Dragon Age Gamespot Review

[Elzair]

Actually come on guys.

If you want a non-linear game where your dudes get significantly more powerful, it is pretty hard to avoid level scaling.

First of all, Bioware games are NEVER nonlinear.

Second of all, there are several examples of (relatively) nonlinear games featuring no level-scaling: Gothic I, II & III, Ultima IV, V, VI, VII, etc.

 

[Silellak]

Re: Uh oh

"Origins remains tough because the challenge ups its ante as the campaign unfolds. Enemies level up alongside you, which can be a little absurd if one dwells on it – a mere Captain of the Guard towards the end turns out to be several magnitudes of order more powerful than the first giant Ogre fought at the beginning, but the trick is that the scale of the battles increase alongside you as well. What starts off as taking down uncoordinated roving bands of blaggards ends up with facing off against entire armies of beastly brethren. And all shall fall at your sword. "

Enemies level up alongside you? That reminds me of some other game, what is it's name again? Oh ya, Fallout 3.

Big thumbs down if this is the case

Really, I was aware of the level-scaling crap, but I was under the impression that they didn't go full Beth but kept it on a minimal level. And now I read this. Every possibility for me to play this game is now gone. This was the last bastion, and it's fallen. My DA torrent was actually half-finished but I stopped downloading it after reading this.

Seems that Bio thinks they got this wrong with BG but Beth got it right with Oblivion. Yes they can be that stupid. It is also shocking seeing such game mechanics being adopted not by some nobody rpg developer trying to make a quick buck by copying Beth, but by Bio who already have a huge reputation and don't need to adopt such "popular" mechanics in their game to be successful with the mass market. Or it could be that they're just lazy and prefer to make stupid trailers instead of spending time balancing their game. Something they've done successfully in the past but they don't think there's any room for that in the in the next-gen landscape. As long as every character has its own voice all should be fine:

It's cute that you think the people responsible for balancing the game are the same as the people responsible for putting together the stupid marketing trailers.

 

[Cropper]

Actually come on guys.

If you want a non-linear game where your dudes get significantly more powerful, it is pretty hard to avoid level scaling.

Level scaling is bullshit. Randomized, very small zones of levelling per monster (maybe 2-3 levels) is acceptable, but anything more than that is ridiculous.

Meaning, a goblin can acceptably be say level 1-4 (individually randomized, not scaled) but never level 20 even if you meet them later in the game. D&D figured this out a long time ago in every monster manual you will read.

If you want to make it harder, throw in more of them (up to a point, because that can get ridiculous as well), but never make super goblins just because you want to keep them near your level. This is bad design and begins to negate the point of levelling in the first place AKA Oblivion

 

[The Feral Kid]

Re: Uh oh

"Origins remains tough because the challenge ups its ante as the campaign unfolds. Enemies level up alongside you, which can be a little absurd if one dwells on it – a mere Captain of the Guard towards the end turns out to be several magnitudes of order more powerful than the first giant Ogre fought at the beginning, but the trick is that the scale of the battles increase alongside you as well. What starts off as taking down uncoordinated roving bands of blaggards ends up with facing off against entire armies of beastly brethren. And all shall fall at your sword. "

Enemies level up alongside you? That reminds me of some other game, what is it's name again? Oh ya, Fallout 3.

Big thumbs down if this is the case

Really, I was aware of the level-scaling crap, but I was under the impression that they didn't go full Beth but kept it on a minimal level. And now I read this. Every possibility for me to play this game is now gone. This was the last bastion, and it's fallen. My DA torrent was actually half-finished but I stopped downloading it after reading this.

Seems that Bio thinks they got this wrong with BG but Beth got it right with Oblivion. Yes they can be that stupid. It is also shocking seeing such game mechanics being adopted not by some nobody rpg developer trying to make a quick buck by copying Beth, but by Bio who already have a huge reputation and don't need to adopt such "popular" mechanics in their game to be successful with the mass market. Or it could be that they're just lazy and prefer to make stupid trailers instead of spending time balancing their game. Something they've done successfully in the past but they don't think there's any room for that in the in the next-gen landscape. As long as every character has its own voice all should be fine:

It's cute that you think the people responsible for balancing the game are the same as the people responsible for putting together the stupid marketing trailers.

You're such a fucking moron for thinking that's what I said. It has noting to do with work assignments, rather that the focus of a company is shifting from actual gameplay to marketing campaings.

 

[Silellak]

Re: Uh oh

"Origins remains tough because the challenge ups its ante as the campaign unfolds. Enemies level up alongside you, which can be a little absurd if one dwells on it – a mere Captain of the Guard towards the end turns out to be several magnitudes of order more powerful than the first giant Ogre fought at the beginning, but the trick is that the scale of the battles increase alongside you as well. What starts off as taking down uncoordinated roving bands of blaggards ends up with facing off against entire armies of beastly brethren. And all shall fall at your sword. "

Enemies level up alongside you? That reminds me of some other game, what is it's name again? Oh ya, Fallout 3.

Big thumbs down if this is the case

Really, I was aware of the level-scaling crap, but I was under the impression that they didn't go full Beth but kept it on a minimal level. And now I read this. Every possibility for me to play this game is now gone. This was the last bastion, and it's fallen. My DA torrent was actually half-finished but I stopped downloading it after reading this.

Seems that Bio thinks they got this wrong with BG but Beth got it right with Oblivion. Yes they can be that stupid. It is also shocking seeing such game mechanics being adopted not by some nobody rpg developer trying to make a quick buck by copying Beth, but by Bio who already have a huge reputation and don't need to adopt such "popular" mechanics in their game to be successful with the mass market. Or it could be that they're just lazy and prefer to make stupid trailers instead of spending time balancing their game. Something they've done successfully in the past but they don't think there's any room for that in the in the next-gen landscape. As long as every character has its own voice all should be fine:

It's cute that you think the people responsible for balancing the game are the same as the people responsible for putting together the stupid marketing trailers.

You're such a fucking moron for thinking that's what I said. It has noting to do with work assignments, rather that the focus of a company is shifting from actual gameplay to marketing campaings.

And it's still cute that you think this "focus shift" of the company from gameplay to marketing somehow influenced the gameplay balance.

 

[GarfunkeL]

And it's not cute at all that you people have some sort of need to defend the level-scaling by talking out of your ass. Nobody knows how much the enemies scale. Sure, Bio claims that it's "limited" and "persistent". But nobody knows for sure what it actually means in the game.

And Fallout survived without level scaling. So did Arcanum. Oh and ToEE. And VtM:B. And Fallout2. And IWD.

But somehow you can't make rpg's anymore without level-scaling.

 

[The Feral Kid]

Re: Uh oh

And it's still cute that you think this "focus shift" of the company from gameplay to marketing somehow influenced the gameplay balance.

It doesn't? When the priority is not the game itself but how you will market it, you think it doesn't affect the game content? Boy, you are dumb.

 

[Silellak]

And it's not cute at all that you people have some sort of need to defend the level-scaling by talking out of your ass. Nobody knows how much the enemies scale. Sure, Bio claims that it's "limited" and "persistent". But nobody knows for sure what it actually means in the game.

And Fallout survived without level scaling. So did Arcanum. Oh and ToEE. And VtM:B. And Fallout2. And IWD.

But somehow you can't make rpg's anymore without level-scaling.

Yup, the reliance of modern RPGs on level-scaling is rather distressing, I agree. Just because the brand of level scaling used in DA isn't as God-awful as the one in Oblivion doesn't mean I want it there at all, it just means it might be somewhat easier to stomach.

Though the fact that half of the games you mentioned were financial failures created by a now-extinct company might help explain why the remaining RPG companies want to broaden the appeal of their games by simplifying them with features such as level scaling.

And it's still cute that you think this "focus shift" of the company from gameplay to marketing somehow influenced the gameplay balance.

It doesn't? When the priority is not the game itself but how you will market it, you think it doesn't affect the game content? Boy, you are dumb.

Have you like, worked at a programming job in real life? At all? The people responsible for the gameplay balance in DA would've long-since moved on to a new development project - be it DLC for DA or another game entirely - while the marketing bullshit was being finalized and released. The PC version of DA has been ready for some time - I would highly doubt any significant gameplay changes were made in the last year. The console versions were being finished and the PC developers had moved on to whatever project fell on their plate next. Marketing is an entirely separate entity from the behind-the-scenes workings.

 

[Razz]

To casually change the subject, has anyone seen Eurogamer's review? It was quite shockingly negative (ie not completely cocksucking) in its judgement. Still an 8/10 in the end, but that seems pretty freaking low compared to the other mainstream game journalists.

Some highlights:

And although it's a work of great accomplishment and craftsmanship - and no small amount of ambition - Dragon Age is sorely lacking in the things that make a truly great role-playing game, or any game for that matter: vision, inspiration, soul.

Somewhere in its journey back to its roots, BioWare has got lost in the dense tangle of what it was trying to accomplish. It hasn't been able to see the wood for the trees. It has summoned an entire world into existence in the most meticulous detail, but failed to give it an identity beyond the blandest cliché. It has created living characters that respond like humans, but speak like dictionaries and move like mannequins. It has engineered solidly absorbing RPG gameplay and character progression and stranded them in a succession of hackneyed and hide-bound scenarios.

(...)

Meaningful choices are lost in a near-infinite number of meaningless ones, consequences are only vaguely defined before the fact, and the cold machinations of the cast stir admiration for the game's clever, systematic plotting, but seldom emotion.

(...)

But any desire to play it again is ultimately squashed, for many reasons which can be boiled down to one. Although the systems which make up Dragon Age's world are all interesting and well-realised - the companion interaction, the plotting, the character progression, the combat - the world itself is neither.

(..)

Side quests are perfunctory and unappealing filler, usually boiling down to a treasure hunt or a long explanation for a short scrap. (There is hope that downloadable content will serve the game better in the long run, with the Stone Prisoner launch pack offering a short but satisfying episode in a new location, some tasty items and an amusing new companion.) Dungeons are designed with care but mostly without imagination, only occasionally leavening the maze-like, monster-infested ruined temples with the odd puzzle or dimensional warp. The game's locations are cramped, dull and devoid of atmosphere, surrounded by invisible walls and fractured by loading times. There's no sense of a contiguous, believable world out there, which is one thing in a linear action game - quite another in a sprawling, supposedly franchise-founding RPG.

(...)

There aren't many working in high fantasy who can lay claim to total originality. Nor is there anything inherently dull and derivative about elves, dragons and dwarves. But there's something missing from Dragon Age. There's no alternative to the eeriness of Elder Scrolls, the colourful exuberance of Warcraft, the gritty savagery of Warhammer, the classical lyricism of Tolkien.

In its desperation to infuse this setting with "maturity" - be it of the sober, political kind, or the game's painfully clumsy gore and sex - BioWare has forgotten the key ingredient of any fantasy: the fantastical. Without it, you're still left with a competent, often compelling, impressively detailed and immense RPG, but it's one that casts no spell.

Of course there are plenty of lulz and (overly?) positive comments in there as well, but I just thought this negativity was.. remarkable, or at least contradicts a lot of other mainstream reviews.

 

[Cropper]

Re: Uh oh

And it's still cute that you think this "focus shift" of the company from gameplay to marketing somehow influenced the gameplay balance.

I'm guessing Silellak is either a Bethesda PR agent or a member of Scientology. Both share many commonalities.

 

[hiver]

Though the fact that half of the games you mentioned were financial failures created by a now-extinct company might help explain why the remaining RPG companies want to broaden the appeal of their games by simplifying them with features such as level scaling.

So those games didnt sell so well as nowadays mainstream diarrhea because they didnt have level scaling?
Please, little more caution when writing. You might fall into that big deep h... too late.

 

[Silellak]

Re: Uh oh

And it's still cute that you think this "focus shift" of the company from gameplay to marketing somehow influenced the gameplay balance.

I'm guessing Silellak is either a Bethesda PR agent or a member of Scientology. Both share many commonalities.

Or, you know, someone who has worked in the software industry and actually knows how this shit works.

I can tell you that the way products I've worked on have been marketed has had absolutely no influence on how much polish I've been able to give those products behind-the-scenes. Marketing and development are two very different machines, and rarely cross paths, certainly not to the point where development skimps on certain features because they have to "help" with the marketing, even if the company had switched to "marketing mode".

Though the fact that half of the games you mentioned were financial failures created by a now-extinct company might help explain why the remaining RPG companies want to broaden the appeal of their games by simplifying them with features such as level scaling.

So those games didnt sell so well as nowadays mainstream diarrhea because they didnt have level scaling?
Please, little more caution when writing. You might fall into that big deep h... too late.

No, that's retarded. Of course they didn't fail because they didn't have level scaling. But the failure of more "hardcore" RPGs has certainly driven remaining RPG developers to make their releases more mainstream and user-friendly, and unfortunately level scaling is part of that.

 

[hiver]

Just cautioning.

And talking about "failure" of those games is another rather ambiguous thing. Most of people here know why Interplay took down Black Isle with it and why Troika didnt survive.

It wasnt because "hard coreism" of their games, or because of their "non-accessibility" - it was purely because of stupidity of publishers and one very special individual who could still get his legs broken one of these days.. sorta.

 

[The Feral Kid]

Have you like, worked at a programming job in real life? At all? The people responsible for the gameplay balance in DA would've long-since moved on to a new development project - be it DLC for DA or another game entirely - while the marketing bullshit was being finalized and released. The PC version of DA has been ready for some time - I would highly doubt any significant gameplay changes were made in the last year. The console versions were being finished and the PC developers had moved on to whatever project fell on their plate next. Marketing is an entirely separate entity from the behind-the-scenes workings.

I think you took the example about the marketing trailer too seriously, when we could use dozens to point out the fact that Bio's primary concern was how to make this game look good on surface rather than focus on things that actually matter. So their focus was on making trailers, using the words "mature" and "gritty", boasting about hundreds of voice-actors, writing stupid romances, instead of taking care on things like game balance. I already stated that where people are assigned or how many is irrelevant, as I'm talking about overall corporate policy which has nothing to do with personnel.

 

[bonch]

Actually come on guys.

If you want a non-linear game where your dudes get significantly more powerful, it is pretty hard to avoid level scaling.

Level scaling is bullshit. Randomized, very small zones of levelling per monster (maybe 2-3 levels) is acceptable, but anything more than that is ridiculous.

Meaning, a goblin can acceptably be say level 1-4 (individually randomized, not scaled) but never level 20 even if you meet them later in the game. D&D figured this out a long time ago in every monster manual you will read.

Hello? It's already been stated that this is what Dragon Age does.

 

[Cropper]

Hello? It's already been stated that this is what Dragon Age does.

Not according to the article this post is based on. Re-read my first post before you reply. Guards being escalated to levels that are "multitudes greater" than at the beginning of the game is NOT randomized small scale levelling.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Or just because you add sugar to a shit it becomes tastier?

Well, do you eat shit because it's sweet, or would you rather add salt and vinegar to improve the taste?

I tried the game today. There's not much to say, I spent most of the time laughing drunkenly at cinematic cutscenes of a character with a nose the size of his face and entirely without chin, or the horrid elf hag I made. It's a mark of a real role-playing game to have more eyeshadow sliders than skills or stats (still impossible to make a fat character because that would be wrong). About combat, well, it's not turn-based, that's really all I have to say.

 

[Cropper]

About combat, well, it's not turn-based, that's really all I have to say.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that? There is no pausable combat? None at all? Like not even press the spacebar pausable combat?

Edit : Looks like there is pausable combat according to another thread.

 

[Grunker]

Searching... Thread status found. Updating...

Level of stupidity... Maximum. Attempting evasive maneuvers...

CRITICAL ERROR! IGNORANCE IDIOCY OVERLOAD! UNABLE TO AVOID CRITICAL MASS!

 

[draexem]

There aren't many working in high fantasy who can lay claim to total originality. Nor is there anything inherently dull and derivative about elves, dragons and dwarves. But there's something missing from Dragon Age. There's no alternative to the eeriness of Elder Scrolls, the colourful exuberance of Warcraft, the gritty savagery of Warhammer, the classical lyricism of Tolkien..

This sounds like to me that he thought Bioware's world was dull and mundane... but Oblivion's world had an extra little spark that made it interesting. please tell me that's not the case, and that he is referring to the Elder Scroll games BEFORE Oblivion.

No no, wait, HOLD THE PRESSES, I've found what this guy said about Oblivion. Here it is:

Oli Welsh: Honestly? I barely played it. I'm just not one for that lonely-sociopath-in-a-cruel-world thing that Bethesda does so well. But I was fascinated when a friend told me how he completely ignored the main thrust of the game, choosing instead to play through the Dark Brotherhood side-quest to completion - and then he left it there, completely satisfied with this deft little whodunnit. That it gave him the freedom to play what he wanted, how he wanted and then move on, without succumbing to videogames' chronic, goal-oriented OCD - that's all the evidence of Oblivion's genius I need.

This quote was taken from the page justifying Oblivion being the third best game Eurogamer has ever played.

 

[Weresloth]

Actually come on guys.

If you want a non-linear game where your dudes get significantly more powerful, it is pretty hard to avoid level scaling.

First of all, Bioware games are NEVER nonlinear.

Second of all, there are several examples of (relatively) nonlinear games featuring no level-scaling: Gothic I, II & III, Ultima IV, V, VI, VII, etc.

Would you not say that BG1 was non linear? Like most games it had a main quest, but it also had a lot of optionally explorable areas.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You only had 1 way to proceed through the game, so yes, BG1 was linear.

Get to Nashkel
Kill Mulahey in Mines
Kill Tranzig in Beregost
Destroy bandit camp (here is one glimmering light, you have three ways to get to the camp)
Destroy Cloakwood Mine
Reveal Doppelgangers
Get to Candlekeep
Escape and prove Sarevok was behind the murders
Kill Sarevok

Only way forward was to kill people. Kill kill kill. Forever.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Jesus Christ these are retarded arguments.

I've read all the recent threads regarding DA:O and one thing sticks out like a sore fucking thumb - in almost EVERY case, those that are wielding the hate stick and bashing the game from pillar to post - are the ones that have NOT PLAYED IT!!

The posts defending the game of presenting it in a somewhat more positive light are the ones PLAYING THE GAME!

This tells you all you need to know about the fucking retards that Skyway would call "the old codex". I say fuck the old codex.

I've been registered here for a couple of years and lurked here for much longer and it's become increasingly apparent that most of the so called "old timers" sole purpose in life is to bitch, moan and complain about every single game released after 2000 and/or every game that doesn't adhere to their strict 'set in concrete' idea of what constitutes a 'hardcore' RPG. All this without any basis in fact or little (if any), time spent actually playing the games they bitch about.

Fuck'em. Just a buch of retarded cocksucking nerds living in their parents basement with nothing better to do, trying to score (codex) points off each other on who can bitch the loudest - Skyway (MetalCraze) being the most extreme example.

DA:O is the best RPG to come along in fucking years regardless of weather it fits into your strict mould of rpg game mechanics - deal with it.... :twisted:

/rant off

 

[draexem]

I find it amusing that the sole review the Codex has posted (so far) to 'combat the Bioware hype machine' and to 'contradict the mainstream reviews' was written by a person who was convinced of Bethesda's (and Oblivion's) genius without really playing Oblivion. It seems appropriate somehow.

 

[Grunker]

You only had 1 way to proceed through the game, so yes, BG1 was linear.

Get to Nashkel
Kill Mulahey in Mines
Kill Tranzig in Beregost
Destroy bandit camp (here is one glimmering light, you have three ways to get to the camp)
Destroy Cloakwood Mine
Reveal Doppelgangers
Get to Candlekeep
Escape and prove Sarevok was behind the murders
Kill Sarevok

Only way forward was to kill people. Kill kill kill. Forever.

And of course, as we know from literature and film, stories in which killing take place are never written into the annals of history...

You might be of the opinion that a game without killing would be fresh, but it's pretty fucking hollow to yell: "THERE'S KILLING! BAD GAME!"

Fuck your freedoms. An extremely limited number of games featured no killing at all, even your loved golden oldies. Shut up about this already.