Is DA:O a hardcore RPG?

Well, is it?

Let's see... It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum, a huge number of C&C (again way more than the hailed Arcanum had) and a decent tactical combat system (the best RTwP so far). Seems p. hardcore to me.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Please refrain from posting one-liners, this is a serious thread.

posting in a serious thread

Donkey Balls said:

Let's see... It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum, a huge number of C&C...

Click to expand...

Fixed.

1/10, Drog thread detected.

Argue my points or shut up. This is not GD, FFS.

"Let's see... It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum, a huge number of C&C (again way more than the hailed Arcanum had) and a decent tactical combat system (the best RTwP so far). Seems p. hardcore to me."

That's your problem right there, and i even bolded it for you. Everything will look hardcore when you compare it to storyfag LARP simulator crap, even Dragon Age.

So you're saying that story-driven RPGs can't be hardcore?

Poor logic, girl.

DA:O has better camera than AP

"So you're saying that story-driven RPGs can't be hardcore?"

If we are talking games then you need to be focused on challenging and complex gameplay to be hardcore. You can be hardcore and still have a good story, but to be hardcore story can't be the focus of the experience as that would make gameplay secondary and thus would subject its design to the needs of story instead of the other way around, using story just as a way to add mood and atmosphere and motivation to what was added for nothing but gameplay reasons, and that leaves story-driven games out the question, yes.

Black Cat said:

"So you're saying that story-driven RPGs can't be hardcore?"

If we are talking games then you need to be focused on challenging and complex gameplay to be hardcore. You can be hardcore and still have a good story, but to be hardcore story can't be the focus of the experience as that would make gameplay secondary and thus would subject its design to the needs of story instead of the other way around, using story just as a way to add mood and atmosphere and motivation to what was added for nothing but gameplay reasons, and that leaves story-driven games out the question, yes.

Click to expand...

I think he means hardcore as in the rpgfagex e-peen variety

Black Cat said:

If we are talking games then you need to be focused on challenging and complex gameplay to be hardcore.

Click to expand...

Are a tactical combat system and a large number of choices not complex enough?

Also, combat-wise DA is a pretty challenging game.

MaskedMartyr said:

I think he means hardcore as in the rpgfagex e-peen variety

Click to expand...

I think he means hardcore as in the "I'm gonna make a pointless troll thread. Derp!" variety.

EDIT: also solving complex problems in computer games is serious business and not escapism.

I have no idea what the fuck you mean by "hardcore" RPGs. Therefore, any debate is pointless.

@ Rageing Atheist

I think it depends on the motivation. If you are solving challenging problems in the same way you solve a challenging chess puzzle or a challenging riddle or a challenging logic problem or try to surpass a challenging to get skill threshold in any skill based activity like swiming or doing that thing so fashionable now about running up walls and stuff, sure, it isn't really escapism. If you are solving challenging problems in a game to escape the fact you can't solve your bloody life, sure, it is escapism.

It is pretty diferent from any game where you want to, like, lose yourself in the world and the character, as there's no way that can be seen as something other than escapism.

I don't have anything in particular against escapism, though. I have something very particular against people playing escapist thingies and then calling them hardcore superplay stuff because they can't accept they are playing straight out escapist stuff. As i said i don't hate the larping heavy games some of you guys put through as the greatest and most hardcore gaming experiences ever because of themselves. I hate them because people so, like, escapist they can't accept they played it out of straight escapism and go to call some random easy as pie game the most harcore experience ever because they could make choices.

If a game doesn't require you to break through a new treshold of skill to survive whatever stage you are in, then it is casual escapist stuff. That doesn't make it bad. It just make it anti hardcore, and thus beneath the notice of the great hardcore gaming elite of serious business gaming. :3



@ Donkey Balls

Choices are not complex. They are about picking from a dialogue tree. There is no challenge to it, there's no gameplay. You can make choices part of the gameplay, sure, but then most of the storyfags will go baaaaaaaaw because they can't roleplay their character and still get to the end of chapter one alive, or because doing so makes them ignore all the good rewards and so it is impossible for them to win the chapter bossfight, as it is balanced for an optimal and efficient playthrough.

And, you know, i said it before but it never gets old. Rhapsody A Musical Adventure has tactical turn based battles. :3 This kind of gives me the idea for a trolling thread, though. I must go back to this later.

And combat wise Dragon Age isn't challenging, though it is ages beyond Arcanum and Fallout and Planescape. It is challenging at first, sure, and i loved the combat up to the tower thingie where you kill lots of evil guys and the big fat slob up there. Then it kind of stops throwing new challenges at you and just ups the HP and MP and stuffies. As we were talking on that other thread a bunch of days ago there are lots of modern MMO with way, way, way more in depth combat than Dragon Age, what does not bode well for the comparison between them and Arcanum, Fallout, or Planescape. :ChibiTroll:



@ MaskedMartyr

It is popular, man. RPGFagex E-peen depends on the games it likes being so old my granny used to play them before turning fifteen or so unpopular only the designer mom does so. If it likes the same everyone else does then it is no longer a unique snowflake of hate and rage and kawaiisa, isn't it?

Donkey, who's alt r u?

Donkey Balls said:

P.S. Please refrain from posting one-liners, this is a serious thread.

Click to expand...

You started it with a one liner as far as argumentation goes, beggars can't be choosers.

Still,

Let's see... It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum

Click to expand...

Quality > Quantity
The setting is shit and the dialogue is inane, the NPC are a borefest so it's NOT 10x times as much as the dialog in Arcanum, it's ten times the random garbage. Not the same thing.

, a huge number of C&C (again way more than the hailed Arcanum had)

Click to expand...

Like being able to clear the mage tower and come back as if hours instead of days passed. Sure has a bigger amount of C&C than Arcanum yeah.

and a decent tactical combat system (the best RTwP so far). Seems p. hardcore to me.

Click to expand...

MMO inspired crap with cooldowns, uninspired spells and little if any variety in enemies. At least Arcanum tried (even if its combat sucked) to bring some variety in the way you could defeat monsters and give them unique defenses/resistances like having your weapons break on golems.

Dragon Age is Generic Tolkien Fantasy Setting #431 with Generic Classes, Generic Ruleset.

Dny said:

Dragon Age is Generic Tolkien Fantasy Setting #431 with Generic Classes, Generic Ruleset.

Click to expand...

Generic classes, yes: warrior, rogue, mage.

Generic ruleset? Have you played the game? It has its own ruleset, not used anywhere else.

And Tolkien setting? No orcs, no halfling, no balrogs... not even orcs!

DA combat was challenging until you *got it*, and then it was cake. Overall, when I think hardcore RPG, I think Wizardry level of difficulty. While overall I actually think the combat system was pretty good, I'll take tactical turn based battles any day. Moreover, while the combat *system* was good, the encounters were for the most part not. That is a shame, because I actually think the engine has a lot of potential. Maybe Obsidian can make a game with it....

Eep, after Alpha Shitocol, I'll take that back.

Black Cat said:

@ Rageing Atheist

I think it depends on the motivation. If you are solving challenging problems in the same way you solve a challenging chess puzzle or a challenging riddle or a challenging logic problem or try to surpass a challenging to get skill threshold in any skill based activity like swiming or doing that thing so fashionable now about running up walls and stuff, sure, it isn't really escapism. If you are solving challenging problems in a game to escape the fact you can't solve your bloody life, sure, it is escapism.

It is pretty diferent from any game where you want to, like, lose yourself in the world and the character, as there's no way that can be seen as something other than escapism.

I don't have anything in particular against escapism, though. I have something very particular against people playing escapist thingies and then calling them hardcore superplay stuff because they can't accept they are playing straight out escapist stuff. As i said i don't hate the larping heavy games some of you guys put through as the greatest and most hardcore gaming experiences ever because of themselves. I hate them because people so, like, escapist they can't accept they played it out of straight escapism and go to call some random easy as pie game the most harcore experience ever because they could make choices.

If a game doesn't require you to break through a new treshold of skill to survive whatever stage you are in, then it is casual escapist stuff. That doesn't make it bad. It just make it anti hardcore, and thus beneath the notice of the great hardcore gaming elite of serious business gaming. :3

Click to expand...

Wow, I expected a one-liner or something given that you were essentially responding to my one-liner but you made a pretty good post. Since you answered with a well-articulated post, I'll also try to adress your points in a relatively well-articulated manner.

As far as solving challenging problems in games goes I still don't see how it's less escapist than playing a game like Morrowind (to pick the most obvious example of a relatively unchallenging yet immersive game), (assuming one is playing Morrowind in a more-or-less sane manner, ie not larping a mudcrab). I assume you like solving problems and improving your skills in games since you find it enjoyable, even though it does not make you better in any real-life (ie away from your computer/tv screen) related capabilities. If someone else gets this not-real-life-related enjoyment out of reading text, exploring the landscape or trying to figure a game's story out, I really don't see how it's neccesarily any more escapist. Both provide enjoyment that is relatively unrelated to one's performance in the "real world" and both of these activities have little chance to make one better in any of his or her "real world" capabilities.

I don't think that solving problems in computer games in order to improve one's skills is that comparable to improving one's skills like swimming or running, since these skills might prove useful in an unexpected situation, impress the members of opposite sex and gain positive attention etc. Improving one's "real life" skills seems more practical than improving one's skills in an activity that is often looked down upon, like playing computer games.

About "losing yourself in a game". Sure, that can occasionally happen but I think you are wrong in assuming (or at least it seems to me that you are assuming this) that playing relatively unchallenging games is all about losing oneself in a game. If I'm reading a book in Morrowind (for the sake of coherency I'm sticking with this example) about the creation of Mundus (material plane in the game) and I find it interesting how the different viewpoints expressed therein are similar to different views about the creation of the material world in different real word traditions, I'm not neccesarily losing myself in a game, I may be thinking "wow it's pretty interesting how the high elves regard the creation of the world in a similar light to the real world gnostics" and move on, not obsessing over things of this nature for much longer. Not much different to reading a science fiction book and thinking about the parallels with the real world.

As for consdering games like Fallout, Arcanum and Torment hardcore... I've never considered these games particularly hardcore, nor do I care whether they are considered as such. I know that these are my favorite games (ie I've enjoyed playing them the most) and beyond that I don't really give a fuck.

/rant end, off to fix things related to my bloody life, ie writing essays.

Yes.

But only after 5 pints of Newcastle Brown, or a different beverage of your own choice

Donkey Balls said:

Well, is it?

Let's see... It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum, a huge number of C&C (again way more than the hailed Arcanum had) and a decent tactical combat system (the best RTwP so far). Seems p. hardcore to me.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Please refrain from posting one-liners, this is a serious thread.

Click to expand...

sup Drog?
Whadda you wanna know? Is DA a better/more hardcore/more entertaining/more worthwhile RPG than Arcanum? No. You have to look at proper RPGs, like NWN to name but one, to find an RPG excperience that's>Arcanum. Hope that helps.

I'd say at least a few things make it so DA isn't a "hardcore" rpg, at least by codex standards:

-The way level-scaling keeps the combat challenge even throughout the game.

-The way loot is level-scaled.

-The fact that your characters' stats don't have really have much of an influence on your game experience outside of combat, the biggest difference will come from non-stat derived dialog/player choices.

By the real world's standards I'd say it's fairly "hardcore" , I expect to see a lot more media criticism of DA2 if it sticks to the same RT w/pause combat system and engine.

Konjad said:

Donkey, who's alt r u?

Click to expand...

Konjad, Konjad, Konjad. You really are broken. Can't you spot a Drog alts anymore?

It has about 10x as much dialog as Arcanum

Click to expand...

Maybe voiced. Text lines? Wanna bet you haven't actually counted :D

a huge number of C&C

Click to expand...

Yes, herp or derp.

decent tactical combat system

Click to expand...

No, it's not decent at all. It's a piss-poor version of MMORPG-combat haphazardly welded with NWN combat, along with their own fucked up mechanics.

Flying Spaghetti Monster said:

DA combat was challenging until you *got it*, and then it was cake. Overall, when I think hardcore RPG, I think Wizardry level of difficulty. While overall I actually think the combat system was pretty good, I'll take tactical turn based battles any day. Moreover, while the combat *system* was good, the encounters were for the most part not. That is a shame, because I actually think the engine has a lot of potential.

Click to expand...

Did we play the same game? My DA:O didn't have challenge on hard, there was no "getting" it and it surely wasn't a good system.

No. I would define hardcore as having qualities that aren't defined by mainstream sentiment.

The only thing that really sticks out is the level of difficulty and thats only because recent RPGs have been ridiculously easy.

I dont see the combat as being more strategic than the Inifinity engine

The ruleset isnt half as innovative as something like Arcanum or that AoD demo. It feels just like a simple D&D, D20 GUPS spin.

The game has plenty mainstream cliches. You are stuck with two allies, the game has more filler combat than hell, and the level scaling.

racofer said:

And Tolkien setting? No orcs, no halfling, no balrogs... not even orcs!

Click to expand...

hurr durr darkspawn

There're elves, girlfriend.