It's going cheap frequently now, so I'd say give it a go if you can. I initially was a naysayer, but I've put ~20hrs into it over the past week or so and I've enjoyed what I've played.Originally Posted by Cooper
It's going cheap frequently now, so I'd say give it a go if you can. I initially was a naysayer, but I've put ~20hrs into it over the past week or so and I've enjoyed what I've played.
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say it isn't an RPG, unless you hold to an ultra-strict definition of the term. If you think Alpha Protocol is an RPG, you'll think DA2 is one as well. And it's not bad, it's just not quite what Origins was.
I actually dipped a toe back into Origins the other day just to compare, and it's interesting just how nicely they cleaned the UI up. There are still tons of abilities, but I didn't fill an entire quickbar in DA2, thanks largely to streamlining the potion system as well as some wise use of upgrades to improve skills/spells you like rather than a constant acquisition of new ones.
One thing that makes me doubt their status as rpgs is the fact that the gameplay and the story elements are two discrete facets of the game. Your character's stats or your playstyle do not have an effect on plot progression, how your interaction with the world and its characters, etc unlike say in games like New Vegas.
But they do. If you choose a mage at the start of DA2, the scenes with Wesley are different, I believe. Not overly so, but they're different.
Not played enough with a mage to see how much different the rest is.
I have to wonder whether any of you 'not a real RPG types' have ever played a P&P RPG that wasn't D&D tbh. This Grognard dice rolls determine everything thinking is for the birds.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
I basically agree, at least regarding DA2. This is especially egregious in the case of Blood Mages (which weren't completely well-integrated into Origins either). I think it's a case of wanting a cool specialization that makes sense within the context of the gameworld (best shown by having to unlock the specializations) but not realistically having the time/resources/ability/interest to incorporate it into the game.
Origins, however, is just as detailed as New Vegas (I thought). It would be nice to see more of that going forward.
The "hey, we don't need any rules" thinking is for anti role-playing gamers.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
I guess GG knew nothing about RPGs?
The dice have only ever been there to mediate, when mediation is actually required. You'd know this if you'd ever done P&P role play for real old man. So get back under your bridge.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
A cRPG without rules would be silly. The game wouldn't be able to determine what happens, because there would be no rules, so the player would have to tell it what happens. Let's not be silly.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
That actually confirms what I'm saying and not what you're saying.
Also, can you drop the whole "you haven't played X" stuff. It's tedious and incorrect.
I haven't played DA2 to that point, but knowing Bioware, I'd say it isn't much more than the character saying a token line or two. If that is the case, it's different than what I meant. For example, in New Vegas you can get avoid a lot of the combat and even bypass the boss fights, just by talking, if you have high enough charisma.
One of the interesting things the game does is allow you to basically toss the conversation to a party member. There are tons of moments when your party composition can change conversations in the ways you are looking for. It reinforces the game's focus on characters over just about everything else.
There are also some situations where your personality type (diplomatic/snarky/agressive, dependant on the number of respective dialogue options chosen) opens up additional options like initimdation or deception in dialogue, but unfortunately those are few and far between.
I didn't play very far through in my experiment to see the effect of the personality types (because it's really boring to play each section twice in a row) but when I did, the persuasion options were always at the same place, just the one you get depended on your personality. Does anyone know if there are some conversations with a persuasion option that is available only for a particular personality? That would be a good feature. If it's just the way that I saw it, then it's not really a meaningful feature.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
The persuasion options always appear AFAIK, however you'll only succeed at them if you have the right personality. Of course, if you have the right party member with you at the time you can delegate to them. It's not just conversation options either - there's certain conversations / cutscenes where specific classes come into play. When you rescue the Templar initiate for example if you're a mage you can check yourself to see if they're corrupted by blood magic; if you have a mage in the party at that point you can ask them to do it; if neither then your only option is to hand them over to the mercy of the templars.
You misunderstood (or I explained it wrong, which is also very possible). If your personality is sufficiently saracastic for example, there's a situation where you can bluff your way out of a fight, but it requires the player to have chosen x (or x%, can't remember) sarcastic dialogue options. These additional choices appear usually at the bottom left of the dialogue wheel. The only other options in that situation for a not-sarcastic-enough Hawke are violence, or, if Varric is in your party, let him do the bluffing.
There are similar situations where being "diplomatic Hawke" or "agressive Hawke" open up special diplomacy or intimidation dialogue options. It's a fairly interesting system, but as I said sadly underused - there are perhaps half a dozen situations where options like that are available.
The thing I thought Dragon Age 2 did well (aside from the narrative structure, which was a nice idea which perhaps wasn't quite exploited as well as it could have been) was that your party members actually had their own opinions. Sure you could influence them somewhat but when push comes to shove they actually seemed to want to do their own thing; which was refreshing compared to the usual situation where the player character is very much the puppet master of other party members.
Unfortunately despite this and having some pretty enjoyable quests and the odd intruiging choice to make it was utterly let down by the annoying combat and the ending, which, if memory serves me correct was probably worse than Mass Effect 3's, despite being oh so close to actually being a rare decent ending for a game of this style.
It's also as transparent as a brick wall.
*Chorles* You just got owned from beyond the grave, live with it old man.
Truth hurts.Also, can you drop the whole "you haven't played X" stuff. It's tedious and incorrect.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
It means, Wizardry, that all these rulesets that you're in love with are a means to an end, not the end itself.
Maybe if you actually understood that, you wouldn't be such a tightwad about RPGs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
