Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[cvv]

DA: O for all the people that say it had overpowered mages... it would not be a better game if the mages were weaker.

Actually it totally would because several mage abilities would outright trivialize combat encounters Bioware actually put effort into.

I actually liked how Beware solved the "mages are ubermenschen" problem in DAO - most AOE spells hurt your guys as much as the critters. I think that's the best way to go in high-fantasy settings where mages logically have to be ubermenschen instead of nerfing them with all sorts of gamey gimmicks.

Sadly the great unwashed consoletariat whined so it was knocked down to the normal idiocy level in DA2 where most encounters didn't last much longer than the Firestorm spell.

 

[Infinitron]

Edward_R_Murrow Are you really claiming that AD&D doesn't have a "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" phenomenon? BG2 just happens to feature lots of tough mage fights because Bioware was too lazy to create challenging fighter and rogue opponents? Come on.

Why does it matter how well the player classes are represented among enemies? Honest question.

Because diverse NPC party vs NPC party battles are pretty interesting? Or in other words, why does it NOT matter?

Let me repeat that I'm not saying BG2 isn't good or fun - I'm just saying it's not the only way to skin the proverbial cat. And a different system just might be able to do certain things that BG2 wasn't so good at.

 

[hiver]

There is nothing subjective about what I'm arguing, and it need not involve mages at all. For example, replace all-powerful mages with combat-limited thieves and you have the exact same argument. It's not an accident that the design of thieving classes have increasingly turned towards the warrior-in-leather archetype, whereby the thief/rogue is granted ever more hamfisted combat abilities that allow them to simulate being a fighter. This drive towards homogenization is sold on a red herring: that classes have to be equally capable in combat. Yet all balance concerns do is divert attention away from the bigger problem, which is that CRPGs aren't being built around roleplaying experiences, but around a one-size-fits-all combat experience - the proverbial poppamole. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are both perfect examples of this trend, and your 'all powerful mage' rant is nothing but a distraction.

The bottom line is that nobody cared all that greatly about mages being OP in BG 2 combat. To the degree that they did care, it was because the game offered no other roleplaying experiences besides combat. The solution to mages being OP / thieves being UP is not balance, it's separate narrative/gameplay paths. Playing a weak character is its own reward in well designed games.

"CRPGs built around combat and not around 'roleplaying' are uninteresting and popamole!"

NOPE NOTHING SUBJECTIVE HERE BRO

What you're asking for here is essentially many separate games, each one tailored to a different class. I'm not sure you're playing the right genre of games, honestly.

Gee... Age of decadence is many separate games.

No, Azarkon is right.
All these problems come from the fact that too many "RPGs" went for combat as the only content they provide. Forcing a slew of different classes into that mold - while none of them can do anything else (except click a binary dialogue switch sometimes - and rarely, compared to combat) has resulted in all these problems with "balance" or usability of specific classes where, funnily enough - fighters get the worst deal out of it.

Solution is diversifying the content much more, not just forcibly nerfing and overpowering these "different" classes until they are practically equal. - which ultimately results in having dozen or so fighter classes - with different flavors, or cosmetic differences.

Sawyer aims to diversify the content - in PE. Which is something i can only applause (while hoping he will succeed in execution).

 

[Roguey]

I'm assuming you've played through DA: O without a mage in your party, like me... so I have to ask, did you really find it that much more challenging?

Yup.

There's a huge power gulf between warriors/rogues and mages. Three mage party = really easy. No-mage party = more difficult. Since you can tell Morrigan to buzz off as soon as you get her, and can kill Wynne on sight, the game had to be balanced so that a no-mage party could complete it (using traps, bombs, and other consumables as a replacement for spells). As a result, mage-heavy parties wind up with less interesting combat.

Mages provide a skip this fight option, aside from that they really didn't add or remove anything interesting to the gameplay.

Spell combinations
They're the only class that can....
petrify/freeze opponents allowing them to be shattered, circumventing HP (though I think the latter is a bad mechanic)
put up a buff that gives any hostile spell directed at them a 75% chance of draining their mana instead
ward any party member from the effects of all spells for 10 seconds
cause a chain reaction of exploding enemies
put up a force field around anyone, preventing them from doing anything and taking damage
give weapons a bonus to armor penetration
paralyze enemies. Enemies that are immune to stuns (like revenants, demons etc) aren't immune to paralysis. (can be substituted with a trap that requires the enemy to fail both mental and physical resistance checks instead of just the latter)
cause all an enemy's hits to become misses and all their critical hits to become normal hits
cause all hits on an enemy from any party member to become critical hits
cause enemies to fall asleep (different from a stun since hitting them causes them to wake up) (can be substituted with a trap)
cause enemies to become confused/charmed (attacking their own group)
use their own health instead of mana/stamina to use abilities
drain health from a party member to add to their own
revive someone with no health mid-battle

 

[kris]

The end result is a dull, homogenized experience in which spells and combat abilities substitute for one another, which, to be fair, go hand in hand with generic class-irrelevant narratives where you play Joe Adventurer instead of a coherent character with believable motivations and interactions.

Sounds like every D&D CRPG ever.

Actually, that is more the open world or one character RPGs. Since then Joe adventurer can do everything. Well and Jedis. DnD certainly have clear class distinctions.

The problem with DnD CRPGs is instead that they break the rest and spell recover system. In a PnP session you would never see the characters rest in a dungeon to recover spells; nor would you see a scenario were they exit the dungeon, run to the city to rest and restock supplies and then get back to the dungeon/Tower of doom which seemingly just waited for them to get back. So for a PnP suddenly things like potions and spells become a limited resource and whoever plays the mage will keep some in the event they might meet something more powerful later. And then things like scrolls become useful. That is not to forget that the Crpg players also can load games and read guides about what they will encounter (or have passed by that place before).

I prefer the mage distinction were they can do some really powerful stuff, but are limited by being "fragile/unarmoured" and can't just spam magic ad infinitum. It is not strange then that mages in DAO was overpowered since they really could spam magic.

 

[Athelas]

A save system like the one in Dark Souls could solve that problem. Obviously sans the resurrection, but auto-save when you first enter a dungeon and reload from there whenever you die within the dungeon.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

A save system like the one in Dark Souls could solve that problem. Obviously sans the resurrection, but auto-save when you first enter a dungeon and reload from there whenever you die within the dungeon.

Dark Souls save/respawning mechanics is inherently tied to the lore and each other. Having save without the respawning will just make it shitty busywork without adding to the atmosphere. And the whole system won't work in other games with different settings... perhaps Ravenloft?

 

[Athelas]

LARPING it is then.

Err, just disregard what I said about Dark Souls. You could just restrict resting ('this area is too dangerous to rest in'). And you can justify respawning enemies rather easily. Leaving a necromancer's stronghold to restock? He will raise some more zombies and skeletons in the meanwhile.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

LARPING it is then.

Err, just disregard what I said about Dark Souls. You could just restrict resting ('this area is too dangerous to rest in'). And you can justify respawning enemies rather easily. Leaving a necromancer's stronghold to restock? He will raise some more zombies and skeletons in the meanwhile.

Something like KOTC could work.

EDIT: jesus fuck why are we discussing this in Dragon Age Inquisition thread? It will have regenerating mana outside combat (and hence infinite heal/resurrect spells)

 

[Rake]

LARPING it is then.

Err, just disregard what I said about Dark Souls. You could just restrict resting ('this area is too dangerous to rest in'). And you can justify respawning enemies rather easily. Leaving a necromancer's stronghold to restock? He will raise some more zombies and skeletons in the meanwhile.

Something like KOTC could work.

EDIT: jesus fuck why are we discussing this in Dragon Age Inquisition thread? It will have regenerating mana outside combat (and hence infinite heal/resurrect spells)

But this the first semi serious discusion in this thread. I quess DA:I doesn't have anything to talk about outside mocking Bioware...

 

[Roguey]

It will have regenerating mana outside combat (and hence infinite heal/resurrect spells)

Not if healing is a combat-only spell.

But they already backpedaled on no-regenerating health so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Azarkon]

There is nothing subjective about what I'm arguing, and it need not involve mages at all. For example, replace all-powerful mages with combat-limited thieves and you have the exact same argument. It's not an accident that the design of thieving classes have increasingly turned towards the warrior-in-leather archetype, whereby the thief/rogue is granted ever more hamfisted combat abilities that allow them to simulate being a fighter. This drive towards homogenization is sold on a red herring: that classes have to be equally capable in combat. Yet all balance concerns do is divert attention away from the bigger problem, which is that CRPGs aren't being built around roleplaying experiences, but around a one-size-fits-all combat experience - the proverbial poppamole. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are both perfect examples of this trend, and your 'all powerful mage' rant is nothing but a distraction.

The bottom line is that nobody cared all that greatly about mages being OP in BG 2 combat. To the degree that they did care, it was because the game offered no other roleplaying experiences besides combat. The solution to mages being OP / thieves being UP is not balance, it's separate narrative/gameplay paths. Playing a weak character is its own reward in well designed games.

"CRPGs built around combat and not around 'roleplaying' are uninteresting and popamole!"

NOPE NOTHING SUBJECTIVE HERE BRO

What you're asking for here is essentially many separate games, each one tailored to a different class. I'm not sure you're playing the right genre of games, honestly.

What is so subjective about concentrating on ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCES in ROLEPLAYING GAMES?

No, you don't need separate games to capture different experiences. Did your AD&D DM have to come up with a separate world and campaign every time your player switched classes? Did playing a stealther in Dishonored require you to buy a separate game? Did playing a high wis talker in PST require it? When did deep branching within a narrative become equivalent to creating a new game? Last I checked, you didn't need to build a new engine, create a new world, generate new art assets from scratch, set off on an utterly separate story line, and use a completely different set of characters.

Genre wise, CRPGs grew out of a desire to emulate Pen & Paper RPG experiences, in which the early fixation on combat was a technological necessity. Yet, instead of striving towards the greater freedom offered by Pen & Paper RPGs, the trend in CRPG development has been to restrict, homogenize, and streamline till there is nothing left but a generic combat simulator. It's not that there wasn't a choice; it's that the wrong choice was the easy choice.

Criticizing a roleplaying game for its lack of attention to the roleplaying experience is the exact opposite of being in the wrong genre. No, I'm in the correct place; it's the games that aren't.

Get the shitty combat sims out of my RPGs.

 

[Azarkon]

OK. But when's the last time you had to "rely on items or rare abilities" or "enlist the help of the rest of the party" to deal with a powerful fighter or rogue?

Well, given that equipment and spell scrolls are technically items...

What you're doing here is basically accepting the game's status quo of "mages are the most powerful, the primary challenge in this game is killing mages, deal with it".

Why does it matter how well the player classes are represented among enemies? Honest question. It's one thing to have a concern for how the different classes can interact with enemies and complete the content, but their representation among enemies, more specifically high-difficulty encounters seems a little unimportant.

Hypothetically a Fighter or Thief could be made very dangerous (as the player can easily do), but making them dangerous would really be a pain for a lot of reasons.

Making a Fighter dangerous would involve giving them loads of resistances/immunities via martial-class equipment a la player character Fighters (and be beneficiaries of buffs from any casters on their side). And Thieves would need to make excessive use of Traps or Backstabs (possibly with Invisibility; like the SCS2 mod has no problem doing) as well as lots of sneaky equipment (oh hello Cloak of Non-Detection how are you?).

Basically, this makes both of them huge pains in the ass to integrate into the game. Loading up enemy warriors with equipment equivalent to what a typical Fighter a few hours out of Chateau Irenicus could have would result in a huge monty haul campaign and even if you dodged that by making their items not drop it wouldn't be much fun because you can't use Knowledge: D&D to guess their capabilities as you would a typical monster out of the manual. How are you supposed to know that Lord Dingleberry is wearing Dragon Plate +5 that makes him immune to mind-effects and the elements or that Baron Crustybum the Itchy, through equipment munchkinizing, has stacked his immunities to all damage types into the high 90-percent area besides Acid because *gamey reasons*.

And with Thieves...geez. Most people would flip shit if Thieves did anything close to what something like SCS2 does (actually makes them play well) because their waifus would get chunked by hideous backstab damage. Plus, Traps are cheesy enough when used by the player; imagine enemies being able to randomly mine the battlefield with powerful snares. Imagine how difficult that would be to script.

It's not hard to see why Bioware just went, "Fuck it" as far as making dangerous high-level Fighters and Thieves and just went with casters and monsters as the primary high-level threats. It would have been far too cumbersome. Fighters and Thieves can be powerful in player's hands, but making them powerful in the "hands" of a CPU gets messy fast.

What do you think of the updates you've seen so far?

Eh, ambivalent really.

A lot of the mechanics sound like they could be excellent or terrible very easily depending on how the game-as-a-whole is. Theory-crafting is one thing, but there's no substitute for playtesting as far as understanding and evaluating a system goes. Plus, content is kind of an important thing as well and that's probably my biggest concern. I do really like the idea of scaling encounters based on difficulty level...though I have no illusions that it will be only applied in some encounters and likely applied systemically once they realize how much of an additional burden it will become (not only content creation, but testing each difficulty).

No, Bioware was faithful in this respect: in the edition of D&D they were working with, at the highest levels single classed mages were demigods in battle, single classed fighters mere mortals, and single classed thieves turds. Of course, with the correct uber items, DM granted innates, and/or multi-classing, fighters and rogues were capable of matching and even exceeding mages. But standard issue fighters and rogues even up to 3rd edition D&D were chumps and slaves to their equipment.

But so what? The power hierarchy of classes in D&D reflected the game world itself. A list of people with the greatest individual power in the Forgotten Realms boils down to a list of archmages - eg Elminster, Telemont, Szass Tarn, Larloch, Khelben, Halaster, etc. The only warriors & thieves who were able to compete were those with hoards of magic artifacts / items. This fact of FR was both lore and gameplay.

None of this is an impediment to creating worthwhile roleplaying experiences. Indeed, the unique strengths, weaknesses, and motivations of the different classes in D&D lend themselves to creating unique experiences. Where a fighter might deal with an army of orcs by gathering soldiers for a desperate battle, a mage might instead seek out regeants to summon a demon that would crush the orcs single-handily, while a thief might sneak into their camp at night and assassinate the leader, sewing discontent and turning the orcs against each other. The idea that all options ought to be available to all classes - ala Bioware's games - is a poppamole concept. In games built around classes, the choice of class is there to be relevant, not to be fluff.

 

[Infinitron]

Yet, instead of striving towards the greater freedom offered by Pen & Paper RPGs, the trend in CRPG development has been to restrict, homogenize, and streamline till there is nothing left but a generic combat simulator. It's not that there wasn't a choice; it's that the wrong choice was the easy choice.

I don't really want to get into a LARPers vs combatfags argument here, because I don't really see the point, but I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. RPGs from the 80s and early 90s were, with few exceptions, far more "generic combat simulator" than anything made in the past 15 years. Yes, even BioWare "poppamole".

The closest thing to what you're looking for is probably something like Quest for Glory, ie not a pure CRPG. But even that didn't let you become an ubermage (although you did get to meet ubermages).

 

[DalekFlay]

I don't really want to get into a LARPers vs combatfags argument here, because I don't really see the point, but I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. RPGs from the 80s and early 90s were, with few exceptions, far more "generic combat simulator" than anything made in the 15 years. Yes, even BioWare "poppamole".

Insanely, thoroughly, inarguably true.

 

[Azarkon]

Yet, instead of striving towards the greater freedom offered by Pen & Paper RPGs, the trend in CRPG development has been to restrict, homogenize, and streamline till there is nothing left but a generic combat simulator. It's not that there wasn't a choice; it's that the wrong choice was the easy choice.

I don't really want to get into a LARPers vs combatfags argument here, because I don't really see the point, but I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. RPGs from the 80s and early 90s were, with few exceptions, far more "generic combat simulator" than anything made in the past 15 years. Yes, even BioWare "poppamole".

The closest thing to what you're looking for is probably something like Quest for Glory, ie not a pure CRPG. But even that didn't let you become an ubermage (although you did get to meet ubermages).

I said in the sentence just before the one you quoted -

Genre wise, CRPGs grew out of a desire to emulate Pen & Paper RPG experiences, in which the early fixation on combat was a technological necessity.

The earliest games had an excuse for why they fixated on combat - because it was straight forward to implement, being a simple translation of PnP rulebooks. The creative side of those rulebooks were not so easy to implement and were thus initially ignored.

With growing technical sophistication, however, it became viable to introduce branching storylines, C&C, and greater player freedom. Between the 80s and today were the days of Fallout, the IE games, and even Bioware's Neverwinter Nights, which was designed to be a tool for DMs to create and run their own adventures. This era was the furthest the industry got towards bringing the creative side of PnP to video games, and a lot of us remember them fondly not because the games were masterpieces - though a few were - but because they were headed in the correct direction.

The transition to AAA, however, derailed everything. It's only with the rise of indie games and crowd funding that there is a shot, again, at getting back on track.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

But this the first semi serious discusion in this thread. I quess DA:I doesn't have anything to talk about outside mocking Bioware...

Hmm I suppose so.

But they already backpedaled on no-regenerating health so it doesn't matter anyway.

Yep. From omg tactical rpg..no health regen to health regen "thresholds" depending on difficulty.

Azarkon
I agree with you. In VtmB, playing as a Nosferatu or Malkavian is significantly different than other classes. no reason why same can't be in standard high fantasy fare. AoD demo is shaping up good too (though it is still quite tough for me to win fights)

Acc. to Infinitron they should have been several different games...

 

[Infinitron]

Genre wise, CRPGs grew out of a desire to emulate Pen & Paper RPG experiences, in which the early fixation on combat was a technological necessity.

Wargamers disagree.

The transition to AAA, however, derailed everything. It's only with the rise of indie games and crowd funding that there is a shot, again, at getting back on track.

Not that big a shot. Indies and crowdfunded games have low budgets, and the approach you advocate requires large amounts of content creation. Content creation is expensive. In contrast, system design - namely, combat system design - is cheap.

Historically, CRPGs have distinguished themselves from adventure games and "action adventures" by focusing on reusable content and robust systems. This is in contradiction to any desire to "emulate pen and paper RPG experiences", but that's the reality of it.

 

[Sceptic]

What is so subjective about concentrating on ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCES in ROLEPLAYING GAMES?

Genre wise, CRPGs grew out of a desire to emulate Pen & Paper RPG experiences, in which the early fixation on combat was a technological necessity. Yet, instead of striving towards the greater freedom offered by Pen & Paper RPGs, the trend in CRPG development has been to restrict, homogenize, and streamline till there is nothing left but a generic combat simulator. It's not that there wasn't a choice; it's that the wrong choice was the easy choice.

Criticizing a roleplaying game for its lack of attention to the roleplaying experience is the exact opposite of being in the wrong genre. No, I'm in the correct place; it's the games that aren't.

Get the shitty combat sims out of my RPGs.

mondblut

The closest thing to what you're looking for is probably something like Quest for Glory, ie not a pure CRPG. But even that didn't let you become an ubermage

I would argue this isn't true. QFG has a great sense of progression from your puny mage in QFG1 to an unstoppable force of nature by QFG5. By the end of the series your mage can mop the floor with entire armies in a way the other classes can only dream of, including mopping the floor with OTHER mages (Trigger). Not to mention you one-shot the boss.

 

[Infinitron]

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Throughout the series you're basically a guy who throws magical bolts at things and uses a few situational cantrips now and again.

 

[Azarkon]

Genre wise, CRPGs grew out of a desire to emulate Pen & Paper RPG experiences, in which the early fixation on combat was a technological necessity.

Wargamers disagree.

That's why war games are their own genre.

Not that big a shot. Indies and crowdfunded games have low budgets, and the approach you advocate requires large amounts of content creation. Content creation is expensive. In contrast, system design - namely, combat system design - is cheap.

Historically, CRPGs have distinguished themselves from adventure games and "action adventures" by focusing on reusable content and robust systems. This is in contradiction to any desire to "emulate pen and paper RPG experiences", but that's the reality of it.

I disagree.

RPGs, of which CRPGs are a computerized manifestation, traditionally distinguished themselves from other games through in depth character progression. This remains the unifying mechanic behind all RPGs, though other genres have taken it up from time to time.

There are a lot of CRPGs that do not have reusable content, yet practically no RPG is absent of in depth character progression. Games that do lack in depth character progression, but which otherwise have all other RPG mechanics, are still seen to be action games / adventure games.

War games have no such requirement. There are plenty of war games with no character development mechanics whatsoever.

 

[hiver]

ye, fuck... his infinotron really splurges incredible stupid shit sometimes.

have low budgets, and the approach you advocate requires large amounts of content creation. Content creation is expensive. In contrast, system design - namely, combat system design - is cheap.

Yeah? But that brilliant brain cannot see the relation to early cRPGs which...what? Had huge budgets?

Content creation is expensive.

Yup... them Fallouts spent gazzillions of kwanza dollars and had veritable thousands of developers!
Dyou know that Tim Cain set in that room for months and all he and interplay had for heating was dollar bills?
Thats why they went down really.
trucks and trucks of one hundred dollar bills boyo.

Wargamers disagree.

What would they disagree with?

This is in contradiction to any desire to "emulate pen and paper RPG experiences",

In which universe do you live in exactly?

but that's the reality of it.

- EDIT -

I have to say a few things that will provide some clarification on this craaazy dude.
You see, he has a big trauma.

For some reason... (probably from reading too many posts made by retards and imbeciles) - he somehow came to think that ALL of us think that Fallout games are utter immaculate perfection forever shining their light onto all of the gamehood.

While that is actually true, (just kidding ffs... they are perfect in other ways) he for some reason took it to mean that we imagine those games have features and content that they actually dont. Or that they barely have. Content and features that were left on a cutting floor or otherwise never implemented. Or stuff that is there but isnt really developed into full range and quantity.

So you see... all these attempts to reduce what a TRUE RPG is or should be.
To portray this imagined crazy fandom as unrealistic fools tripping on acid flashbacks of gone days.
while He knows teh truth!

for example, i just opened this thread and there he is. blasting away.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/fallout-fixt-alpha-6-1-released.86306/page-2

 

[Sceptic]

I think you're exaggerating a bit.

A bit, yes.

But really, the finale of QFG5 is pure fighting no matter your class, and it's by far the easiest on the mage. I'm not exaggerating the one-shotting the dragon bit - you literally one-shot him. And the small army of centaurs you roflstomp without them being able to get a single shot at you. Actually most of 5 is laughably easy on the mage - try playing Hades on a thief or a fighter, vs a mage. Or the liberation of the villages. Or just about any of the combat-heavy parts.

 

[Infinitron]

A bit, yes.

But really, the finale of QFG5 is pure fighting no matter your class, and it's by far the easiest on the mage. I'm not exaggerating the one-shotting the dragon bit - you literally one-shot him. And the small army of centaurs you roflstomp without them being able to get a single shot at you. Actually most of 5 is laughably easy on the mage - try playing Hades on a thief or a fighter, vs a mage. Or the liberation of the villages. Or just about any of the combat-heavy parts.

Okay man, but... it's QfG5.

 

[Roguey]

In VtmB, playing as a Nosferatu or Malkavian is significantly different than other classes

The only thing that separates Malks from others is dialogue. Nosferatu get different reactions and are forced to play stealthily in hubs, but that's it. They also weren't playtested at all and it was totally impossible to complete it as one in the shipped release.