Dragon Age Poll: RPG-ness

[TinCow]

3rd edition rules were a lot, lot better but the infinity engine games didn't use them.

IWD2 used a modified version of 3E. For that reason alone, it had easily the best character creation system in any of the IE games.

[frogbeastegg]

IWD2 used a modified version of 3E. For that reason alone, it had easily the best character creation system in any of the IE games.

IDW2 is the only one out of the entire Infinity Engine catalogue I haven't played. When it came out I didn't bother because I wasn't that enamoured with IWD1 and didn't fancy more. Earlier in the year I picked up the DVD compilation which has both games plus both expansions on it; I thought I might give them another go once I'd finished my planned Baldur's Gate series replay.




I like to have flexibility and freedom to design a character that fits the way I want to play. That’s why the earlier AD&D rules fail – they lock me into a set character role, and I don’t actually like any of the offered roles. 10 strength is always 10 strength and my mage is banned from wearing anything other than a bathrobe. In the 3rd edition and games like KOTOR or DR:O my mage can learn to wear armour at the cost of some spellpower, and 10 strength might well become 12 if I sacrifice elsewhere. Sure the resulting mage won't be as powerful as a pure mage, but he's a lot more versatile. Maybe I want a warrior who can pick locks, or a rogue who breaks out a two-handed sword when stealth is no longer an option.

I had a nice mage/swashbuckler type character in NWN2; all buffing and AOE damage spells, and enough dex that she was hard to hit and could poke things to death with a rapier in style. Right now my DA:O mage is wearing medium armour and can swap between heavy spellcasting and wielding a sword with success because I chose the arcane warrior specialisation, which allows me to substitute my magic stat for strength. The downside is that I have several spells less than I would if I’d remained a pure mage. I'm actually able to wear heavier gear than my two tanks at this point, though I don't because enemies prioritise characters in heavy armour.

3rd edition and other rules also make abilities far simpler to understand. 20 second recharge, does 10 damage per second + 2 points of fire damage and lasts for 5 seconds. Clear as crystal. Anything which begins with 3d2+1 immediately loses me. Why not say 6+1 instead of forcing me to play combat maths? Add in all that business about turns, rounds and whathaveyou and I’m left with no idea what the ability is supposed to do.

I like Fallout’s SPECIAL system too. That offers quite organic character growth.

The Elder Scrolls system might sound ideal for my preferences but in practice I loathe it. It’s broken IMO. Too easy to end up with a rubbish character by selecting the traits you want to use as majors, and too easy to end up with weak stats if you don’t spend ages spamming skills you don’t want to use in order to get the bonuses when levelling up.

[Zenicetus]

I like Fallout’s SPECIAL system too. That offers quite organic character growth.

Sure, but the game gave you so many points to use, along with other things like Bobbleheads for free points, that you could max out all the SPECIAL abilities by the end of the game instead of having to make choices. There's no skill or challenge involved in a game that hands you everything on a silver platter and doesn't force trade-offs (IMO).

Mass Effect was like that too. When I started the game, I spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to upgrade my character during each level-up. I thought I was being forced to make real decisions, but it only made a difference in the early levels. By the end of the game it didn't matter because just about every slot was full. I could just as easily have rolled dice for a random number each time I made a selection, and ended up with almost the same character stats at the end of the game. That's not my personal definition of an RPG.

[frogbeastegg]

Sure, but the game gave you so many points to use, along with other things like Bobbleheads for free points, that you could max out all the SPECIAL abilities by the end of the game instead of having to make choices. There's no skill or challenge involved in a game that hands you everything on a silver platter and doesn't force trade-offs (IMO).

There's more to the series than Fallout 3. The two earlier games didn't have the bobble heads and each skill went to 200 instead of 100. There were also more perks and traits to choose between, and fewer completely useless ones.

Fallout 3 was fine until around character level 10. At that point I'd have all of my core skills up to a high level and basically spend the rest of the game dumping points into skills I didn't care about. I'm not much of a Fallout 3 fan to be honest.

EDIT: Ninja stealth Tincow post snuck in while I was typing

IWD2 is just like IWD1... no roleplaying, just lots of killing and looting. If you didn't like that about IWD1, then you probably won't like it about IWD2. They should be thought of as tactical combat games, not RPGs.

Yes. At the time I expected IWD1 to be like BG because the game hadn't received much coverage and I picked it up the week it hit shop shelves. It didn't help that the game was a throwback to BG1 and so was rather inferior to BG2 with its better visuals, tweaked engine and wider variety of character classes.

I am in complete agreement with you on character creation. IWD2 used a hybrid system... it used a lot of 3E rules, but it was still in the old IE engine which made implementing the entire rule set difficult. In particular, they had difficulty adding in the feats system and had to do it with a run-around version that utilized a heavily modified version of the weapon-specialization mechanism. The end result is a character system that is far better than the other IE games, but not as good as the NWN games. It's still nice to be able to play a pure mage that uses a long-sword in an IE game though.

Hmm. :crosses IDW1 off her list of games to play, shunts IDW2 up a few places: Might play it before the big Baldur's Gate replay then.

[LeftEyeNine]

I wonder what kind of deviation the same poll would indicate in 3 months of time.

[TinCow]

IDW2 is the only one out of the entire Infinity Engine catalogue I haven't played. When it came out I didn't bother because I wasn't that enamoured with IWD1 and didn't fancy more. Earlier in the year I picked up the DVD compilation which has both games plus both expansions on it; I thought I might give them another go once I'd finished my planned Baldur's Gate series replay.

IWD2 is just like IWD1... no roleplaying, just lots of killing and looting. If you didn't like that about IWD1, then you probably won't like it about IWD2. They should be thought of as tactical combat games, not RPGs.

I am in complete agreement with you on character creation. IWD2 used a hybrid system... it used a lot of 3E rules, but it was still in the old IE engine which made implementing the entire rule set difficult. In particular, they had difficulty adding in the feats system and had to do it with a run-around version that utilized a heavily modified version of the weapon-specialization mechanism. The end result is a character system that is far better than the other IE games, but not as good as the NWN games. It's still nice to be able to play a pure mage that uses a long-sword in an IE game though.

I haven't played anything with 4E rules, but from what I've heard about them they are another huge leap forward. Hopefully the next D&D licensed game that comes out will utilize them.

[Beskar]

I love Dragon Age's story, it is very well done. It isn't open world, then again, it doesn't have to be all the time, as a good story beats them in a lot of ways, namely how Open World can just seem so lifeless and an illusion. There hasn't been much of a dynamic game world yet to make up for the short fall of Open World.

I mean come on people, you could become a god!

That sounds incredibly boring. Especially since it is not a god, it is more like "I can't die and I one-shot everything."

[al Roumi]

That sounds incredibly boring. Especially since it is not a god, it is more like "I can't die and I one-shot everything."

In the context of ME or FO3, where (as discussed above) the game gets easier once you become proficient in your core skills so that you are more effective at VATS or juggling enemies with biotics, yes. The fun of combat at the end game is deploying the full range of your skills.

BG2 somehow didn't end up that unbalanced for me. By the end, when you were nearing God-status, you were fighting other gods -so it remained a challenge.

I do find it weird that more isn't done to increase the challenge in the latter stages of many of these games. I've just finished off Broken Steel in FO3 and I have to say that the fight in the presidential metro with about 10 ghoul reavers and glowing ones was surprisingly challenging compared to anything I'd come up against in the game for a while. I ultimately solved the issue with a few mini-nukes but I hadn't used the Fatman since the GNR plaza fight.

It's also the same problem as with CIV4 for example, its a rewarding challenge until you reach a comfortable supremacy over your rivals. I have to say, I haven't finished 90% of my CIV games because of that fact.

[Beskar]

The problem I find with Civ4 is you can't build armies seperately and it is this fact which ends up making the game more boring, as it is too tasking to actually bother building armies. Also since you are advancing so fast, by the time you build an army, you lost a lot due to missed building turns which bring all sorts of other troubles and they all need upgrading.

[frogbeastegg]

BG2 somehow didn't end up that unbalanced for me. By the end, when you were nearing God-status, you were fighting other gods -so it remained a challenge.

That's one thing the AD&D brought to the series that I can praise without hesitation. Each step you took up the power ladder there was another nasty on the rung above waiting. Said nasty was a threat - and creature - in its own right and not a reskin of an old foe with more HP.

The climb from BG1, to Tales of the Sword Coast, to BG2, and finally to Throne of Baal remains my standout example of how to handle epic levels and sustained player power growth. If Bioware can't replicate the effect for Mass Effect 2 then I shall be very disappointed. I suspect they won't manage it; AD&D enemy design had millions of players and years of experience put into it.

[Beskar]

But wouldn't hitting the roof be more realistic, in a sense? Becoming as powerful as you could ever be, then make the game more about players skill of managing tactics, style and ability?

[Vladimir]

I'd prefer a variety of challenges. It seems a little gamey to always have the next challenge be bigger and better. Where's the joy of discovery? Sure you may be disappointed when you find out your target is a small fry but the lows make the highs that much better.

Facing a variety of threats is much more fun. Unconventional is good.

[frogbeastegg]

BG series mixed both. Sometimes you had hordes of lower threat enemies and the danger came from their numbers. Others you found a dragon waiting behind the door. Many environments had traps too, and they could complicate fights something chronic.

Most RPGs decrease in difficulty as your character powers up. Stomping around the world with god-like powers is fun for a short while and then quickly becomes dull once you realise that the battles are a waste of your time. It's nice to know that there's always something nastier to try out your upgraded skills on.

[TinCow]

But wouldn't hitting the roof be more realistic, in a sense? Becoming as powerful as you could ever be, then make the game more about players skill of managing tactics, style and ability?

I think the Baldur's Gate series is somewhat unique in that it truly is epic. Other games have claimed to be 'epic' in scale, but they rarely are. In BG, you start as a kid who's never left a glorified library and eventually become a God. Not a 'minor' God either, one of the big ones. The final Throne of Bhaal campaign actually represents these very well, by throwing massive hordes of enemies at you that barely slow you down. You truly feel like you're nearing God-hood when you carve your way through actual armies almost single-handedly. The challenges aren't the mortals you're fighting, they are your fellow competitors for the vacant God seat, and they are also essentially demi-gods themselves.

As for the game being about tactics... there are few games in existence that have ever done tactical combat as well as the BG series. Indeed, by the end of the final campaign, your enemies are so difficult that you often have to use very precisely timed and coordinated tactics to bring down their defenses and eliminate them before they overwhelm you. And that's with the nerfed battles that the game shipped with. The designers later released unofficial mods which restored the final battles to their original difficulty level. Those battles are some of the hardest parts I have ever experienced in any game ever, regardless of genre... and that's WHILE you're essentially a god.

This is one of the reasons people revere the BG series so much: not only a great storyline, but absolutely superb combat from beginning to end.

[Vladimir]

I think the Baldur's Gate series is somewhat unique in that it truly is epic. Other games have claimed to be 'epic' in scale, but they rarely are. In BG, you start as a kid who's never left a glorified library and eventually become a God. Not a 'minor' God either, one of the big ones. The final Throne of Bhaal campaign actually represents these very well, by throwing massive hordes of enemies at you that barely slow you down. You truly feel like you're nearing God-hood when you carve your way through actual armies almost single-handedly. The challenges aren't the mortals you're fighting, they are your fellow competitors for the vacant God seat, and they are also essentially demi-gods themselves.

As for the game being about tactics... there are few games in existence that have ever done tactical combat as well as the BG series. Indeed, by the end of the final campaign, your enemies are so difficult that you often have to use very precisely timed and coordinated tactics to bring down their defenses and eliminate them before they overwhelm you. And that's with the nerfed battles that the game shipped with. The designers later released unofficial mods which restored the final battles to their original difficulty level. Those battles are some of the hardest parts I have ever experienced in any game ever, regardless of genre... and that's WHILE you're essentially a god.

This is one of the reasons people revere the BG series so much: not only a great storyline, but absolutely superb combat from beginning to end.

Quoted for truth. The designers have a right to be proud of their work.

I have a problem with games like DA:O try to emulate that success. I say strike out and make your own. Then people will refer to BG as two letters with outdated graphics.

[Meneldil]

I think the Baldur's Gate series is somewhat unique in that it truly is epic. Other games have claimed to be 'epic' in scale, but they rarely are. In BG, you start as a kid who's never left a glorified library and eventually become a God. Not a 'minor' God either, one of the big ones. The final Throne of Bhaal campaign actually represents these very well, by throwing massive hordes of enemies at you that barely slow you down. You truly feel like you're nearing God-hood when you carve your way through actual armies almost single-handedly. The challenges aren't the mortals you're fighting, they are your fellow competitors for the vacant God seat, and they are also essentially demi-gods themselves.

As for the game being about tactics... there are few games in existence that have ever done tactical combat as well as the BG series. Indeed, by the end of the final campaign, your enemies are so difficult that you often have to use very precisely timed and coordinated tactics to bring down their defenses and eliminate them before they overwhelm you. And that's with the nerfed battles that the game shipped with. The designers later released unofficial mods which restored the final battles to their original difficulty level. Those battles are some of the hardest parts I have ever experienced in any game ever, regardless of genre... and that's WHILE you're essentially a god.

This is one of the reasons people revere the BG series so much: not only a great storyline, but absolutely superb combat from beginning to end.

Two words : Durlag's tower. The best freaking video game dungeon ever.

To my shame, I don't remember that much BG2 expansion. I'd have to replay all the serie just to get to it. I might very well do it if I find the time someday.

[Zenicetus]

But wouldn't hitting the roof be more realistic, in a sense? Becoming as powerful as you could ever be, then make the game more about players skill of managing tactics, style and ability?

There are two problems with that approach, realistic as it may be. First, a certain percentage of the RPG player base is addicted to the leveling process itself as a big part of a game's reward system, and won't have fun once it stops. I'll bet Blizzard lost a chunk of its subscriber base between the level cap for the first version of WoW, and the first major expansion that raised the roof.

Second, when the level cap is hit, there has to be something else to keep the player interested. Suddenly the quality of whatever story line you haven't seen yet, and whatever NPC's you haven't interacted with yet, becomes twice as important.

I noticed this when playing the first two expansion DLC's for Fallout 3, which were released after I hit the level cap in the main campaign (the third expansion after these did raise the level cap). I was much more critical of the quality and length of those first two F3 DLC's, the story lines especially, because my character was already as strong as he was going to get. That's just human nature. Your game had better be really outstanding, if you're going to cap the levels before the player has seen all the content.

[Beskar]

There are two problems with that approach, realistic as it may be. First, a certain percentage of the RPG player base is addicted to the leveling process itself as a big part of a game's reward system, and won't have fun once it stops. I'll bet Blizzard lost a chunk of its subscriber base between the level cap for the first version of WoW, and the first major expansion that raised the roof.

Second, when the level cap is hit, there has to be something else to keep the player interested. Suddenly the quality of whatever story line you haven't seen yet, and whatever NPC's you haven't interacted with yet, becomes twice as important.

I noticed this when playing the first two expansion DLC's for Fallout 3, which were released after I hit the level cap in the main campaign (the third expansion after these did raise the level cap). I was much more critical of the quality and length of those first two F3 DLC's, the story lines especially, because my character was already as strong as he was going to get. That's just human nature. Your game had better be really outstanding, if you're going to cap the levels before the player has seen all the content.

I always enjoy the game more when you don't need to level, so all you have to worry about is having fun and doing the storyline. Nothing is more annoying to me than having to grind, grind, grind just to get access to snippets of that. A reason I really dislike MMORPG's.