is a very different mechanic, a very big issue and I don't like the way games developed

In BG/IWD you would never buy ressurection. Ever.

Overall a better mechanic though, when your party member is knocked out it doesn't mean they will actually recieve XP (hasn't been stated, but is very possible) in DA. I'd wager the majority of people who played BG/IWD games reloaded when a character died, this is just saving time.

 

[MetalCraze]

What is this shit? Sounds like classic Bioware

Except during classic Bioware times you could kill anyone you wanted and somehow it "made sense". And your companions actually could die instead of being "injured" by several dozens of direct fireball hits.

This FAQ just screams "we are lazy, just give us your moneys now!"

 

[BearBomber]

Real time RPGs with many party members are just too chaotic. It would be an assin NVN2 if you had to look after every NPC when they just run around and combat random enemies when you're not controlling them.

 

[BethesdaLove]

I'd wager the majority of people who played BG/IWD games reloaded when a character died, this is just saving time.

I did. But I also made damn sure that I wont let them die. In Kotor is just let them "die".

 

[SerratedBiz]

Except during classic Bioware times you could kill anyone you wanted and somehow it "made sense". And your companions actually could die instead of being "injured" by several dozens of direct fireball hits.

Not, I say. Killing anyone you want is not an option unless you like your games unplayable. If you killed someone in a city you'd get spammed by guards of all sorts and make hostile with every NPC with a possible interest. Killing both Gaelan and Bodhi did not bring a third option into existance. It made much less sense than not doing it because even if your character had a reason to kill this character there was no real impact on the world other than 'set NPC - hostile'.

As for party deaths I've always felt it was just an excuse to make things harder for you while you're young and just bumpy when you're old. Death had NO consequence in classic Bioware besides the inclusion of a Res spell. Of which you could pack half a dozen. And get a Rod of. It's the kind of thing that's interesting when you start and later on just becomes a meaningless mechanic.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Death had NO consequence in classic Bioware besides the inclusion of a Res spell. Of which you could pack half a dozen. And get a Rod of. It's the kind of thing that's interesting when you start and later on just becomes a meaningless mechanic.

But the problem started when you DIDN'T have a res spell.

Nor half a dozen of them.

Nor a rod of it.

Or if you really had it, you had to use it sparingly, because you had maybe like, three or four rez scrolls and one spell that needs resting before can be cast again, and resting can get all kinds of random shit on your head.

 

[SerratedBiz]

But the problem with that problem is that, most likely, death at the younger levels simply meant you had to reload. Maybe there are some hardcore ironman gamers among the Codex which let their companions die if they died, which seems perfectly awesome to me. However, in my case, death without a res meant I would have to quick load which is, in my opinion, completely game-breaking and therefore not part of the gaming experience at all.

On the other hand the process becomes increasingly meaningless as you gain levels and once again becomes this thing from Outer Space which serves no purpose. People die? Well, you can res them... if they're in your party. This does not constitute an example of how to include death in games in my opinion.

 

[Jim Cojones]

However, in my case, death without a res meant I would have to quick load which is, in my opinion, completely game-breaking and therefore not part of the gaming experience at all.

I agree. There is no place for losing in computer games.

 

[BethesdaLove]

Yes. Contra should have a Kotor death. You died? Oh well, wait till the enemies are gone and of you go. Goddamn newage faggots. Fucking decline.

 

[SerratedBiz]

However, in my case, death without a res meant I would have to quick load which is, in my opinion, completely game-breaking and therefore not part of the gaming experience at all.

I agree. There is no place for losing in computer games.

You must strive to understand if you want to discuss. I mean that, in the event of your party winning a battle with party members dying, it barely makes a difference whether they die and must be rezzed or they are injured and wake up at the end of the fight. There is no in-game consequence to either.

 

[elander_]

All other options are for people who are not fucktards and can handle real time combat, not arbitarily limit it to turn-based.

I wasn't talking about removing RT and make it a TB game you illiterate moron but adding an auto-pause condition like in BG that pauses every round.

Any person who ever played RTwP crpgs knows that with big and complex battles you can't get without a pause system.

 

[SerratedBiz]

Yes. Contra should have a Kotor death. You died? Oh well, wait till the enemies are gone and of you go. Goddamn newage faggots. Fucking decline.

Hurrhurr, mouthbreather. Edgy codex meme to you too.

 

[Darth Roxor]

it barely makes a difference whether they die and must be rezzed or they are injured and wake up at the end of the fight.

Except the whole concept being utterly fucking stupid.

'Hey, the dragon breathed fire at me 10 times, then stepped on me 6 more times and swallowed me whole just to be sure, but I took a nap for five minutes and I'm better now!'.

 

[SerratedBiz]

As opposed to 'Hey, the dragon breathed fire at me 10 times, then stepped on me 6 more times and swallowed me whole just to be sure, but I have a res so fuck it.'

I'd buy it if they had to go on with missing limbs and post-digestion syndrome, but instaheal ftw sucks just as much.

 

[Moray]

But the problem with that problem is that, most likely, death at the younger levels simply meant you had to reload.

But, for those players that play that "ironman" style, a lack of any sort of permanency towards "death" in a game can detract from the "immersion," or more specifically the challenge and subsequent enjoyment of the game; just as, as the antithesis, permanent death - barring such things as a means of reviving, spells and so forth, a character - ruins the flow.

It becomes a question of what base of gamers developers choose to market to. Given that that large majority of gamers seem to fall under the basis of "casual" gamers, to which that lack of permanent death style of "death" appeals to, it's not really a surprise that Bioware's chosen to go the route they go.

Granted, it sucks - 'course, that's my opinion. I'd prefer some sort of consequence and challenge to a game. Developers seem to be complacent in catering to stupidity and incompetence for fear of turning away potential customers. I can understand why, but I don't like it.

Edit: Also, for the love of whatever the developers hold dear, please, oh please, let whatever auto-pause system they've designed be pleasantly complex and well designed.

 

[SerratedBiz]

I understand that and, for what it's worth, I prefer the 'classic Bioware' style of combat / death mechanics. It felt good with the game or at least much more so than the bonk to the head system of KOTOR.

However I'm pointing at the fact that neither of these games does a good job of portraying consequences for death/KO. It's never assimilated into gameplay or into character interactions which makes it all somewhat bland in my book.

I would like games to make death a risky outcome and not just a bump in the road. Also, make the story revolve around this kind of event. Instead of 5 characters you simply MUST have, make a wider selection of them you can choose from and which give you a margin of error for them to be lost in. I see how this might be far more difficult to do in an RPG like BG or DA as opposed to a strategy game, though.

 

[Moray]

As far as number of characters are concerned, in the context of an RPG, I would prefer a smaller number of characters with more time spent towards developing said characters. Rather than a myriad of potential companions/cohorts with not much in the way of "personality." What I suspect - I haven't read DA's forums really, or much in the way of dev interviews - is that Bioware has heavily invested their various NPCs that can recruited into the core plot. Subsequently, I suspect that their choice to discard a more permanent style of death is two-fold: one, to appeal to a greater demographic of gamers (i.e., those gamers that find "death" to be a trivial and pointless inconvenience - decline amirite?), and so that whatever facets of plot and the writing involved around those companions/NPCs won't be missed by potential players.

One aspect of death in any game is a question of character resources. In a game like Fallout, for instance, reviving a character wasn't even a concept. Death was death - the end. In BG, reviving a character, given the limited resources of the character, was expensive, difficult and likely time-consuming. Barring a simple reload, that often laborious process was actually, I found anyway, quite enjoyable. In BG2, however, death was a minor inconvenience. That rod of resurrection, of which I believe there were multiples of throughout SOA and TOB, made death no more than a two-click inconvenience.

I whole-heartedly agree that if death is to make any sort of impact in a game, it has to be more than simply a question of how readily a player can rectify it, or how costly it is. It has to has some effect "in game," rather than just inconvenience the player. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that this new system of "get up after the fight" just isn't a well developed solution.

 

[Castanova]

I don't really care about the auto-waking-up feature assuming one thing: the difficulty is scaled up to compensate. With character death where revives are expensive or unavailable, one character dying = reload. With auto-waking-up, all characters dying = reload. Obviously the second option makes the game significantly easier.

Paint me surprised if Bioware actually DOES scale up the difficulty to compensate, though.

 

[Hamster]

However, in my case, death without a res meant I would have to quick load which is, in my opinion, completely game-breaking and therefore not part of the gaming experience at all.

Damn, who let's them on codex?
Having to load is gamebreaking now? Oh no, it isn't.
What is gamebreaking is a lack of most basic and logical consequences to your actions - characters dying when they are,you know, stabbed by the enemy.

 

[Micormic]

They're all shitty inventions. I would have hoped after 12 years Bioware would have learned something, but obviously some people love it.

Baulders gate- party members could die.

 

[sheek]

As far as number of characters are concerned, in the context of an RPG, I would prefer a smaller number of characters with more time spent towards developing said characters. Rather than a myriad of potential companions/cohorts with not much in the way of "personality." What I suspect - I haven't read DA's forums really, or much in the way of dev interviews - is that Bioware has heavily invested their various NPCs that can recruited into the core plot. Subsequently, I suspect that their choice to discard a more permanent style of death is two-fold: one, to appeal to a greater demographic of gamers (i.e., those gamers that find "death" to be a trivial and pointless inconvenience - decline amirite?), and so that whatever facets of plot and the writing involved around those companions/NPCs won't be missed by potential players.

One aspect of death in any game is a question of character resources. In a game like Fallout, for instance, reviving a character wasn't even a concept. Death was death - the end. In BG, reviving a character, given the limited resources of the character, was expensive, difficult and likely time-consuming. Barring a simple reload, that often laborious process was actually, I found anyway, quite enjoyable. In BG2, however, death was a minor inconvenience. That rod of resurrection, of which I believe there were multiples of throughout SOA and TOB, made death no more than a two-click inconvenience.

I whole-heartedly agree that if death is to make any sort of impact in a game, it has to be more than simply a question of how readily a player can rectify it, or how costly it is. It has to has some effect "in game," rather than just inconvenience the player. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that this new system of "get up after the fight" just isn't a well developed solution.

Or, make it very difficult to rely on save/reload (aka 'cheating', not that I care how any body plays a game).

For instance no saving during fights, saves only at key locations etc. None of them are perfect in preventing cheating, in other words encouraging the players play the game the way it's supposed to be played, but it would help because it would in turn make designers think about their encounters and balance the amount of filler combat a little more.

Reload/save is simply FAIL. Adapting to it is in my opinion a big part of the RPG decline, a cancer that gnaws away at good gameplay as much or more than shiny grafix.

Don't like a challenge? Butthurt about having to start over? Then try a new strategy, or if you don't want to then don't play RPG games.

What is this shit? Sounds like classic Bioware

Except during classic Bioware times you could kill anyone you wanted and somehow it "made sense". And your companions actually could die instead of being "injured" by several dozens of direct fireball hits.

This FAQ just screams "we are lazy, just give us your moneys now!"

They're all shitty inventions. I would have hoped after 12 years Bioware would have learned something, but obviously some people love it.

Baulders gate- party members could die.

You're right, I didn't mean to say Bioware was always pure bad. As a new company they were allowed mistakes, following up on your mistakes later when you should have learned, but calling it 'innovation', and making your innovations the industry standard... is wrong.

 

[SerratedBiz]

Damn, who let's them on codex?
Having to load is gamebreaking now? Oh no, it isn't.
What is gamebreaking is a lack of most basic and logical consequences to your actions - characters dying when they are,you know, stabbed by the enemy.

Ugh, another one. Please read. I'm not arguing it's annoying to load if you party gets wiped. I never said anything of the sort.

I'm complaining that party members dying after a succesful fight has, up to this point, been as profound to the characters existance as, say, being KOd.

 

[sheek]

I agree players shouldn't have to reload very often - room should given to allow for mistakes, and there should intermediate punishments, other than an instant lethal game over screen... but doing away with final failure/death, as your 'fix' for bad world design is 100x more retarded.

Something you can't lose isn't a game. Call it an interactive novel or whatever you want but not a game.

 

[SerratedBiz]

For fax sake. I'm not promoting the KO method or anything. I went into a tangent which has been pretty hard for some of you to understand:

Say you have a party of two in BG. You and Jeejeena. After a furious battle with rats, you are victorious. Jeejeena, however, has been stricken with a deadly disease and DIES OMG!!

At this point, you (or regular gamers) have two options. You either quickload so you can do the battle again (which, again, is totally fine by me because I'm pointing at something else!) or you use your cheap Rezz and she's back on her feet. EITHER WAY, Jeejeena goes on with her life as usual. Maybe she even got rid of that gonorrea, but whatever. She doesn't react at all to the fact that her brains were splattered all over the floor, or that you're a shitty leader, or that her leg got chopped off.

The end result is that death has no impact on the characters whatsoever, and that's why I said 'death or KO, what's the point?' Either by quickload, KO or death + res, you end up with the same NPC you did 5 minutes ago. That is what 'breaks the game' for me.