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

[Vault Dweller]

1.Better balance between hard and easy encounters. Well, "hard" is probably not a proper word for it, encounters in DA are not hard, they just requre caution, micro-management and use of magic . Normally that would be a good thing and i was happy with it until certain point in the game. But when it happens in each room of a multi-level dungeon it is too much, it becomes tedious and boring(especially combined with point 2).

In BG2 most encounters were easy, you could just enter the room with your fighters and chop the mobs, while harder encounters only happened from time to time. That way you have both plenty of hard, interesting encounters and clearing dungeons is not so
boring as in DA. Also, that way fighters recieve more attention, while in DA all your attention is focused on rogues and mages.

Not sure I follow.

Statement 1: "In BG2 most encounters were easy, you could just enter the room with your fighters and chop the mobs..."

Statement 2: "...clearing dungeons is not so boring as in DA."

Easy encounters where you chop mobs are interesting?

2. More variety . Point 1 doesn't sound that bad on it's own, but combined with lack of variety it becomes the serious flaw it is in DA. The number of different mobs in BG2 is much bigger, all the Kuo-toas, othyugs, beholders, drows, salaghunians, etc., it is already a good thing.

Technically you're right. BG2 has a huge variety of monsters, but it's because it's a sequel combining the 40 monsters from the first game with the monsters added in the second game. If we compare DA to BG, we get 32 and 38 (or 39) monsters respectfully.

What is more important is that they have different special abilities that require different tactics to beat them.

Very, very few monsters had such abilities. Your memory is playing tricks on you.

Clay golems, for example, they had immunity even to magic weapons, i was forced to summon fire elementals to deal with them or cast that lame spell, that creates throwing meteors i never used before.

Clay golems die easily if you hit them with regular blunt weapons. If you don't have one, then you'd need +X weapons.

Vampires that drain levels. Trolls that have to be killed with fire or acid. Basilisk, that turns you to stone with one hit(that was from BG1, but what an awesome monster). All those monsters have their lore implemented in game mechanics. Where is all this in DA?

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that all DA monsters are the same and don't use different, monster-specific attacks? Or that they aren't as awesome as BG monsters?

3. Better boss fights. Bosses in DA have huge ammount of HP, ability to stun or repulse you and summon minions. You have to bash them for half an hour while drinking health potions. It a very lazy design compared to bosses from BG2.

I agree that the BG2 boss fights are better but not for the reasons you mentioned. Firkraag has 200 HPs, AC -11, 30% physical damage resist (together with 200HP and AC -11 it means a long bashing time), and the the wing attack throwing everyone far back.

4.More variety in magic system. I think some of the other posters already commented on this. Mages in DA just don't have the same ammount of interesting spell they had in BG2. Summoning elementals, time stop, invisibility, various defensive spell, spells that breach enemy's spellcaster defenses, etc.

Hard to say. DA has less spells but the variety and tactical combinations are greater, in my opinion. I will elaborate in my review, but if you wish we can argue this point now.

5. Better locations and loot. Not exactly part of combat, but it is the environment that combat takes place in. Dungeons in BG2 had beatifull 2d backgrounds, rooms that actually serve some purpose , various interesting elements.
And loot. I think it's obvious, when i spend so much time clearing the dungeons, i want something better than two mushrooms and a pair of gloves.

I agree. While BG2 was overloaded with loot (and criticized for that on the Codex), DA fails to strike the balance and reward your efforts appropriately. Overall, the item system is definitely a weak point of the game.

 

[SCO]

So, I'd say that BG2 had maybe 20 really good and challenging fights that are better than anything DA has to offer, but overall, DA is more challenging because the average enemies in DA are harder than average enemies in BG. Considering that fighters and rogues have no combat options in BG and simply whack monsters until they die, DA wins by a small margin.

Not true. Install any AI mod and watch those rogues chug invisibility and improved invisibility potions like there is no tomorrow.

Enjoy your backstab x4.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Install any AI mod.

 

[Hamster]

Statement 1: "In BG2 most encounters were easy, you could just enter the room with your fighters and chop the mobs..."

Statement 2: "...clearing dungeons is not so boring as in DA."

Easy encounters where you chop mobs are interesting?

They are less tiresome for the player.
In a situation where player is tasked with cleaning long dungeons, and we have that both in DA and BG2, difficult encounter in each room of a multi-level dungeon is overkill. You can notice that many people on this forum propose lovering difficulty to easy to make it through Deep Roads faster.

Of course it would be better to have limited number of good, challenging encounters, but thats not what we have in either DA or BG2.

If we compare DA to BG

And why should we do that? I don't see anybody arguing that BG1>DA.

Very, very few monsters had such abilities. Your memory is playing tricks on you.

But they were present in the game and encounters with them were memorable. And again, every monster you encouter in a multi-level dungeon fucking you up with his special abilities is not a good thing.

Clay golems die easily if you hit them with regular blunt weapons. If you don't have one, then you'd need +X weapons.

Maybe i missed that.

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that all DA monsters are the same and don't use different, monster-specific attacks?

This. Well, spiders use webs, yes, but this is the same stun almost every mob has in the game. I can't recall anything as interesting as trolls or vampires in DA.

Firkraag has 200 HPs, AC -11, 30% physical damage resist (together with 200HP and AC -11 it means a long bashing time),

Well, fighter PC has something like (10+constitution)*9 HP. Difference is not as big as in DA. What is a reason for, for example, Branka being so tough? Firkraag was a dragon, she's just a dwarf woman.

DA has less spells but the variety and tactical combinations are greater, in my opinion

I haven't yet been in a situation where fireball/firestorm/coneofcold/forcefield combo failed me.

 

[FeelTheRads]

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that all DA monsters are the same and don't use different, monster-specific attacks? Or that they aren't as awesome as BG monsters?

I believe he means both.

 

[Hamster]

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that all DA monsters are the same and don't use different, monster-specific attacks? Or that they aren't as awesome as BG monsters?

I believe he means both.

Yes.

 

[Volourn]

"* Smaller player party
Fewer party make-up options means shallower tactics, less customization, and worse replayability. It also reduces the effect of encounter design since every rationally-built party is generally equally capable of handling every encounter."

This is just silly, and illogical.


"* Only 3 classes
The specializations did not provide nearly enough differentiation (especially given you can pick 2 specs per character). As far as I'm concerned there were 4 classes: tank, melee DPS, mage, healer/mage. This is compared to BG2 which had many more classes that were not so neatly pigeonholed into MMORPG functions. "

Most BG2 classes had a lack of avriety. seriously, how cna anyone prefer a BG fighter over a DA fighter. Oh yeah, I know why, because you didn't have to think with one - just click and watch. In DA, there is no simply watching the game. And, oh, there are vastly more than just 4 character types in the game. Definbitely more ways to build a fighter in DA than BG2.


"* Worse enemy AI
Enemy AI was changed to follow the MMORPG model where you have to handle "aggro." Keeping mages safe in DA is too trivial which means your own mages are too effective. Enemy mages rarely get the chance to use any spells against a competent player due to Force Field, Crushing Prison, Sleep, etc etc. Immunities are almost non-existent in DA (and the accompanying buffs) so each battle is the same as the last and requires no probing / learning from the player. Furthermore, because buffs/immunities are almost non-existent, there is virtually no interaction between you and enemy mages besides the player trying to get their crowd control spells off ASAP."

First off, this is plain garbage. It's liek you didn't even play the gfame. Enemies in DA will set up ambushes by makiung you chase them. Mage npcs will (try) retreat if they are being harassed. A certain enemy will pull your mage into melee then proceed to kill him with 2-3 quick blows. Keeping mages save in DA is a LOT harder than it was in BG2 because you cast a major spell like fireball in DA, half the enemies will then go after your mage even if your warriors are taunting them while in BG2 if you cast a fireball NO enemy will come after you. Outside of very rare cirucmstances, my mage will neve rbe touched in BG2. That's not true in DA. OMFG Characters in DA don't ahve 20,000 immunities? Yeah, that's how we make enmies tough - make them immune toe evrything but one certain attack. Yeah, uhuh. That can be cool; but needed. Also, a reasonable number of enemies *are* immune to certain attacks.It's just not common place WHICH IS A GOOD THING.


"* Significantly worse itemization
DA might have some of the worst itemization I have ever seen in an RPG. Drops from enemies were virtually useless across the board, even quest rewards were generally awful. Everything was MMORPG style which meant that magic items were just normal items with some boosts to your attributes. The only phat lewtz I got the entire game were two items that I bought from vendors for half of my life savings each. 99% of drops are crafting components in a game where crafting is tangential, at best."

Hyperbole is bullshit. Most quest rewards wer elogical m, mnade sense, and the ph@t lewt was fine. Yes, ranndom mobs didn't give you super duper wepaons, big deal. Just like BG2. Also, some people would argue that crafting is 'tangental' at best. Some people, claim that the game is 'unbeatable' without crafting. *shrug*


"* Less visually diverse dungeons
While the game did an admirable job given it's toolset based and 3D, it was still unable to surpass the qualities of a hand-drawn dungeon where every room can potentially be unique."

More garbage. DA's graphics are vastly superior to BG2's. DA's graphics may not be 'best ever'; but it crushes BG2's easily even thoguh that isn't soemthing to brag about. *shrug*

"* Worse dungeon crawling
Because of the items above, the dungeon crawling experience as a whole was less effective and much, much more repetitive. The Derp Roads were almost too boring to trudge through and some of the other main dungeons were almost as bad. Also, besides The Fade sequence, none of the dungeons had anything even resembling clever traps, interesting non-hostile NPCs, etc etc. "

Sorry, I think it's just hypocritical to attack DA for having dungone crawling when BG2's dungeonc rawling is just as repetive. There is a lot happening in DA Derp Roads than just endless samey monsters. In fact, the monsters are decently avried between deepsawn (a whole bunch of varieties, btw, including a few unique ones), the broodmother saga, those old ruins, spiders, the puzzles, dialogue with avrious people. Also, it should be pointed out that about half of the Deep Roads can be flatly bypassed if one didn't feel the need to explore every nook and cranny.

In conclusion, DA is better than BG2.

But, I'll say this, I'm getting tired belittling one of my favorite games evar, but the nonsense people will spout just to be kewl is silly. BG2 was all that and a bag of chips - 10 years ago.


P.S. I have issues with DA too, but a) people either harp on the wrong issues or b) completely and utterly exaggerate the issues it has or c) arehypocritcal in the fact they'll bash DA for x but will praise y game for having x.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Great post, Ventilator. I don't agree with everything (see below), but damn, it was a well thought through, well presented response. Bravo!

no need to exaggerate

Somewhat agree. Three comments:
- potions are more of an exploit that fuck up the system than an integrate part of the combat design. The combat is challenging because if you don't spam potions and don't watch what you're doing, you'll die easily.

Now playing nightmare is actually easier than playing hard the first time, but the reason is obv that I know the game better now.
I don't deny that the game is hard. Or difficult. As in : you can die easily (if you don't pay attention constantly). I also bet that's the reason that many find the combat frustrating. Focusing yourself and paying attention permanently even when fighting so called trash mobs can get tiresome. However, that's not my definition of *challenge*.

- you compare DA combat overall to the toughest enemies in BG2: the super hard Demogorgon, which was the expansion end boss, and liches which were the only serious enemies in the game.
- you say "if you don't resort to cheese", defending the BG design, yet spamming potions in DA is the worst kind of cheese, wouldn't you agree? In other words, you're applying two different standards.

I admit when I talk about BG2 combat I don't really have the vanilla game in mind. Rather a modded game with Ascension and SCS2. There was a lot of complaint about Ascension Demorgorgon being just too difficult to defeat. Yet, if you know what your doing, a good Mage like Edwin can solo him and defeat him within ~3 rounds max. All you have to do is applying the right sequence of spells.
Let's just look at a fight with one of the numerous revenants. What am I supposed to do? The spells I have get resisted. Those that do hit, suddenly have only 3 sec duration. I cannot change my spell selection and try something that works better (if there is something which I somehow doubt). All I can do is spending 20min realtime to slowly mow the critter down while drinking potions.
So if potions are cheese in DA - it was the game that forced me to use them.

- the enemy #1 is DA is a crowd, not a boss. The game gives you a plenty of options to deal with crowds and keep them from overpowering you.
Again, if you are not spamming potions, you can't just click on enemies until they die.

I did far more than just clicking on enemies. I did everything at my disposal. I used Wynnes healing prowess. I used the spells I had:

enemies infront of you.
- blizzard them
-have wynne inferno them, then fireball
- cast force cage on the strongest one
- cast crsushing prison on a weaker one
- cast glyph of paralyzation on a weaker one
- seal the entry with glyph of repulsion
- if someone is still approaching cast cone of cold
- out of mana, invoke arcane warrior abilities and start the chopping

Now guess what I did the next encounter? The same. And again. And again. Why? What else could I do, that were my options.

I've already agreed that the mage fights and mages were done better in BG2.

Say you're lvl10 and have 10 spells. If you had 10 spellslots instead, that you could fill with whatever spells you qualify for (stat- and levelwise) you could adjust your approach according to the situation, there would be variety in combat tactics instead of using the same approach exclusively, at least that's what I pondered.

That's what I disagree with. With the exceptions of few enemies you could just click on things until they died, partly because only spell casters were given any options, and partly because there was no real reason to try anything.

Not in my games (modded, insane difficulty)

Firkraags Dungeon

I didn't mean to say you have to solve the encounters the way I'd do. I'm sure there are a lot of different approaches to achieve the same. I merely intended to illustrate that 1) the encounters in one dungeon were more varied and not just more of the same with different numbers of foes 2) you could choose a variety of different ways to win the encounters and you wasn't limited to use the same combat approach over and over.

So, I'd say that BG2 had maybe 20 really good and challenging fights that are better than anything DA has to offer, but overall, DA is more challenging because the average enemies in DA are harder than average enemies in BG. Considering that fighters and rogues have no combat options in BG and simply whack monsters until they die, DA wins by a small margin.

opinions differ, I think DA loses by quite a reasonable margin.

An area where DA excels is quest design imo. My favorite area is probably the jaunt into the void inside the mage tower. Not difficult, because cycling through the shapes heals you, but fun. You have the opportunity to use different tactics due to the different shapes plus your mage spells and important: you get properly rewarded. 21 stat increases! Even better than shiny loot.

 

[Silellak]

Something to consider: is having a large number of available spells, but having to prepare very specific spells for certain encounters really a better design than having a smaller set of spells that you often find yourself using in the same combination?

The reason I ask is because I've always thought it almost seemed like a borderline-exploit to throw yourself at a boss monster, then re-load your game and give your wizard(s) a specific spell set to deal with that specific encounter. Or, to have played the game so much you often know what the next encounter is, so you adjust your spell set appropriately. For that reason (and others), I typically chose a Sorceror over a Wizard in my BG2 games.

Personally, I'd rather have a smaller number of spells that can be used in most situations, even if the strategy I use becomes a bit repetitive. I found that even though my basic spell strategy was often the same, the terrain and/or enemy composition/layout/number would often force me to modify that strategy. For instance, there may not be a space small enough for a Glyph of Repulsion to effectively seal off an entrance.

 

[Castanova]

This is just silly, and illogical.

Great argument. Thanks for supporting your viewpoint with facts. As it stands, it's not silly and it's perfectly logical. Smaller party = fewer party composition options = all parties are similar = no matter how you built your characters, Battle A is always easy and Battle B is always difficult.

Most BG2 classes had a lack of avriety. seriously, how cna anyone prefer a BG fighter over a DA fighter. ... And, oh, there are vastly more than just 4 character types in the game. Definbitely more ways to build a fighter in DA than BG2.

I said DA has a lack of variety ACROSS classes, not within them. And, no, there are not more ways to build a fighter in DA than BG2. In DA, you pick between tank, two-handed DPS, or dual-wield DPS. All of these options are in BG2 and - check this - you actually have the opportunity to try them out since you have more than 4 party members!

First off, this is plain garbage.

Just because there are a couple hard-coded encounters where a lone enemy runs away in order to stage an ambush doesn't mean the AI is good. In DA, every tough encounter went like this: (1) I cast Blood Wound (2) Half the enemies die (3) The other half run at my mage (4) My mage does an AoE stun (5) Alistair uses Taunt (6) The enemies attack Alistair.

I'm not saying DA combat is bad. I enjoyed it. But it's certainly worse than BG2 where you had to deal with enemy casters that could neutralize your own casters and where you had to deal with immunities. In DA, 99.99% of enemies were NOT immune to Blood Wound, Crushing Prison, Force Field, Cone of Cold, and Hexes. I.e., 99% of enemies were not immune to any of the spells that made the game easy. On top of that, the enemies were a lot more varied and had much more personality in BG2. In DA, every enemy is either a generic darkspawn or a spider.

Hyperbole is bullshit.

You should try this advice yourself. Quest rewards were logical, yeah, in the sense that you finish a quest and get a sword. That doesn't mean they weren't awful, generic items with their only differentiation being their name and a couple +2 to Cunning stats. In BG2, and pretty much any RPG, getting a new, better item makes a big difference. In DA, your items are nearly meaningless besides armor for your tank. I bet you could play through the whole game without picking up any items whatsoever except for tank armor and potions.

More garbage. DA's graphics are vastly superior to BG2's.

In the sense that they're higher resolution and 3D, yeah. You forgot the whole part of my point where I mentioned how DA levels are monotonous, repetitive, and generally devoid of unique, eye-catching features. Irenucus' dungeon alone had more variety in the visual level design than anything DA had.

Sorry, I think it's just hypocritical to attack DA for having dungone crawling when BG2's dungeonc rawling is just as repetive.

I'm not attacking DA for having dungeon crawling. I LIKE dungeon crawling. I attacked it for having BORING dungeon crawling. Do you understand?

 

[Silellak]

The more I read Volly's post, the more I come to believe he's actually fairly intelligent and things like...

Hyperbole is bullshit.

...is really just his own special brand of self-aware parody-of-himself humor.

Well, I'm not sure if I actually believe that, or just hope there's an element of truth to it.

 

[Volourn]

"it's certainly worse than BG2 where you had to deal with enemy casters that could neutralize your own casters and where you had to deal with immunities."

Only problem is that DA mages well target your mage even if he is in the back. BG2 mages ALMOST NEVER did that.


" (1) I cast Blood Wound (2) Half the enemies die (3) The other half run at my mage (4) My mage does an AoE stun (5) Alistair uses Taunt (6) The enemies attack Alistair."

That's your problem. You know what, you are being ignorant in assuming that EVERY PLAYER plays like you. You amde the same mistake that the Codex used before to bash BG2. People claimed that everyone used spells tod ebuff mages when I never did.

In my first DA play through, never used blood magic, and I don't know why people gosh about how awesome taunt is 'cause even when it use half the enkies still wnat to eat my mage. *shrug*


"In DA, every enemy is either a generic darkspawn or a spider."

What a fuckin' lie. As VD has pointe dout multiple times, DA has 32ish different monsters... but, yeah every monster is a 'generic' darkspawn or spider. FFS That's bullshit.



"In BG2, and pretty much any RPG, getting a new, better item makes a big difference. In DA, your items are nearly meaningless besides armor for your tank. I bet you could play through the whole game without picking up any items whatsoever except for tank armor and potions."

A) This is more crap. Rings, amulets, belts, etc. are awesome.

B) I could do the same in BG2 or any otehr stupid rpg. Man, this argument doesn't rpove anything except how big our interent penises are.



"I attacked it for having BORING dungeon crawling"

Except it isn't. And, definitely not more boring than BG2's dungeonc rawling (not that i hate BG2's dungeon crawling since I fuckin' love it and I feel dirty talking down on a game I like).


I'm gonna say this again: DA Ogre > BG2 Ogre 'Nough said.



"...is really just his own special brand of self-aware parody-of-himself humor.

Well, I'm not sure if I actually believe that, or just hope there's an element of truth to it."

Do I really need to spell things out? I thoguht the Codex was smart enough to figure these things out, or you want more hand holding?

Then again, people are bragging about a system that limits fighters to just a plain attack instead of fighters have the ability to knock down, cripple, or other special things. But, yeah, it is sooo more fun to simply attack which requires no thought.

Then again, DA makes you think in every battle. There is no battle where you could simply watch barring the times where your character is solo (since the combat there has to be made easy so wimps can get past it). Unlike BG2 or even most turn based games, where fully half the battles need very little or no thoguht at all. Just point and click and you win. *yawn*

 

[Serious_Business]

avriety
cna
definbitely
liek
gfame
makiung
rbe
ahve
wer elogical m, mnade sense

You can definitively feel the empowered trembling rage behind his posts, as he just can't be bothered to re-read himself because he has a very important and urgent point to make. Great stuff, this can only end in furious masturbation

 

[Volourn]

" end in furious masturbation "

End? That's where it started.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Statement 1: "In BG2 most encounters were easy, you could just enter the room with your fighters and chop the mobs..."

Statement 2: "...clearing dungeons is not so boring as in DA."

Easy encounters where you chop mobs are interesting?

They are less tiresome for the player.

That's subjective. I uninstalled Torchlight after 2 days because the game was painfully easy.

Of course it would be better to have limited number of good, challenging encounters, but thats not what we have in either DA or BG2.

No arguing here.

If we compare DA to BG

And why should we do that? I don't see anybody arguing that BG1>DA.

Fair enough. Let's agree than BG2 wins in the "variety of monsters and their special abilities" category.

This. Well, spiders use webs, yes, but this is the same stun almost every mob has in the game. I can't recall anything as interesting as trolls or vampires in DA.

I liked revenants' "Force Pull" - very effective and makes it hard to disengage/flee to lure it away from the pack. Certain monsters tend to knock you down, cast spells that prevent you from healing (very effective for obvious reasons), use fire breath, the ogres switch to ranged when you keep your distance, etc.

Maybe it's not as good as what BG2 offered, but it certainly comes close.

DA has less spells but the variety and tactical combinations are greater, in my opinion

I haven't yet been in a situation where fireball/firestorm/coneofcold/forcefield combo failed me.

And how does that contradict my point?

 

[Vault Dweller]

no need to exaggerate

I didn't. I genuinely enjoyed reading your post.

I don't deny that the game is hard. Or difficult. As in : you can die easily (if you don't pay attention constantly). I also bet that's the reason that many find the combat frustrating. Focusing yourself and paying attention permanently even when fighting so called trash mobs can get tiresome. However, that's not my definition of *challenge*.

Semantics. If you say that the game is hard and that it's easy to die if you don't pay attention, then we're in agreement.

I admit when I talk about BG2 combat I don't really have the vanilla game in mind. Rather a modded game with Ascension and SCS2.

Well then...

Let's just look at a fight with one of the numerous revenants. What am I supposed to do? The spells I have get resisted. Those that do hit, suddenly have only 3 sec duration. I cannot change my spell selection and try something that works better (if there is something which I somehow doubt). All I can do is spending 20min realtime to slowly mow the critter down while drinking potions.

Revenants don't resist all spells. DA's spell combinations (an excellent feature, btw) like Blizzard+Tempest work very well.

So if potions are cheese in DA - it was the game that forced me to use them.

Perhaps you didn't look into DA magic system long enough?

I did everything at my disposal. I used Wynnes healing prowess. I used the spells I had <snip>

Now guess what I did the next encounter? The same. And again. And again. Why? What else could I do, that were my options.

Were these the only options? What if you didn't have Wynne?

Say you're lvl10 and have 10 spells. If you had 10 spellslots instead, that you could fill with whatever spells you qualify for (stat- and levelwise) you could adjust your approach according to the situation, there would be variety in combat tactics instead of using the same approach exclusively, at least that's what I pondered.

The memorization system, with all its flaws, is certainly more interesting and tactical, and I agree with your thoughts on the mana-based systems.

Not in my games (modded, insane difficulty)

I'm sure you're aware that you're comparing unmodded DA to heavily modded BG2. Wait a few months, see what happens.

I merely intended to illustrate that 1) the encounters in one dungeon were more varied and not just more of the same with different numbers of foes 2) you could choose a variety of different ways to win the encounters and you wasn't limited to use the same combat approach over and over.

They were more entertaining but less challenging.

opinions differ, I think DA loses by quite a reasonable margin.

Opinions differ.

An area where DA excels is quest design imo.

Definitely.

 

[Grifthin]

@ Silellak - you can actually end the landsmeet without combat - you need the vote to be unanimous in your favour though, that means lots of ass kissing or threatening of the nobles before hand though.

 

[Volourn]

"cast spells that prevent you from healing (very effective for obvious reasons), "

This, and and the revenant's force pull are a couple of awesome abilities that DA monsters have I cna't recall too many - if any noteable CRPGs have. I'm not sure even D&D has varieities them barring some book I'v heard of, and DA has spells/special abilities for just about everything. L0L

Seriously, the spell that that makes it so you cna't heal, is pretty much a death sentence. And,a force pulled mage needs a lot of luck to survive being so close to a revenant. My level 14 mage dies in 3 hits by a revenant. Add that with its aggresiveness, and its aoe, kaboom.

 

[Grifthin]

Most undead are immune to cold, Rage demons immune to Fire, If I remember correctly golems are immune to nature damage (unsure about last one).

 

[Silellak]

@ Silellak - you can actually end the landsmeet without combat - you need the vote to be unanimous in your favour though, that means lots of ass kissing or threatening of the nobles before hand though.

Really? Does that even skip the 1 on 1 duel with Loghain?

 

[Mantiis]

Seriously, the spell that that makes it so you cna't heal, is pretty much a death sentence. And,a force pulled mage needs a lot of luck to survive being so close to a revenant. My level 14 mage dies in 3 hits by a revenant. Add that with its aggresiveness, and its aoe, kaboom.

Cast that forcefield spell on the revenants target and he will survive plenty.

In fact:

1. Get the tank to taunt
2. Cast Forcefield on tank
3. Get everyone else to range attack the <insert hard monster name>
4. Go get a beer from the fridge
5. If <insert hard monster name> is not dead when u get back go to 2.

There is very little depth to the combat in DA as the majority of skills are underpowered, the stamina system is broken and magic is way overpowered. BG2 combat shits all over it in that respect.

 

[Volourn]

"Cast that forcefield spell on the revenants target and he will survive plenty. "

1. That was a lame tatic in the IE games, and it's a lame tatic in DA. Only fuckin' pussies use such shit. And, cowards.


2. It won't work so well as enemies will start targeting your allies.


"1. Get the tank to taunt
2. Cast Forcefield on tank
3. Get everyone else to range attack the <insert hard monster name>
4. Go get a beer from the fridge
5. If <insert hard monster name> is not dead when u get back go to 2. "

I, quite frankly, think you are full of shit and this strtagey simply does not work in the fucking game.


"BG2 combat shits all over it in that respect."

LMFAO

If magic is 'overpwoered' in DA then what the fuck is it in BG2? Espicially since that's a fuckin' game that the only option a fighter has is to swing their pussy weapons and a pussy way.

While in DA, fighetrs cna do all sorts of nasty sorts of things INCLUDING AOE ATTACKS.

Seriously: DA OGRE > BG2 OGRE

'Nough fuckin' said.

FFSFFSFFSFFSFFSFFS

 

[Lesifoere]

@ Silellak - you can actually end the landsmeet without combat - you need the vote to be unanimous in your favour though, that means lots of ass kissing or threatening of the nobles before hand though.

Really? Does that even skip the 1 on 1 duel with Loghain?

Nope. That duel's unavoidable. C&C!

 

[Mantiis]

I, quite frankly, think you are full of shit and this strtagey simply does not work in the fucking game.

I will freely admit it is lame (and I try not to use it) but it doesn't change the fact that it is in the game and it works. Feel free to prove me wrong and try it yourself. But it worked for me last night against the dragon you summon with that flute/trumpet thingy.

It is less effective against a group of monsters as you have to change range targets once one dies (unless you use the AI tactics).

If magic is 'overpwoered' in DA then what the fuck is it in BG2? Espicially since that's a fuckin' game that the only option a fighter has is to swing their pussy weapons and a pussy way.

From memory Korgan was the most powerful party member in my group, especially towards the end of ToB. Mainly due to the beserker ability but I will freely admit he did need magic support however that magic support was limited in BG2.

So I guess in DA on one hand you have a handful of skills that you can actively use which generally do limited damage vs spells which you have an unlimited supply of (with lyrium) which can kill groups of enemies in a third of the time. Is there anyway to replenish stamina with a pot? I could go on and on about cone of cold and earthquake and crushing prison but I can't be arsed.

Seriously: DA OGRE > BG2 OGRE

Yay, something we can agree on! In fact when Sten was grabbed by the dragon last night he was in real trouble as I couldn't heal him fast enough and I couldn't knock him free so instead I cast forcefield and got a beer.

 

[Volourn]

"Is there anyway to replenish stamina with a pot?"

Deep mushrooms do it though I've never tried it eprosnhally a sI use spells to regenerate stamina.


"From memory Korgan was the most powerful party member in my group, especially towards the end of ToB."

O RLY?


p.s. The best way that BIo can fix the whole forcefield thing is simple - if that spells is cast on someone no body attacks it. Problem solved. That said, I think it's silly to bitch out this as a DA tatic when you can use it in BG2 as well, and it was lame there to yet people use that as 'proof' that DA is worse.

It's illogical to point out that as a DA 'weakness' when BG2 (the game its being comapred to) has the same sort of tatic available - espicially since it is a lot easier to pull it off in BG2.