Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[imweasel]

Re: Lack of health regeneration, I wonder if BioWare end up plagiarizing Josh Sawyer's stamina/health system for PE.

But, but, P:E does have regenerating health.

BioWare already tried that for Dragon Age 2 and the concept failed, why the fuck would they copy Sawyer's shitty system, which is only minimally different from the one in DA2? Just to hear the players bitch about the shitty health system again or what?

The only differences between the systems is that in P:E health regeneration is limited (although it can be replenished at Sawyer's magical healing area rather frequently).

 

[Delterius]

Stale HP was considered archaic back in DA:O's development so I'm surprised enough that they removed regen. What would be really world shattering is if death is as punishing as its sounds like in P:E.

Yeah, like there is a chance for this to happen.

Let's go back 2 days in time, shall we? If I had said, then:

Hey guise I think BioWare will remove health regen

WTF are you high?

So, yeah, bizarre things may just be about to happen.

Besides, I highly doubt characters will die only to recover health. So dying is as punishing as being near death, which is similar to P:E.

 

[NotTale]

Superficially similar. They're probably going to continue using the wound system, but the difference between Dragon Age wounds and P:E's penalty is a matter of significant degrees.

 

[Delterius]

Did the wound system have anything to do with health in DA2? And if so, did it actually limit your health based on damage received, as opposed to deaths? Because I don't remember anything like that in DA:O, where it was just a really small reduction in attributes (so I suppose minus half a point in CON counts) based on death.

 

[NotTale]

I can't remember anything about DA2 to be honest with you. But I expect it was the same as DA:O.

 

[Kidd]

I'm happy they removed level scaling enemies. Will really help in making the world feel more real than it has in the past few games.

 

[Delterius]

Did you play some alternate reality Origins where health didn't regen after every combat and almost all of it was, thus, trash?

 

[NotTale]

I don't mean the entire game was the same. I mean the wound system.

 

[AstroZombie]

New Screenshot:

 

[Andyman Messiah]

New Screenshot:

Fixed.

 

[Delterius]

New video.

 

[Roguey]

Codex thought DA1 was "good for what it is" even though it was shittier than DA2.

DA:O had better content, DA2 had systemic improvements wasted on what was mostly worse content for the most part.

Did the wound system have anything to do with health in DA2? And if so, did it actually limit your health based on damage received, as opposed to deaths? Because I don't remember anything like that in DA:O, where it was just a really small reduction in attributes (so I suppose minus half a point in CON counts) based on death.

Each injury would reduce your health by 20%. That was an improvement but then they did ridiculous things like limit the maximum number of injuries you can have on normal to 2 (3 for hard) and have injury kits spawn as random loot if you didn't meet the threshold (9 on normal, 6 on hard, 3 on nightmare). The illusion of difficulty.

 

[Delterius]

and have injury kits spawn as random loot if you didn't meet the threshold (9 on normal, 6 on hard, 3 on nightmare). The illusion of difficulty.

I was expecting some sort of illusion from the new DA, like Origins' overabundance of injury kits. But now this sounds quite heavy handed.

 

[Mastermind]

Codex thought DA1 was "good for what it is" even though it was shittier than DA2.

DA:O had better content, DA2 had systemic improvements wasted on what was mostly worse content for the most part.

I prefer decent gameplay and mediocre content to decent content and abysmal gameplay.

 

[Delterius]

Codex thought DA1 was "good for what it is" even though it was shittier than DA2.

DA:O had better content, DA2 had systemic improvements wasted on what was mostly worse content for the most part.

I prefer decent gameplay and mediocre content to decent content and abysmal gameplay.

Someone has to be insane and especially butthurt (as in, trying to make a point) to even consider settling for either of the above.

 

[DalekFlay]

Someone has to be insane and especially butthurt (as in, trying to make a point) to even consider settling for either of the above.

Decent to good gameplay in a tired fantasy setting is pretty much 95% of classic RPGs.

 

[Grunker]

Codex thought DA1 was "good for what it is" even though it was shittier than DA2.

DA:O had better content, DA2 had systemic improvements wasted on what was mostly worse content for the most part.

I prefer decent gameplay and mediocre content to decent content and abysmal gameplay.

Someone has to be insane and especially butthurt (as in, trying to make a point) to even consider settling for either of the above.

DA2 had terrible gameplay compared to the original. Roguey is talking about systemic upgrades, but that's not the core of the gameplay. The combat in DA2 was repetitive encounters, almost identical in shape and form, along with a much faster-paced combat that didn't fit the system at all. DA2 failed completely to even utilize a few of the systemic improvements Roguey talked about.

That's why DA2 is completely inferior to DA:O, which with its slower pace and more diverse encounter design was a much, much better game. Not because of content in the form of story or characters or whatever (which I don't think Roguey could give two shits about) but because of content in combat and challenge.

(as for my own opinion, I think DA:O was a genuinely good game, while the second was abysmal in almost every single department compared to the first)

 

[RK47]

And ninjas. Don't forget the ninjas that drop down from the skies no matter what type of enemies they are.

 

[Delterius]

That's why DA2 is completely inferior to DA:O, which with its slower pace and more diverse encounter design was a much, much better game. Not because of content in the form of story or characters or whatever (which I don't think Roguey could give two shits about) but because of content in combat and challenge.

(as for my own opinion, I think DA:O was a genuinely good game, while the second was abysmal in almost every single department compared to the first)

I agree with everything you said. But I was just talking about Mastermind's post in isolation, which gave me flashbacks of 'well, its turn-based, doesn't really matter if it has the troika seal of quality, its superior to most everything else'.

I mean, its all well and good to say that you're slightly less critical of your favorite genre's content. But to settle for shitty content that well utilizes the rules is not only defeatist, its also often a contradiction.

 

[Aeschylus]

That's why DA2 is completely inferior to DA:O, which with its slower pace and more diverse encounter design was a much, much better game. Not because of content in the form of story or characters or whatever (which I don't think Roguey could give two shits about) but because of content in combat and challenge.

(as for my own opinion, I think DA:O was a genuinely good game, while the second was abysmal in almost every single department compared to the first)

Though I basically agree with you, I wouldn't call DA:O particularly challenging. Maybe the first time you play it and aren't familiar with the system. After my first playthrough though I easily iron-manned Nightmare difficulty, the only tricky part being that dragon fight.

 

[Mastermind]

DA2 had terrible gameplay compared to the original. Roguey is talking about systemic upgrades, but that's not the core of the gameplay. The combat in DA2 was repetitive encounters, almost identical in shape and form, along with a much faster-paced combat that didn't fit the system at all. DA2 failed completely to even utilize a few of the systemic improvements Roguey talked about.

That's why DA2 is completely inferior to DA:O, which with its slower pace and more diverse encounter design was a much, much better game. Not because of content in the form of story or characters or whatever (which I don't think Roguey could give two shits about) but because of content in combat and challenge.

I played both, but only had the stomach to finish DA2. DA:O had extremely boring skills for the melee classes, but better variety for mages. Encounter design felt repetitive in both so I don't know where you found "diverse encounter design" in Origins. I sure as fuck didn't find any. Slow pace when combined with tactical combat is a good thing. Slow pace + boring skills + boring encounters = shit game as far as I'm concerned. DA2 had better melee skills, and the fast paced combat fed my thirst for violence in a way the boring, dull Origins never did.

 

[Delterius]

Though I basically agree with you, I wouldn't call DA:O particularly challenging. Maybe the first time you play it and aren't familiar with the system. After my first playthrough though I easily iron-manned Nightmare difficulty, the only tricky part being that dragon fight.

I agree that DA:O wasn't particularly challenging, are subsequent playthroughs really a good evidence of that? If anything people ironman and solo games like these exactly because of how their knowledge of the game trumps its beastiary.

I'd say that DA:O's advantage over DA2 is encounter design. There's simply more variety in DA:O. Issue is that in between the interesting encounters there's a truckload of thrash.

This all without mentioning how unbalanced Origins is. The aforementioned patch and the mage class are the first things that spring to mind.

 

[Gurkog]

Are they wasting the potential of shapeshifting magic by not giving the player a non-humanoid companion that can shapeshift into either a man, woman, or whatever and fuck them? They must have learned to improve upon the Asari so that no one is left without a fuck.

 

[Hepler's Vagina]

Though I basically agree with you, I wouldn't call DA:O particularly challenging.

Then you probably only played on normal or on consoles. And normal got seriously nerfed within 2 weeks of release when the forums were all filled with complaining about the brutal difficulty. PC and hard or nightmare is lubeless rape in every encounter unless you have 2 well built mages and even then it's plenty challenging if an important spell fails or you fail to spot a key enemy. When DA2's lead designer says 'in DA2 we decided you should not die most of the time on normal' (implication - unlike in DA:O) do you think he was exaggerating or being misinformed about his own product?

If anything people ironman and solo games like these exactly because of how their knowledge of the game trumps its beastiary.

I personally like games that allow you to really whip them when you take the time to explore their innards and get that sweetspot build. My pet hate is silent adaptive difficulty (eg DA2 that puts a cap on your damage if you get the build too good - this was done for the battle to "continue feeling epic"). I believe all the ironman sol0 vids on youtube were consoles - which are 'DA:O' primarily in name and art - the few solos on PC involved a really well build arcane warrior using an early exploit around magic armor and magic amplification (I forget the actual spell names). You get stuff like that in every game, and in DA:O it was quickly patched out.

 

[Absinthe]

Then you probably only played on normal or on consoles. And normal got seriously nerfed within 2 weeks of release when the forums were all filled with complaining about the brutal difficulty. PC and hard or nightmare is lubeless rape in every encounter unless you have 2 well built mages and even then it's plenty challenging if an important spell fails or you fail to spot a key enemy.

Well, you sound like you don't know how to use spells, traps, 'nades, poisons, or potions. Man, I bet you actually use the companion AI. I've never played anything but Nightmare and DAO was a total joke. Two mages will cakewalk the game, esp. if you unlocked Wynne's special ability (which is stupidly overpowered). Even without mages, it isn't hard. I even installed the Nightmare Plus mod but wound up removing it 'cause inflated stats is not a good way to fix difficulty. I miss Nightmare Plus's fix for LoS aggroing though. Aggroing hordes of mobs through walls made for some memorable encounters.

When DA2's lead designer says 'in DA2 we decided you should not die most of the time on normal' (implication - unlike in DA:O) do you think he was exaggerating or being misinformed about his own product?

Misinformed, most definitely. In the EA days, I've never seen a Bioware dev who was even remotely aware of what they were doing. Bioware devs respond to criticism by drinking more kool-aid.

I personally like games that allow you to really whip them when you take the time to explore their innards and get that sweetspot build. My pet hate is silent adaptive difficulty (eg DA2 that puts a cap on your damage if you get the build too good - this was done for the battle to "continue feeling epic").

This is the codex, we pretty much all hate level scaling.

I believe all the ironman sol0 vids on youtube were consoles - which are 'DA:O' primarily in name and art - the few solos on PC involved a really well build arcane warrior using an early exploit around magic armor and magic amplification (I forget the actual spell names). You get stuff like that in every game, and in DA:O it was quickly patched out.

You really don't need to be an Arcane Warrior as a Mage. That was only done because it's an easy way to be nigh-immune to everything. Even without arcane warrior spec, it's not hard to roll a mage who tanks through everything. You can also roflstomp your way through the game with a Blood Mage or just decent spell selection.

Solo runs have been done with every class. Rogue has it easy too with Ranger specialization and the ability to abuse Stealthy Item Use (level 4) to trap/nade enemies to death without ever getting detected. Warrior solo run is the closest you'll get to having a challenge soloing the game.