Edward_R_Murrow
Arcane
Yeah...while Dragon Age wasn't gangbusters in the quest design department, it was a damn sight better than BG1 (and BG2 in certain senses), and I like the Baldur's Gate series. Need evidence? Check one of the many BG Let's Play threads. That said, Dragon Age wasn't spectacular in quest design, but it did alright. For the most part, it's standard Bioware fare, in which most choices and consequences are self contained in the questline. They do a much better job flavoring the quests though, even if they choke a bit on execution (the obvious facist dwarf leader is one such choke, and the ability to come out totally ahead in the possessed child quest is probably the biggest).
As for VD's position that Dragon Age Origins is supposedly the best RPG since Arcanum...I'm a little confused on that stance. Mostly I don't quite understand why Bloodlines (and Alpha Protocol as well) is arbitrarily counted out of the running by the way it handles combat. My assumption was that DA and Arcanum were both being held up as standout role-playing games solely for how well they handle, well, the role playing elements, namely choices and consequences that one can experience. Bloodlines arguably does a better job of this than Dragon Age, having many more conversation abilities (essentially two useful, and truly separate, skills in Persuade and Intimidate as well as Dominate and the Malkavian equivalent) as well as other non-combat skills that had a much larger impact. It seems silly to disqualify Bloodlines from best RPG just because it handles it's combat less traditionally, especially when looking at Arcanum as being carried almost solely one the back of role-playing, with a little bit of setting/flavor, with combat and such better left unmentioned.
And I'm going to have to throw my hat in with the crew backing BG1 as having much better combat gameplay than Dragon Age, as a consequence of much more meaningful variety in encounters and a combat system that, I'd argue, is a bit better than Dragon Age's. While Dragon Age does have some encounters that are interesting, the sheer quantity of filler cannot be denied. And the filler combat in this game is bad, making gibberlings/xvarts/tasloi mobs seem great if only because they don't have gobs of HP, and can be quickly wiped out at least. Worst of all, Dragon Age filler combat serves no purpose, as within seconds of a battle, you regenerate mana, fatigue, and health. Filler encounters had at least some purpose in BG, forcing some bit of resource management with spells/ammo/HP, but padding out game length is the only reason for most Dragon Age scruffs. Later in the game I actually appreciated the "Storm of the Century" spell combo, as I could at least "skip" trash encounters by dropping in rooms before entering them.
Of course, Dragon Age does have some good encounters, but most of these are limited to boss fights. This is because most Dragon Age enemies are very boring, often melee fighters that rush at you, with few distinguishing characteristics. BG1 at least attempted to give differently enemies some defining characteristics. Spiders could be simply poisonous fellows, speed freaks, or teleporting goofballs. It's not great, but at least regular enemies had some special, unique abilities. The only, non-boss, enemies that really stood out in Dragon Age were the drakes, demons, and the Revenants. Everything else blended into some sort of mass of humanoid beaters, with occasional rogue or magician.
And even when Dragon Age made specialized boss encounters, some of them were simply terrible. Flemeth and the high dragon stand out as particularly terrible examples, in which the "strategy" to defeat them is to simply get one member of the party resistant to their attacks, have them draw the fire of the dragon, and then have them be healed as the rest of the party slowly chips away from afar for 15+ minutes. Brilliant design. Not. To be fair though, fights like the corrupted spider queen, the golem paragon, the broodmother, and the final battle were pretty well done, if a little formulaic with the whole big-bad monster who changes attack routine/spawns more dudes when it reaches certain health intervals. A little MMO-ish, and not particularly wide open in strategy, but still rewarding of proper tactics and management.
As for VD's position that Dragon Age Origins is supposedly the best RPG since Arcanum...I'm a little confused on that stance. Mostly I don't quite understand why Bloodlines (and Alpha Protocol as well) is arbitrarily counted out of the running by the way it handles combat. My assumption was that DA and Arcanum were both being held up as standout role-playing games solely for how well they handle, well, the role playing elements, namely choices and consequences that one can experience. Bloodlines arguably does a better job of this than Dragon Age, having many more conversation abilities (essentially two useful, and truly separate, skills in Persuade and Intimidate as well as Dominate and the Malkavian equivalent) as well as other non-combat skills that had a much larger impact. It seems silly to disqualify Bloodlines from best RPG just because it handles it's combat less traditionally, especially when looking at Arcanum as being carried almost solely one the back of role-playing, with a little bit of setting/flavor, with combat and such better left unmentioned.
And I'm going to have to throw my hat in with the crew backing BG1 as having much better combat gameplay than Dragon Age, as a consequence of much more meaningful variety in encounters and a combat system that, I'd argue, is a bit better than Dragon Age's. While Dragon Age does have some encounters that are interesting, the sheer quantity of filler cannot be denied. And the filler combat in this game is bad, making gibberlings/xvarts/tasloi mobs seem great if only because they don't have gobs of HP, and can be quickly wiped out at least. Worst of all, Dragon Age filler combat serves no purpose, as within seconds of a battle, you regenerate mana, fatigue, and health. Filler encounters had at least some purpose in BG, forcing some bit of resource management with spells/ammo/HP, but padding out game length is the only reason for most Dragon Age scruffs. Later in the game I actually appreciated the "Storm of the Century" spell combo, as I could at least "skip" trash encounters by dropping in rooms before entering them.
Of course, Dragon Age does have some good encounters, but most of these are limited to boss fights. This is because most Dragon Age enemies are very boring, often melee fighters that rush at you, with few distinguishing characteristics. BG1 at least attempted to give differently enemies some defining characteristics. Spiders could be simply poisonous fellows, speed freaks, or teleporting goofballs. It's not great, but at least regular enemies had some special, unique abilities. The only, non-boss, enemies that really stood out in Dragon Age were the drakes, demons, and the Revenants. Everything else blended into some sort of mass of humanoid beaters, with occasional rogue or magician.
And even when Dragon Age made specialized boss encounters, some of them were simply terrible. Flemeth and the high dragon stand out as particularly terrible examples, in which the "strategy" to defeat them is to simply get one member of the party resistant to their attacks, have them draw the fire of the dragon, and then have them be healed as the rest of the party slowly chips away from afar for 15+ minutes. Brilliant design. Not. To be fair though, fights like the corrupted spider queen, the golem paragon, the broodmother, and the final battle were pretty well done, if a little formulaic with the whole big-bad monster who changes attack routine/spawns more dudes when it reaches certain health intervals. A little MMO-ish, and not particularly wide open in strategy, but still rewarding of proper tactics and management.
for that game.
. Clearly the dwarfs dug too derp there. But Orzammar politics are DAO's only saving grace.
