Fuck Dragon Age 3, this thread is now about RPG stat systems

[evdk]

Insider info from secret HUAHUE sources?

 

[sea]

I've been recently replaying Dragon Age: Origins and found myself having a blast, especially in comparison with other titles on the market.

Then something tempted me and I installed Dragon Age 2.



What were those people thinking? How from a decent semi-tactical RPG they went to a gigantic clusterfuck, with broken interface, spastic combat and dumbed-down content? I swear even the graphics is far worse.

I'd like to see DA3 reach at least the level of DA:O... but that simply won't happen.

Rushed, mostly. It has good ideas in some of the quests and story points but it is ruined by the horrible filler, the AWESOME BUTTON combat, the constant reuse of environments, and awful art direction. If they had another year or two to work on it it *might* have turned out alright.

That's why I have almost zero hope for Dragon Age 3. The two-year-or-less dev cycles are not enough, especially when they clearly don't really know where to take the series.

 

[evdk]

Rushed, mostly. It has good ideas in some of the quests and story points

Which ones? My main problem with the story was that because they needed to finish it with total meltdown of law and order everyone was behaving like a complete retard. Whenever you resolve a situation without killing everyone involved you can count on it that the surviving parties become crazy/possessed and try to kill you later, usually on completely flimsy pretext at best. Mages are turning into abominations on the drop of a hat if you just look at them sideways and all the templars are genocidal morons.

 

[Sul]

Insider info from secret HUAHUE sources?

Nope, just logic. Besides the fact that Sony is not doing well when it comes to sales current gen games are already too expensive to make, a next-gen game would reach astronomic levels of production values to the point that only franchises like CoD, Halo and The Elder Scrolls would sell enough to break even.
If there's a next-gen console on the making it'll be just like Wii, an inexpensive low-end hardware so they can cater to even more retards, though that would not be completely bad since low-end hardware means lower production values and lower production values means more freedom for developers.

 

[Average Manatee]

How are they going to introduce co-op into this game? Since EA has now mandated they no longer make single player games.

Sex scenes are inherently multiplayer situations. Battle online for new sex toys that you can use in singleplayer mode to advance your personal story.

 

[racofer]

How are they going to introduce co-op into this game? Since EA has now mandated they no longer make single player games.

DA3 will be the first massive multiplayer online dating simulator to date, where everyone can romance everyone and engage in AWESOME orgies.

"IGN (9.5) - Become a legend of deviance."
"Gamespot (9.8) - Like Black Ops 2 with dildos."
"RPGCodex - by Konjad (8.9) - I could finally find love, and I don't care that she is a he."

 

[evdk]

Insider info from secret HUAHUE sources?

Nope, just logic. Besides the fact that Sony is not doing well when it comes to sales current gen games are already too expensive to make, a next-gen game would reach astronomic levels of production values to the point that only franchises like CoD, Halo and The Elder Scrolls would sell enough to break even.
If there's a next-gen console on the making it'll be just like Wii, an inexpensive low-end hardware so they can cater to even more retards, though that would not be completely bad since low-end hardware means lower production values and lower production values means more freedom for developers.

Logic does not factor into AAA games development. Retarded hard core console gaming masses want MORE POWER and I am afraid the suits will attempt to deliver. Oh well, one step closer to the crash.

 

[Mrowak]

I've been recently replaying Dragon Age: Origins and found myself having a blast, especially in comparison with other titles on the market.

Then something tempted me and I installed Dragon Age 2.



What were those people thinking? How from a decent semi-tactical RPG they went to a gigantic clusterfuck, with broken interface, spastic combat and dumbed-down content? I swear even the graphics is far worse.

I'd like to see DA3 reach at least the level of DA:O... but that simply won't happen.

Rushed, mostly. It has good ideas in some of the quests and story points but it is ruined by the horrible filler, the AWESOME BUTTON combat, the constant reuse of environments, and awful art direction. If they had another year or two to work on it it *might* have turned out alright.

That's why I have almost zero hope for Dragon Age 3. The two-year-or-less dev cycles are not enough, especially when they clearly don't really know where to take the series.

I think two year dev cycle is enough to develop a decent sequel, provided that you do not stray too far off the beaten path. Look at BG 1 and BG 2 - the latter was created in two years. The thing is instead of completely overhauling the gameplay of its predecessor, BG 2 just expanded it significantly using the ready assets, and adding tonnes upon tonnes of new things. They had the engine, they had loads of art, they had ready ruleset, they had balanced gameplay that worked right - they could only improve it.

Instead in Dragon Age 2 they had to go the retard path and scrap practically the entirety of gameplay and balance there was. What's worse, not only did they scrap a perfectly fine system, they had to substitute it with a complete unplayable mess. They even couldn't get the balance right, which is indicate by respawning hordes of trashmobs. How much of an idiot you have to be to completely destroy the most time-consuming aspect to define, in any game?

 

[Average Manatee]

Games that take much more than 2 years to develop are more likely experiencing development hell rather than putting that time towards good game design. I certainly wouldn't expect more than 2 years for a sequel.

 

[Xor]

Rushed, mostly. It has good ideas in some of the quests and story points

Which ones? My main problem with the story was that because they needed to finish it with total meltdown of law and order everyone was behaving like a complete retard. Whenever you resolve a situation without killing everyone involved you can count on it that the surviving parties become crazy/possessed and try to kill you later, usually on completely flimsy pretext at best. Mages are turning into abominations on the drop of a hat if you just look at them sideways and all the templars are genocidal morons.

Some of the individual quests were pretty interesting. The focus of the story on your character's rise to power rather than an epic quest was refreshing given the usual bioware plot. Time skips could have been interesting if they did anything with them at all. There was a good decent mediocre game in there somewhere, it was just buried under bad ideas.

 

[Roguey]

My main problem with the story was that because they needed to finish it with total meltdown of law and order everyone was behaving like a complete retard. Whenever you resolve a situation without killing everyone involved you can count on it that the surviving parties become crazy/possessed and try to kill you later, usually on completely flimsy pretext at best. Mages are turning into abominations on the drop of a hat if you just look at them sideways and all the templars are genocidal morons.

The level designers are responsible for that, in addition to Laidlaw for choosing to side with them over the writers. "We demand more mage fights!" they said without a hint of irony.

Nope, just logic. Besides the fact that Sony is not doing well when it comes to sales current gen games are already too expensive to make, a next-gen game would reach astronomic levels of production values to the point that only franchises like CoD, Halo and The Elder Scrolls would sell enough to break even.
If there's a next-gen console on the making it'll be just like Wii, an inexpensive low-end hardware so they can cater to even more retards, though that would not be completely bad since low-end hardware means lower production values and lower production values means more freedom for developers.

Your "logic" doesn't work because a lot of developers already have devkits for the next shitbox and a lot of new shit was already announced and shown off at the last E3. They were just demo'd on PCs.

Instead in Dragon Age 2 they had to go the retard path and scrap practically the entirety of gameplay and balance there was. What's worse, not only did they scrap a perfectly fine system, they had to substitute it with a complete unplayable mess. They even couldn't get the balance right, which is indicate by respawning hordes of trashmobs. How much of an idiot you have to be to completely destroy the most time-consuming aspect to define, in any game?

a) It wasn't perfectly fine.
b) Seems to me that Laidlaw's big plan was for DA2 to be an awkward-but-necessary transitional sequel to get it where he really wants it (and he's declared that DA3 will be his answer to what he thought he did right/wrong with DA2). DA3 builds off of DA2, much like ME3 built up from ME2.

 

[Grunker]

I've been recently replaying Dragon Age: Origins and found myself having a blast, especially in comparison with other titles on the market.

Then something tempted me and I installed Dragon Age 2.



What were those people thinking? How from a decent semi-tactical RPG they went to a gigantic clusterfuck, with broken interface, spastic combat and dumbed-down content? I swear even the graphics is far worse.

I'd like to see DA3 reach at least the level of DA:O... but that simply won't happen.

Rushed, mostly. It has good ideas in some of the quests and story points but it is ruined by the horrible filler, the AWESOME BUTTON combat, the constant reuse of environments, and awful art direction. If they had another year or two to work on it it *might* have turned out alright.

That's why I have almost zero hope for Dragon Age 3. The two-year-or-less dev cycles are not enough, especially when they clearly don't really know where to take the series.

I think two year dev cycle is enough to develop a decent sequel, provided that you do not stray too far off the beaten path. Look at BG 1 and BG 2 - the latter was created in two years. The thing is instead of completely overhauling the gameplay of its predecessor, BG 2 just expanded it significantly using the ready assets, and adding tonnes upon tonnes of new things. They had the engine, they had loads of art, they had ready ruleset, they had balanced gameplay that worked right - they could only improve it.

Bin-fucking-go

 

[GreatPretender]

DA3 will be the first massive multiplayer online dating simulator to date, where everyone can romance everyone and engage in AWESOME orgies.

 

[Mrowak]

Instead in Dragon Age 2 they had to go the retard path and scrap practically the entirety of gameplay and balance there was. What's worse, not only did they scrap a perfectly fine system, they had to substitute it with a complete unplayable mess. They even couldn't get the balance right, which is indicate by respawning hordes of trashmobs. How much of an idiot you have to be to completely destroy the most time-consuming aspect to define, in any game?

a) It wasn't perfectly fine.

It was in the sense that it worked, it was enjoyable, and quite well-balanced. It was a ready formula to take advantage on and improve. The new take is fundamentally broken on so many levels I just cannot be bothered to count out.

b) Seems to me that Laidlaw's big plan was for DA2 to be an awkward-but-necessary transitional sequel to get it where he really wants it

So he really wants it to be a bigger unplayable mess? AAAAAwesome.

(and he's declared that DA3 will be his answer to what he thought he did right/wrong with DA2).

Absolutely everything with the gameplay was wrong. Seriously, barring some mechanical fluff (e.g. skill-trees) everything in that game is subpar. Fucking graphics is worse - how did they manage to achieve that I have no idea.

DA3 builds off of DA2, much like ME3 built up from ME2.

So there is no hope for Bioware. How about having a closer look at the game that actually worked, was quite enjoyable and achieved quite a commercial success in comparison with DA2?

 

[attackfighter]

It was in the sense that it worked, it was enjoyable, and quite well-balanced. It was a ready formula to take advantage on and improve. The new take is fundamentally broken on so many levels I just cannot be bothered to count out.

Balanced? BALANCED!!!!!

Tell that to the countless derpspawn corpses who were stunlocked and kited to death by my faggot party members. Tell that to the retarded bosses who have so much health it takes 10 minutes to kill them. TELL THAT TO THE PATHETIC AI THAT HAD TO BE PURPOSEFULLY GIMPED TO CHOOSE TARGETS BASED ON AGGRO MECHANIC BECAUSE OTHERWISE MAGES/ARCHERS WOULD BE SHIT!

The game is anything *but* balanced.




Also I attempted a playthrough of the game a few weeks ago and decided to go to the Underdark place first because someone told me the enemies would be noticeably above my level if I did so (they weren't). Anyway I bring this up because out of literally 100 or so battles I used the same tactic in all of them. Even in the boss fights. Oh and I quit before finishing Underdark out of boredom.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

origins has to be played on the highest difficulty level for any sort of challenge...preferably modded too.

 

[Mrowak]

It was in the sense that it worked, it was enjoyable, and quite well-balanced. It was a ready formula to take advantage on and improve. The new take is fundamentally broken on so many levels I just cannot be bothered to count out.

Balanced? BALANCED!!!!!

Tell that to the countless derpspawn corpses who were stunlocked and kited to death by my faggot party members.

Nothing a patch or two or a goddamn sequel could not fix. It was the matter of just tinkering with the numbers. I played on Hard and Nightmare and I do not really remember kiting. I vividly recall there were too many enemies to kite and you could not really ignore them. Dragon Age: Origins even used character positioning as a factor, which discouraged kiting... in most cases. The only ability I found really overpowered was Cone of Cold spell. If you have three mages the whole battlefield is full of ice statues in next to no time.

Tell that to the retarded bosses who have so much health it takes 10 minutes to kill them.

Yeah, and Dragon Age 2 improved exactly that facet. Oh silly me, it actually made it far worse by throwing hordes of respawning trashmobs at you while bloating boss's HP into infinity.

TELL THAT TO THE PATHETIC AI THAT HAD TO BE PURPOSEFULLY GIMPED TO CHOOSE TARGETS BASED ON AGGRO MECHANIC BECAUSE OTHERWISE MAGES/ARCHERS WOULD BE SHIT!

Name an RPG that had significantly better AI - RTwP or otherwise. Besides my experience is opposite to yours. Both mages and archers are *deadly* whichever side they are on. That the fuckers can snipe you from 3 screens away annoyed me to no end. I know, this calls for improved interface! And we will improve it by not allowing the player to pan the camera at all so he cannot control his characters easily!

The game is anything *but* balanced.

I wrote "quite". In comparison with Dragon Age 2 it's the masterpiece of balance and excelent gameplay design.

Also I attempted a playthrough of the game a few weeks ago and decided to go to the Underdark place first because someone told me the enemies would be noticeably above my level if I did so (they weren't). Anyway I bring this up because out of literally 100 or so battles I used the same tactic in all of them. Even in the boss fights. Oh and I quit before finishing Underdark out of boredom.

Funny thing, I started DA 1 to compare its gameplay to NWN2: SoZ. DA:O won - it was no contest. I am telling you that because this flaw is quite common in every RPG in existence. Do you remember Cloudkill spell from BG2? Or Horrid Withering? Or timestop? Or all sorts of epic spells which were simply no-brainer and you spammed them just because? DA:O actually attempts to alleviate the effectiveness of one tactic and succeeds in many respects. What it really needed was removing level-scalling and tinkering with numbers to dampen the efficiency of too powerful abilities with short cooldowns. To my mind it would be also great if they shot for asymetric balance - making classes excellent at different roles, so that having 3 mages in your party wouldn't be win in every circumstances.

However, I have to admit that DA did many things right where others failed, and it offered an excellent foothold to expand upon - like BG1 was to BG2.

 

[Carrion]

DA:O's combat is just so slow and boring. The MMO influence like the aggro mechanic, the formulaic use of the tank-healer-mage combo and enemies that take forever to die takes all the fun out of the system. Combine this with very few enemy types, boring spells and repetitive encounters and you can win pretty much every fight using the exact same tactics. I don't know how you could possibly fix that with mere number tweaking. I'd take Time Stops and Horrid Wiltings over that shit any given day.

 

[kris]

b) Seems to me that Laidlaw's big plan was for DA2 to be an awkward-but-necessary transitional sequel to get it where he really wants it (and he's declared that DA3 will be his answer to what he thought he did right/wrong with DA2). DA3 builds off of DA2, much like ME3 built up from ME2.

You named the problem I suppose. It is called "Laidlaw"

 

[Mrowak]

DA:O's combat is just so slow and boring. The MMO influence like the aggro mechanic, the formulaic use of the tank-healer-mage combo and enemies that take forever to die takes all the fun out of the system. Combine this with very few enemy types, boring spells and repetitive encounters and you can win pretty much every fight using the exact same tactics. I don't know how you could possibly fix that with mere number tweaking. I'd take Time Stops and Horrid Wiltings over that shit any given day.

I think you are being a little bit unfair here. You mean those spells and trashmobs did not make combat repetetive in BG2? You could use exact same spell combinations to win nearly every fight. True, there was no aggro mechanic, but it means your enemies were even dumber - they attacked this first character they targeted upon - whether it was the weakest or the strongest, and it was easy to kite them (in comparison in DA:O there's always at least one enemy engaging each of your characters). Tank-healer-mage? That's BG2 in a nuttshell. Actually DA:O gave warriors something to do on the battlefield other then being there and tanking. The only advantage BG2 had was that it had more monsters and spells, but there were two reasons for that:

a) BG2 could take advantage of huge amount of AD&D source materials
b) BG2 came after BG1 which didn't have very great monster variety. At the end of the day Ogres were just Ogrlins with better stats and a different character model. That's not much of a difference, gameplaywise. Now Ogres in DA:O had their different sets of abilities - they weren't just biffed Hurloks, so fighting them was at least a little bit different. In other words, DA:O could have expanded in the sequel. But it didn't.

For the record - although I use BG2 as a point of reference it has to be noted that most complaints of DA's detractors apply to most RPGs in existence, RTwP and TB games alike. For instance I have yet to see an RPG with a truly robust AI. It usually always comes down to observing the flaw in AI behaviour patterns and exploiting it.

 

[Revenant]

Is there someone left at BioWare who has the foggiest idea how to design a cRPG?

Nope, but there is certainly someone at BioWare who has the faggiest idea how to design a CRPG.

 

[Grunker]

DA:O's combat is just so slow and boring. The MMO influence like the aggro mechanic, the formulaic use of the tank-healer-mage combo and enemies that take forever to die takes all the fun out of the system. Combine this with very few enemy types, boring spells and repetitive encounters and you can win pretty much every fight using the exact same tactics. I don't know how you could possibly fix that with mere number tweaking. I'd take Time Stops and Horrid Wiltings over that shit any given day.

I think you are being a little bit unfair here. You mean those spells and trashmobs did not make combat repetetive in BG2? You could use exact same spell combinations to win nearly every fight. True, there was no aggro mechanic, but it means your enemies were even dumber - they attacked this first character they targeted upon - whether it was the weakest or the strongest, and it was easy to kite them (in comparison in DA:O there's always at least one enemy engaging each of your characters). Tank-healer-mage? That's BG2 in a nuttshell. Actually DA:O gave warriors something to do on the battlefield other then being there and tanking. The only advantage BG2 had was that it had more monsters and spells, but there were two reasons for that:

a) BG2 could take advantage of huge amount of AD&D source materials
b) BG2 came after BG1 which didn't have very great monster variety. At the end of the day Ogres were just Ogrlins with better stats and a different character model. That's not much of a difference, gameplaywise. Now Ogres in DA:O had their different sets of abilities - they weren't just biffed Hurloks, so fighting them was at least a little bit different. In other words, DA:O could have expanded in the sequel. But it didn't.

For the record - although I use BG2 as a point of reference it has to be noted that most complaints of DA's detractors apply to most RPGs in existence, RTwP and TB games alike. For instance I have yet to see an RPG with a truly robust AI. It usually always comes down to observing the flaw in AI behaviour patterns and exploiting it.

For the Codex, or at least for some Codexers, DA:O is the symbol of the decline. I know I'm using a strawman argument here, but it seems to me for some, even honest posters, seeing the meris of DA:O is impossible. Look at the reaction to VD's review.

I'm not trying to invalidate good arguments with this strawman, I'm just saying I have long stopped arguing in favor for DA:O because I find it kind of futile here.

 

[Mrowak]

For the Codex, or at least for some Codexers, DA:O is the symbol of the decline. I know I'm using a strawman argument here, but it seems to me for some, even honest posters, seeing the meris of DA:O is impossible. Look at the reaction to VD's review.

I'm not trying to invalidate good arguments with this strawman, I'm just saying I have long stopped arguing in favor for DA:O because I find it kind of futile here.

I think our community should cease to indulge in dream fantasies of RPGs that have never existed. Sure DA:O doesn't have the story of Planescape, the size of the world of Morrowind, the combat system of Knights of the Chalice, the monster variety of BG2, the number of classes of NWN2 etc, etc. However, unlike all of those classics it manages to be at least competent in each aspect, as opposed to a single area, which creates a seamless experience - a cornerstone of every RPG. I happen to value products with clear vision at least as much as bold experiments that make a critical statement in one area but otherwise they are failures.

 

[Captain Shrek]

For the Codex, or at least for some Codexers, DA:O is the symbol of the decline. I know I'm using a strawman argument here, but it seems to me for some, even honest posters, seeing the meris of DA:O is impossible. Look at the reaction to VD's review.

I'm not trying to invalidate good arguments with this strawman, I'm just saying I have long stopped arguing in favor for DA:O because I find it kind of futile here.

I think our community should cease to indulge in dream fantasies of RPGs that have never existed. Sure DA:O doesn't have the story of Planescape, the size of the world of Morrowing, the combat sustem of Knights of the Chalice, the monster variety of BG2, the number of classes of NWN2 etc, etc. However, unlike all of those classics it manages to be at least competent in each aspect, as opposed to a single area, which creates a seamless experience - a cornerstone of every RPG. I happen to value products with clear vision at least as much as bold experiments that make a critical statement in one area but otherwise they are failures.

...

You are right.

 

[Infinitron]

Mrowak
DA:O was decent at low levels. Then as you grew more powerful you realized how shallow the systems were. There just wasn't enough true variability - you just got more and more samey cooldown abilities to click.