I had something of an epiphany when I played Guild Wars. For the first time, here was a self-labelled RPG that didn’t have characters kitted out in tons of magic items, which made a significant difference to your power level. Imagine it, an RPG where all the power came from the character herself, rather than the gear she was carrying. An RPG where you didn’t have to scrounge in every barrel and loot every battlefield for money, so you could buy the equipment you needed to justify your exalted position as someone who was going to save the world.
(Ofc you get complainers in the meta going on about how grinding is ruining the game, but they don’t know how good they’ve got it.)
The elemental tree isn’t particularly bad, but you don’t start with that. You start with Mind Blast, which, unupgraded…does a PBAoE knockback on nearby enemies. Who promptly run back up and get right back to attacking. Gosh, thanks.
I’m not sure why you would disagree that every level should provide a significant benefit. What’s the appeal of a system where you have to waste points or save up for multiple levels just to get something good?
I laid out my issue with Guild Wars’ system already. I don’t care about a luck factor. I don’t like randomized drops particularly. But I do want the gear and/or loot I get to be interesting and relevant, and I have yet to get anything in Guild Wars that was either. (Though, to be fair, it’s far from alone in that regard.) And then it unnecessarily complicates things with identification and harvesting kits despite the fact that there’s never any reason not to want to identify or harvest. I don’t object to the idea of crafting my own specific armor or customizing weapons to meet my needs. I just don’t think Guild Wars does anything to make either system compelling.
I can see why some people would describe the combat in Mass Effect 2 as better (although I’m not sure I’d agree, in that I didn’t like Gears of War 1 very much and ME2 does not in my mind notably improve on that formula), and for that matter why people would really like it and consider it GOTY material, even though I have a significantly dimmer view of it. As far as I can tell, it’s divisive not because it has many significant, objective flaws but because it makes some very different design choices from the first game in the series, which some people really like, and which some people (me) really don’t.
Dragon Age II does certainly follow in that mold in some respects, but it also has significant, almost universally acknowledged problems.
And FWIW, I tend to focus on what I didn’t like about both games in these threads because I really don’t want to see the third games in the franchises emulating them, but I did like both games enough to finish them. I just think their forebears were better.
By the time you reach Kirkwall, you should be level 3 or 4 and have 6 or 8 skill points to spend on things other than Mind Blast. Good heavens.
I laid out my issue with Guild Wars’ system already. I don’t care about a luck factor. I don’t like randomized drops particularly. But I do want the gear and/or loot I get to be interesting and relevant, and I have yet to get anything in Guild Wars that was either.
There is plenty of loot in GW that is interesting and relevant. However, it is interesting from an aesthetic point of view, and relevant from a social point of view. This is as it should be. Aesthetics are divorced from effectiveness, so that looking good doesn’t mean having to choose bad items; and items that are desirable as badges of seniority/wealth don’t actually confer any mechanical benefits, so that ppl who have been playing for longer don’t get an automatic advantage over newbies.
Come on, malkav. You want to talk about Mass Effect, don’t you? Let it out already.
in that I didn’t like Gears of War 1 very much and ME2 does not in my mind notably improve on that formula),
It does, by adding in decision points in situations outside combat, and having characters who provide more and better interaction than stock-standard “monsters! KILL!”. But you would expect that, since ME2 is an RPG. Only someone who did not care for RPGs would discount these factors when comparing ME2 and Gears of War.
And FWIW, I tend to focus on what I didn’t like about both games in these threads because I really don’t want to see the third games in the franchises emulating them, but I did like both games enough to finish them.
Yes, yes. You hate because you love. That’s what they always say.
I just think their forebears were better.
That’s also what they always say. What they usually mean is “change is bad”.
Nah, I said people who play RPGs with calculators in their hand would like this game. He says he is a mixnmaxer aka person who plays with a calculator when they play RPGs to which I say of course he likes it, that is what I just said. He gets pissy. That has nothing to do with shiny bits, and not linked to what I said I like about RPGs either. Nice try though.
Yes, people who like games with actual depth, as opposed to the illusion of depth, would like this game. DAO had the illusion of depth, in how it had dozens of skills that were variations on the same thing. However, those dozens of skills made for a nice array of icons at the bottom of the screen, which allowed those who like the illusion of depth to pretend that they represented something meaningful.
He says he is a mixnmaxer aka person who plays with a calculator when they play RPGs to which I say of course he likes it, that is what I just said.
You don’t need a calculator to notice the effect that Mana Clash has on enemy mages. That is another thing about D&D-style games and those who play them; the reification of imbalance into something desirable. It does not matter that certain classes are substantially better than others to the detriment of gameplay, as long as it’s “in-genre”. That of course begs the question of defining the genre, but attempts to do so generally meet with complaints about being “out-of-genre”.
That has nothing to do with shiny bits, and not linked to what I said I like about RPGs either.
It has plenty to do with shiny bits. Unless you have these bits to play with, there is nothing to minmax.
You must be describing yourself quite well here since most people playe DA:O in this thread and some played DA2… so I guess you’re one of those “who play them”. As for the rest of your statement, your catch all idea of what shiny bits are is interesting… as in it’s interesting they become whatever the hell it you want them to become. I won’t ask for definition… I got it now.
As for the rest, well I enjoyed the game. I really didn’t give a shit about what was balanced or what wasn’t. I had a party of characters to enjoy, some choices to be made, stuff to collect or disregard. I don’t approach my game with a spreadsheet or some need to min or max anything. I don’t need the best of the best and I could care less of Blow Jo had an easier time in Act II because he picked mage instead of rogue. I don’t care. It was fun… DA2… not.
As for the rest of your statement, your catch all idea of what shiny bits are is interesting… as in it’s interesting they become whatever the hell it you want them to become. I won’t ask for definition… I got it now.
There is a bit more to it than that. I recommend you read Robin Laws’ book on game mastering, where he defines RPGs as guys shopping for shiny bits. It’s a definite eye-opener.
As for the rest, well I enjoyed the game. I really didn’t give a shit about what was balanced or what wasn’t.
But you should, as it is a part of what has held the evolution of RPGs back for several years. D&D in dungeons; D&D in the wasteland; D&D in space. Now admittedly there is more of a case for a D&D-style game in the Dragon Age world, because it’s pretty bog-standard fantasy and (IIRC) was actually inspired by someone’s D&D campaign. Nevertheless, there is more to fantasy than simply repeating the same tropes of super-powered wizards, sturdy retainers, and crates of loot.
I had a party of characters to enjoy, some choices to be made, stuff to collect or disregard. I don’t approach my game with a spreadsheet or some need to min or max anything.
But you can do all those things in DA2 as well as DAO. In fact, there is even less of a need to play with a spreadsheet in DA2, because its base difficulty level is significantly dialed down compared to the first game; thus you are under less pressure to find optimal builds and strategies. Therefore, there must be more to it than simply what you state. I posit that it is because DAO hews much more closely to the stereotypical D&D-style game, with all its warts and charms, and that is what you are most comfortable with.
I can’t seem to think up any keywords Google likes - I saw that the Legacy DLC is “playable from any point in your quest”, but what about the other packs? In ME2, you had to start a new game to get Kasumi if you bought that pack mid-game, I believe. Anyone know? I’d like to get the extra companion but not right now.
My understanding is that the new companion is only available for the DLC content, not for the game as a whole. So in that sense you could play it whenever you want, including the post-completion save.
A single city would have been fine if they had actually done something with it, rather than it being a lame excuse for asset reuse. There was so much potential with the whole “10 year period” to have the setting evolve and show the results of C&C, but instead it has even less progression than the static ‘corruption creep’ 2D map in DAO. It might as well have taken place over a month with how much change occurs
