Dragon Age....I hate to admit it, but derp roads killed it..

[Kaanyrvhok]

Sounds like BG2 (except you didn't make potions). Then again, I mostly didn't need potions and hoarded them big time, because I could go through entire battles and not be hit at all. I have NEVER fought a DA battle where I didn't take damage. And, if I wans't careful, even the simplest of fights could end up with my guys bleeding out. Not BG2 where I cna literally have my mage melee one on one and win. GL doing that with a DA mage outside the mage epilogue.

Thats not a good thing.

 

[JarlFrank]

Just finished the Derp Roads and I gotta say... they weren't as bad as I expected. Didn't even mind them as much as the temple with the hordes of cultists, even mostly enjoyed Orthan Thaig (where three sidequests can be concluded) and the rest wasn't so bad either. Temple seemed far more out-stretched to me.

 

[Volourn]

"And still how many times in DA have you tried for several hours to win a fight (like with certain boss fights in BG2) until you finally invented a working approach? Maybe the average encounter difficulty is really higher in DA, however imo it lacks the highlights."

I never took an hour to defeta a boss/encounter in BG2. Never took more thna 3 tries. I have a sad, shameful secret to share about DA, though, as it makes me look like a pussy. I've had to lower dififuclty to beat a boss after dying so much just so I can slow down combat and figure out the best strategy ebfore pushing it back up to beat it 'legit'. I also had to take a break from the game because some fights were turning me into a rager.


"Thats not a good thing."

yes, it is. Because the fights were easy but if I stopp trying and just pointedd and clicked my guys to simply attack, I would lose. if I actually tried, the fights were then easy. DA - even with the tatics on - doesn't let the game play itself unlike many BG2 fights.


"Chests rarely contain anything good (another design flaw) and are a reward for having a rogue (instead of it being the other way around)."

I don't think the chests are too bad. To me, it makes sense that most high powered items that a character would have, they'd already be using right? Most chest should simply have gems and coinage. That said, some chests, should have special items, but they should be rare.

Seriosuly, why a powerful mage for example have two warrior lackies yet keep that uber sword inside a chest but not have one of them use it?


As for magic books, another place to get it: Make the deal with the Redcliffe Demon.

 

[Thrasher]

I'm finding myself replaying battles, a LOT.

Why? Because I want to see if I can play an approach without having to resort to potions or other consumables.

I just wish there was auotpause on every turn like Drakensang.

This game....

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

"Thats not a good thing."

yes, it is. Because the fights were easy but if I stopp trying and just pointedd and clicked my guys to simply attack, I would lose. if I actually tried, the fights were then easy. DA - even with the tatics on - doesn't let the game play itself unlike many BG2 fights.

As you can probably gather I prefer combat that isnt so grounded in the mathamtical subtraction of HP especially with 3D graphics. In BG you couldnt hide behind shit to avoid a Medusa's gaze, or fly, pick up a chair, etc etc and you still cant do that in DA.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I never took an hour to defeta a boss/encounter in BG2. Never took more thna 3 tries. I have a sad, shameful secret to share about DA, though, as it makes me look like a pussy. I've had to lower dififuclty to beat a boss after dying so much just so I can slow down combat and figure out the best strategy ebfore pushing it back up to beat it 'legit'. I also had to take a break from the game because some fights were turning me into a rager.

hmmm, Kangaxx, Irenicus, Irenicus in the pocket plane, Firkraag, Demogorgon, the last fight vs the wardens of the seal of demogorgon, the fights vs the 5, the ascension fight, all beat without difficulty and in the first tries?
Why do you lie?

my own *secret*: on first playthru (hard) I decreased difficulty to easy 1 time (in the mage tower vs the templar and desire demon) because after the cutscene the templar one-shot-killed my PC unerringly. This time on nightmare this fight wasn't a problem though *shrug*

 

[Volourn]

"hmmm, Kangaxx, Irenicus, Irenicus in the pocket plane, Firkraag, Demogorgon, the last fight vs the wardens of the seal of demogorgon, the fights vs the 5, the ascension fight, all beat without difficulty and in the first tries?
Why do you lie?"

No more than 3. I don't play shitty mods so ascension doens't fuckin' count. And, the fact you need to you some silly mod to try to prove how tough BG2 was shows how lame it is and how it cna't compete with DA.

I bet, with mods, I can make even the easiest of games impossible to beat. LMFAO

Let's deal with vanilla crap.

P.S. Kangaxx is a special case as I missed him the first time and was spoiled ebfore I played the game 2nd time so chances are I probably would have lost more than a few times since there is only a few very cheesy ways to beat him since Kangaxx himself is one of the cheeiest bosses ever in a game. And, I say that depsite him being cool.

His DA counterpart is an example of a really tough boss that doesn't need flat out cheese to be challenging.


" In BG you couldnt hide behind shit to avoid a Medusa's gaze, or fly, pick up a chair, etc etc and you still cant do that in DA."

What does this prove? Isn't the argument that one or the other is better? You gave an example of them being equal in a certain aspects. It's gets us nowhere (well, the convo isn't going anywhere anyways sicne people are gonna think what they think,lol).

 

[hiver]

Volly, did you play on core rules?

 

[Volourn]

BG2: D&D Hardcore Rules
DA: Hard

 

[hiver]

Thing is some people that love to talk how easy some BG2 battles are forget that it comes from playing a game a lot of times over and over.

 

[Volourn]

I played BG2 3 times. Don't asusme shit.

 

[DiverNB]

One thing that really just chapped my ass about DA were the boss Fights. Does it have an Orange Name? Well forget about any tactics fuck face! Line your healers up, spam health potions and health spells, and whack away! All other spells / special debilitating attacks are fucking useless.

I had a lot more fun fighting the vaste hordes of Darkspawn, which everyone on this forum seems to have hated.

Also, I think I might have to disagree with the comment that DA has "fantastic quest design"
It certainly has some good quests, but I think that overall it was rather lacking, and not just because of the Chanter's board. It had some good ideas (Such as the quest where you read a support message for Loghaine's troops, and go and kill them instead of helping) but I feel that most of them were undeveloped.

Taking for example the quest above, it would have been fun to able to lay an ambush, or better yet, if you had already saved the Arl of Redcliffe, call on his troops to attack Loghaine's men. I feel with the next installment, however, they really have a chance to expand upon the ideas in DA:O and make a Great game instead of a good game.

As for which is better, DA or BG2, I still have to go with BG2. The presentation of the quests was a bit better I thought. As far as combat goes between the two, I feel they pretty much even out, as both suffer from different short comings.

 

[Volourn]

All other spells / special debilitating attacks are fucking useless"

This simply isn't true. If it wans't for spells like paralsysis, I'd have pretty much zero chance in beating individual enemy 'bosses' like revenants (even thoguh they technically aren't bosses) or Branka.

Itr's funny you make thata rgument when i've seen other DA bashers criticze DA for special spells/debilitating attacks are too powerful versus powers.

I've read people bragging how they raped x boss by simple casting cone of cold over. *shrug*

So.. question remains... which basher group is correct?

The group that claims these spells are too useful, or just plain useless versus bosses?

Hmm.. Great Pickle, Indeed.

 

[Serious_Business]

Bullshit

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

So.. question remains... which basher group is correct?

both probably because 1) it's depends on your spell picks (which you can never change, I'm sure I've mentioned this already) 2) I think it also depends on whether you pumped everything in magic or not. Dumping all points into magic is the way to go for a mage, as I discovered by now, despite the notion that all stats are useful

 

[Jaesun]

r00fles!

 

[Mantiis]

All other spells / special debilitating attacks are fucking useless.

They have a higher rate of resisting a spell but you can hex them or use the taunt + forcefield = beer technique.

I remember why this didn't work in BG2 - they lost aggro on the forcefielded target whereas in DA they will stick to the fucker after a taunt ignoring the fact that the target isn't doing any damage to them and there are three other dudes beating the crap out of them at range.

@VD - the reason magic vs skills is broken is damage output vs skills and cooldowns. The damage a mage can do far outways what a warrior can do because they have access to multiple AoE damage dealing spells whereas a warrior/rogue generally only has a couple of AoE skills with ginormous cool downs. So the mage can spam and the warrior/rogue can't, this is also made worse by potion spamming for mages as it is ridiculously easy to make mana pots.

We could also go into the utility of mage's spells vs other class's skills but I can't be stuffed.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Chests rarely contain anything good (another design flaw) and are a reward for having a rogue (instead of it being the other way around).

Other way around? Rogues should rarely contain anything good if you open them up, and should be a reward for lugging a chest along? Or rogues should come out of chests? Or rogues with prominent chests get extra reward? Unlock rogue as a reward for unlocking chests?

 

[Azrael the cat]

All other spells / special debilitating attacks are fucking useless.

They have a higher rate of resisting a spell but you can hex them or use the taunt + forcefield = beer technique.

So far I've resisted using that cheesy AI exploit, even when it required reloading the battle of Redcliffe about 4 times on hard.

 

[Grifthin]

Yes Mages have so much utility, they can't detect traps, they can't disarm traps and they can't pick locks. Just awesome.

Funny enough - I've never actually got the ai to keep attacking my Forcefield monkey. As soon as I cast forcefield the ai goes after other party members.

 

[Lesifoere]

Chests rarely contain anything good (another design flaw) and are a reward for having a rogue (instead of it being the other way around).

Other way around? Rogues should rarely contain anything good if you open them up, and should be a reward for lugging a chest along? Or rogues should come out of chests? Or rogues with prominent chests get extra reward? Unlock rogue as a reward for unlocking chests?

I physically lol'ed like a loon. Thank you for this comment.

Funny enough - I've never actually got the ai to keep attacking my Forcefield monkey. As soon as I cast forcefield the ai goes after other party members.

Either something's odd or your game shipped with a special edition of Radiant AI or something, because in my playthrough, enemies will keep beating the target. This even happened when I had my PC force-field herself.

 

[Volourn]

"they lost aggro on the forcefielded target whereas in DA they will stick to the fucker after a taunt ignoring the fact that the target isn't doing any damage to them and there are three other dudes beating the crap out of them at range."

I find it quite the opposite.


"Funny enough - I've never actually got the ai to keep attacking my Forcefield monkey. As soon as I cast forcefield the ai goes after other party members."

That's because people ar eherp derping and making up bullshit a sin the post I had just quoted wher eit claims this didn't happen in BG2 with its version. LMAO

The AI in DA doesn't just stick with one target throughout. Their initital goal is to target the heavily armed but if they get attacked by someone else they will attack. To prove this, walk into a fight, have your mage cast a fireball and see who gets attack. It won't be the fighters that's for damn sure. Even talents like taunt aren't always enough to make thems witch targets, and when they do work it's not permenant.


"@VD - the reason magic vs skills is broken is damage output vs skills and cooldowns. The damage a mage can do far outways what a warrior can do because they have access to multiple AoE damage dealing spells whereas a warrior/rogue generally only has a couple of AoE skills with ginormous cool downs. So the mage can spam and the warrior/rogue can't, this is also made worse by potion spamming for mages as it is ridiculously easy to make mana pots."

WOAH, fuckin' woah. Mages are the tougher simpler because they have more AOE attacks? You kididn' me right because in BG2, non casters tend not to have any aoie attacks. At least warriors and rogues can have access to at least a few aoe attacks. LMAO

Once agin, someone fallsinto their own herp derp trap.



"both probably because 1) it's depends on your spell picks (which you can never change, I'm sure I've mentioned this already)"

Oh, please. You get enough talent points that having 'access to the wrong spells' should never be an issue.


" 2) I think it also depends on whether you pumped everything in magic or not. Dumping all points into magic is the way to go for a mage, as I discovered by now, despite the notion that all stats are useful"

All stats are useful; but obviously magic is gonna be *most* useful to a mage. My god, why do people fail the logic test. That said, if you focus on magic you won't have as many which means you won't be able to have enough for long duration spells (ie. that skele summon uses up quite a bit of mana), if you have no con, any half decent enemy will likely kill you in 2-4 hits with ease, if you have no cunning your skills won't be as useful espicially an important one like coercion, if you have no dex you'll be even easier to hit. Strength is probably the elats important stat for mages which makes perfect sense but even that cna be useful depending on your mage build.

A lot more useful than BG2 stats which can lead to basiclaly have the stats being absolutely useless. In DA, at absolute most, a mage might be able tow rite off strength and dex. And, even they are plenty useful.

But, yeah, MAGIC being most useful for a MAGE is a horrible, horrible idea. I mean, seriously. WTF?


"Either something's odd or your game shipped with a special edition of Radiant AI or something, because in my playthrough, enemies will keep beating the target. This even happened when I had my PC force-field herself."

More liekly it means you are simply ful of shit. Yeah, that option is likely the correct one.

 

[Mantiis]

WOAH, fuckin' woah. Mages are the tougher simpler because they have more AOE attacks? You kididn' me right because in BG2, non casters tend not to have any aoie attacks. At least warriors and rogues can have access to at least a few aoe attacks. LMAO

Once agin, someone fallsinto their own herp derp trap.

I'll bold the bits and avoid flaming you:

the reason magic vs skills is broken is damage output vs skills and cooldowns. The damage a mage can do far outways what a warrior can do because they have access to multiple AoE damage dealing spells whereas a warrior/rogue generally only has a couple of AoE skills with ginormous cool downs. So the mage can spam and the warrior/rogue can't, this is also made worse by potion spamming for mages as it is ridiculously easy to make mana pots.

In BG2 you couldn't spam your AoE spells unless you were sure you could rest afterwards, in DA just drink a pot. This resulted in Korgan being my main damage dealer in BG2.

And the force field + taunt thing does work.

I really don't know why you feel the need to defend the broken combat - DA has other positives but the combat certainly isn't one of them.

 

[Lesifoere]

IIRC, if you establish aggro before you force field the character, then enemies will stick to him/her like a leech. That's why my mage PC can't just drop aggro by FFing herself after shitting out a virulent walking bomb, a fireball, and probably a chain lightning.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

That's because people ar eherp derping and making up bullshit a sin the post I had just quoted wher eit claims this didn't happen in BG2 with its version. LMAO

No they don't make shit up. Every revenant would ignore my PC at first but when he reached approx 50% HP he would go straight after the PC ignoring everything else even ignoring the fact the PC was under Forcecage. That's an observation and not *making shit up*. Maybe ur xbawks version of the game is super smart compared to the pc version. who knows.

The AI in DA doesn't just stick with one target throughout. Their initital goal is to target the heavily armed but if they get attacked by someone else they will attack. To prove this, walk into a fight, have your mage cast a fireball and see who gets attack. It won't be the fighters that's for damn sure. Even talents like taunt aren't always enough to make thems witch targets, and when they do work it's not permenant.

they go after the mages often enough, despite taunt etc that much is true

Oh, please. You get enough talent points that having 'access to the wrong spells' should never be an issue.

No. It is an issue. But I'm tired of repeating myself.

But, yeah, MAGIC being most useful for a MAGE is a horrible, horrible idea. I mean, seriously. WTF?

stop making shit up. Where did I say that this was horrible? I merely pointed out that I made the error of putting a few points into Dex, Con, Willpower when it would have been way better to dump everything into Magic. You accuse others of making shit up than you go ahead and do it yourself, there is a word for that: hypocrisy.



You are very quick to spot the good things in DA, but seem to have a blind eye for the flaws. Objectivity is not one of your strengths I'd wager.