Dragon Age - Preview @ Eurogamer

[woges]

Oli Welsh writes up his not so impressed with Dragon Age preview. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=200259)
Visually, Origins is technically impressive and flows smoothly, if not rapidly, from story to combat to exploration to conversation, within an elegantly restrained interface. It rarely excites, though. Its looks are as coolly handsome and restrained and hedge-betting as the characters who never say anything with feeling, because they have to deliver three responses the same way. There's grace and detached splendour here, but not much imagination, or guts, or glory. Dragon Age: Origins looks and sounds like a war in a library.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=9697)

[Holly Avenger]

This preview echoes my own feelings somewhat. I can't help but shake the feeling that Dragon Age is so much "by the numbers" that it's not going to excite. Been there, done that. The Bioware formula is starting to get a bit old, no matter how they dress it up.

Shame, as I'd love a decent BG-style romp. I just want the setting, plot and character to not feel like they've been transplanted from various other Bioware RPGs.

[NFLed]

The Bioware formula is most certainly not getting old or uninteresting in my view. Judging a game by a demo can work fine for action-based games which rely on graphics and wow but for a Bioware game it's the story/quests and the way everything is so well implemented which is a main strength and that can't be captured in any sort of demo.

[karka]

Eurogamer: A site that gave 10/10 to Oblivion.

'Nuff said.

[booboo]

I wonder what this paragraph meant

"NPC party-members are controlled by autonomous AI in real-time, but once controlled offer up their own limited action bars, providing some variety and tactical flexibility."

Hm, is he implying that, unlike BG/Kotor, you *can't* control every character as fully as the "hero"? I hope not - that would be crap (one of the things I hated about NWN). I do understand the undertone of cynicism - but I liked the old party-based BG formula and I'd love to see it updated for the new millenium. Of course, it would have been even better to see something new and daring, but I ddn't really expect that. I hope more details will be forthcoming about how closely this game really implements the party dynamic - I don't give a toss about "coordinating shield bashes" etc. I want tactical combat, that I can control completely (well, as completely as I could in the old BG titles).

[screeg]

I want tactical combat, that I can control completely (well, as completely as I could in the old BG titles).

Keep dreaming, booboo. I don't think you're going to get that from any of the bigshot developers.

[Dhruin]

I wonder what this paragraph meant

"NPC party-members are controlled by autonomous AI in real-time, but once controlled offer up their own limited action bars, providing some variety and tactical flexibility."

Hm, is he implying that, unlike BG/Kotor, you *can't* control every character as fully as the "hero"? I hope not - that would be crap (one of the things I hated about NWN).

I took it to be like KotOR - I can take control of each character and queue some actions but I can't control their positioning once I jump out, for example.

[zahratustra]

I wonder what this paragraph meant

"NPC party-members are controlled by autonomous AI in real-time, but once controlled offer up their own limited action bars, providing some variety and tactical flexibility."

My guess would be that it means exactly that..... Similar to the way your "heroes" are handled in Guild Wars.

[martink]

I enjoyed the preview for two reasons.

First, and the smaller of the two, because it was well written.

Second, because here's someone who is not simply toeing the line at which all other media are standing, lauding the game and all that is Bioware with a unified chorus.

The reality is that turn-based, tactical combat has already been done and done very very well. We know (and love, right?) pioneer games like Pools of Radiance, BG and Silent Storm which allow you to participate in every aspect of combat. There's obviously a lack of games of this time, so much so that even NWN2 is trying to capture this (admittedly small) target market with the world map in its new expansion pack.

Where have the tactical turn based games gone? Simple: it is no longer financially viable to produce such games. We're in the world of FPSs and genres that have "action" prefixed to them (ARPG) and everyone wants eye candy and gore and action and adrenaline. Sitting back and thinking for minutes on end (oh no, not minutes!) about the next turn is becoming (or has already become) the province of the stodgy curmudgeons that are the older gamer generation. While they may be numerous and have the disposable income to fund such games, they no longer have the time to commit to them ... certainly not in volumes that accompany the halcyon days of the younger generation.

[Yeesh]

Where have the tactical turn based games gone? Simple: it is no longer financially viable to produce such games. We're in the world of FPSs and genres that have "action" prefixed to them (ARPG) and everyone wants eye candy and gore and action and adrenaline. Sitting back and thinking for minutes on end (oh no, not minutes!) about the next turn is becoming (or has already become) the province of the stodgy curmudgeons that are the older gamer generation. While they may be numerous and have the disposable income to fund such games, they no longer have the time to commit to them ... certainly not in volumes that accompany the halcyon days of the younger generation.

I'm a proud and ancient curmudgeon, and let me add that I created a mage in WoW named Curmageon, and according to the WoW armory, I'm the only one of us 10 million losers who thought of that, and what does that say about me? But to continue, as a Jagged Alliance 2 fanatic, I can think of no happier fantasy than a return of some turn-based strategy goodness. I mean, even those Paradox games like Hearts of Iron, etc are ostensibly in real time (and they do succeed, but because or in spite of is debateable). But tactical combat especially benefits from the time to consider, for the coordination of each character's precise position and perfectly-timed special abilities.

Anyway, I can think of no happier fantasy. But classic PC gamers have to be hardened realists by now (or at least had ought to be), and we recognize that a fantasy is just a fantasy. There's been a new generation, far more numerous, who don't object to swords and Orks and fireballs; but they do find it hard to understand why that particular band of Orks stays frozen in absolute stasis for the 10 seconds it presumably takes the mage to cast his fireball spell, or why that fighter stands perfectly still while another group of Orks advance one at a time to a square next to him, and take exactly one swing each.

Turn-based gameplay is an abstraction, it's a game mechanism that's heavy on the game, and as computers have gotten mightier, the trend in ALL things is towards more "realism". I know, we're talking about Orks and fireballs, but one of the key differences between us (the Western world) and the Japanese is that we (as a game-buying public) are only willing to suspend our disbelief so far. We can imagine a world of Orks and fireballs, but a world of turns?

This is just to say that while I cherish and prefer turn-based tactical combat, I can also see the (majority?) viewpoint that turn-based gaming was an abstraction that was tolerated only because PCs lacked the power to render believable combat in real time. And now that the power is there, real-time is the only acceptible mechanism; exactly the way people feel about 2-D v 3-D. To that viewopint, turn-based's time has passed, and they say, 'good riddance'.

What can ya do?

[zakhal]

The thing I like about turn based games is that I can control and see every aspect of the combat. In real time strategies control often become chaotic and you miss many cool things that happen in the combat (special moves,spells,"heroic actions" that saved the party, etc ) because you have only one pair of eyes. But I think real time games can be good too if you can control every unit and you can slow down the speed of the realtime. Som RTS games (C&C?) had a speed meter which enabled you to slow down the game to a level where it could as well be a turnbased game.

Guild wars npc are autonomous but most of the time I have no idea what they are doing, because I have hands full controlling my own character and there is no speed meter in the game. The only thing Im barely able to keep up is whether the ai healer keeps the party alive. Allthough somtimes Im not able to do that even and som fool runs away just to get himself killed.

The thing that worries me is the special stuff that happens in the dragon age. In the video characters cast neat spells, jump on monsters, etc. It all looks amazing but if the game is realtime and you cant slow it down I dont have any time to enjoy watching such actions - I will miss most of them because my eyes were somwhere else.

[Hedek]

the trend in ALL things is towards more "realism". I know, we're talking about Orks and fireballs, but [...] we (as a game-buying public) are only willing to suspend our disbelief so far. We can imagine a world of Orks and fireballs, but a world of turns?

Exactly, I loved your reply, very funny ;-)

I too am puzzled every time I hear developers talk about "realism" and "immersion" when talking about games that take place in totally unrealistic settings.

All the excuses against turn-based, are just that, excuses. It's just a matter of what the majority is used to : people want immediate action, no thoughts, no planning, just rush in and bash away. The result of a generation fed with the Diablo series, Half Life and Unreal engine games I guess.

It's like automatic vs manual cars, try selling a manual car in the USA, it just won't sell to the masses, and it won't matter if you explain it gives more control and "tactical" possibilities, they're just used to automatic so will only buy that.

[nessosin]

We can imagine a world of Orks and fireballs, but a world of turns?

World of turns :)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html

[Alrik Fassbauer]

There's been a new generation,

Sometimes I do wonder what this "new generation" might say in 10 years ...

... Then, I'm thinking of talking like this :

"Oh, my these mindless games nowadays ... Couldn't there be something more fleshed out ? All these action titles ... There's nothing more than mindless action titles out there ..."

"No. It's too late now. Back then, 10 years ago, you all voted with your money and said : This kind of gaming is good. Make more of this !

You could've changed the future by voting with your money differently.

But now it's too late. You got what you voted for."


people want immediate action, no thoughts, no planning, just rush in and bash away. The result of a generation fed with the Diablo series, Half Life and Unreal engine games I guess.

Partly. I strongly believe that in part the industry grew its customers. No joke.

By feeding them with what they thought they wanted, the industryshaped and grew its own kind of customers.

Like in a farm : An animal will eat what it is fed with.

At one point, it develops kind of custom / habit (out of this). Like the dog of Pavlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov).

To me, it's a two-sides thing.

[woges]

It's highly probable that more people played real-time games in what's know as the 'good ol days' as well.

[doctor_kaz]

What I've seen of Dragon Age doesn't show off very well. The first trailer that came out was crap. The Gameplay videos that have come out since then look good but not spectacular. They showed some combat and it was okay, but they didn't show off any use of tactics.

[woges]

Well, nobody is showing off much of their mechanics early on, not even Blizzard with a game like Diablo 3 so I'm guessing this is an advertising tactic. I've done a little study in advertising but nothing to do with building momentum to release. More on the denotation/connotation of adverts themselves - magazines, TV and the like. It's all so dull and contrived.

Edit:

While I'm on this it's one thing I really like about The Watch is that you can come here and not be bombarded with the dross that seems to be killing my Firefox.

[zakhal]

It's highly probable that more people played real-time games in what's know as the 'good ol days' as well.

2D realtime action was the most popular genre but turn based rpgs were popular too. Once computers got
better the rpgs started to transform into realtime (did they try to attract the realtime gamers?). Nowadays theres no turn based rpgs left at all anymore - except from indies.

[woges]

Nope, but if Interplay were still going today (or should I say making games today) would even they be doing turn based now? - I'm not so sure. The Bard's Tale publishers last release was what? Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II?

[woges]

Bioware have never even done what people call a turn-based game, they arrived with real-time with pause so I don't see how you can even expect one from them.

[chamr]

Well, nobody is showing off much of their mechanics early on, not even Blizzard with a game like Diablo 3 so I'm guessing this is an advertising tactic.

Huh? Did you not see the 20min gameplay vid for D3? That showed off plenty of mechanics. Way more than they've shown for Dragon Age so far.

[woges]

They showed a few skills in motion but no skill trees, stats, or leveling. What they showed I see as game-play.

[aries100]

To me, Bioware has been doing a great job in showing us (and yes, marketing to us) a game that harkens back to the days of Baldur's Gate. The devs. have said on numerous occasion as have the good doctors (Ray & Greg) that you can control all your characters, even in combat.

When we look at how combat is meant to be done in BG1+BG2 it is meant to be done by hitting the pause button, telling your charachers including your own, the pc, what to do - then you release the pause button and the action flows. Not in realtime, since every one is still on their individual rounds (that's last for 6 seconds in BG1+BG2 while a turn last for 60 seconds) that is based in the D&D ruleset.

To me, this action bar?, just shows me that the game will play similar to BG1+BG2 in combat. You pause the game, you can order your team mates what to do, then unpause, then they do it. In realtime (almost).

Have any of you though that (maybe) the 'offering up their own actions bars" could actually mean that NPCs, and you, have action points??

I do hope this does not mean that when we're not in combat we can't control our characters? It sounds like this since the controls (for the player's characters) are using the WSAD system. From the demo, I got the distinct impression that you could click on the ground and the party would play 'follow the leader'.

Bu maybe I got some messages crossed??

[chamr]

What they showed I see as game-play.

Oh. I thought that was what we were talking about: player interaction with the environment, tactics, monster AI, skill usage, etc. Even then, they did show some of what I think you mean by "mechanics" with the skill and item descriptions (granted, you have to freeze frame the video, but as you'd expect, folks have already posted full dissections of the info complete with screen shots) as well as the inventory screen.

[woges]

I generally think of the underlining rules as the mechanics and using them the game play. So they are intrinsically linked, blurred even at times. We can take a fairly good guess at what a Diablo game and a party based game will generally play like. From what the producer said at E3 DA will have 1v1 battles and your party v many battles. How much of each? Who knows.

[lumiapina]

You can control all your characters in combat, just like in BG games. This time the combat is actual realtime, not turnbased simulated as realtime. The WASD moving is for exploration, but I guess you could use it in combat, if you wanted to for some reason. Also you can play pretty much the whole game from the bird's eye view if you don't want zoom close and move with the WASD.

[zakhal]

Bioware have never even done what people call a turn-based game, they arrived with real-time with pause so I don't see how you can even expect one from them.

Baldurs gate was spiritual successor to turn based AD&D series that started with gold box and continued with dark sun. I guess one could complain like fallout fans are complaining that fallout3 is not turn based. But personally I never expected AD&D successor to be turn based (back then atleast) and I was okay with paused realtime.

[kalniel]

Bioware have never even done what people call a turn-based game, they arrived with real-time with pause so I don't see how you can even expect one from them.

Well baldurs gate was round-based, just like the AD&D game it was trying to present. No point adding turn-based to a game that didn't need it either tactically or authentically.

From what I remember F1&2 were similarly round-based, but without BGs option to run the rounds together.

[Dhruin]

Well baldurs gate was round-based, just like the AD&D game it was trying to present. No point adding turn-based to a game that didn't need it either tactically or authentically.

From what I remember F1&2 were similarly round-based, but without BGs option to run the rounds together.

Couldn't really disagree more. These really aren't the same, as you essentially imply.

[danutz_plusplus]

Couldn't really disagree more. These really aren't the same, as you essentially imply.

I agree with kalniel, and I also think they are very similar. Fallout and Baldur's Gate combat mechanics I mean. The difference is that while both are round/turn driven (action points in Fallout and rounds in BG), they're simultaneous turns that run continuously in BG(with the possibility of pausing) , and chess-like turn based in Fallout. But if you were to make them simultaneous in Fallout, and not pause after every player takes his turn, they would be pretty much the same.

[Dhruin]

No.

In a "true" turn-based system -- say ToEE, for example -- the combat queue is critical. If my puny mage is caught standing beside the giant ogre - and the queue is rogue -> ogre -> mage, then the rogue better do something creative because the ogre is going to smash my mage before he does anything at all. This creates tension, atmosphere and tactics that are different to running everyone on simultaneous, individual initiative rounds.

In BG, I'm simply going to move my mage away while getting everyone else to target the ogre...completely different scenario, I'm sorry.

It might only be a minor change in mechanics on paper but the effect is quite different. Now, that isn't to saw RT doesn't have its own appeal.

May I hazard a guess you aren't a real fan of sequential TB systems?

[danutz_plusplus]

May I hazard a guess you aren't a real fan of sequential TB systems?

It's not that I don't like sequential turn-based(I like how it is handled in Fallout), but I the way BG/IWD did it. Turn based combat like in ToEE tends to take a very long time. And I don't like spending a lot of time in one giant battle, and then lose right at the end. It's very discouraging.

[Dhruin]

That's fine, but I'd suggest that's why it's easy to dismiss RTwP and TB as practically the same. For those of us who really love sequential TB systems, there is quite a difference.

[kalniel]

No.

In a "true" turn-based system -- say ToEE, for example -- the combat queue is critical. If my puny mage is caught standing beside the giant ogre - and the queue is rogue -> ogre -> mage, then the rogue better do something creative because the ogre is going to smash my mage before he does anything at all. This creates tension, atmosphere and tactics that are different to running everyone on simultaneous, individual initiative rounds.I don't quite get what you're saying. It's the same thing in a round based system like D&D - if the ogre acts faster than the mage (speed factor in BG I think) then the mage is dead, you need your rogue to do something creative if acting before the ogre.

In BG, I'm simply going to move my mage away while getting everyone else to target the ogre...completely different scenario, I'm sorry. I think that's purely a rule base distinction then - if the turn based system let everyone take turns to move then act then the same thing would happen here. Conversely if you made baldur's game with the 3rd edition rules initiative would take care of this, but no-one has. IWD2 copped out.

May I hazard a guess you aren't a real fan of sequential TB systems?If you're including me in that, then I don't mind at all - I'm enjoying Space Rangers 2 at the moment. It depends on the game - if they made a tactical D&D 3rd ed game then it'd be cool to have turn-based, something like D&D Tactics I guess. But equally if I want a game that allows me to immerse myself in the game world then running the rounds together, or even bigger changes, are fine with me. To me it's the difference between playing a game on the computer (eg, playing Dungeons and Dragons) and having an experience on the computer - there's no objective view that one is better than the other, but it's nice to have the choice of both.

In a game like Dragon Age where they are designing the whole ruleset to be exclusively experienced on a computer then I'm glad it's not round based at all. There is no Dragon Age tabletop game which I'm trying to emulate.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

and the queue is rogue -> ogre -> mage

I just had the spontaneous thought that even the order might develop a different kind of tactics and tension :

Your example from above is just one example of an "execution order" (double sense in here, too).

But just imagine an order of hero1 -> enemy1 -> hero2 -> enemy2 etc. . This would force the player to develop just another kind of tactics ...

Ideal would be a game which is so "open" that one could change the execution order in the options menu ... Not during a fight, of course. ;)

[chamr]

if they made a tactical D&D 3rd ed game then it'd be cool to have turn-based, something like D&D Tactics I guess.

Doesn't that describe ToEE?

[Dhruin]

If you're including me in that, then I don't mind at all - I'm enjoying Space Rangers 2 at the moment. It depends on the game - if they made a tactical D&D 3rd ed game then it'd be cool to have turn-based, something like D&D Tactics I guess. But equally if I want a game that allows me to immerse myself in the game world then running the rounds together, or even bigger changes, are fine with me. To me it's the difference between playing a game on the computer (eg, playing Dungeons and Dragons) and having an experience on the computer - there's no objective view that one is better than the other, but it's nice to have the choice of both.

In a game like Dragon Age where they are designing the whole ruleset to be exclusively experienced on a computer then I'm glad it's not round based at all. There is no Dragon Age tabletop game which I'm trying to emulate.

Why would it be cool to have a tactical D&D 3rd ed game if there is "no point adding turn-based to a game that didn't need it either tactically or authentically", compared to BioWare's RTwP system?

Can't comment on the DA system, because I know nothing about it.

[kalniel]

Doesn't that describe ToEE?I had the impression ToEE was still trying to be a computer game, rather than an emulation of the D&D tabletop game.

Why would it be cool to have a tactical D&D 3rd ed game if there is "no point adding turn-based to a game that didn't need it either tactically or authentically", compared to BioWare's RTwP system? I thought I explained - Baldurs gate is a computer game using the AD&D rules and fully round-based system, but it's not trying to emulate the table top experience in the way that something like D&D Insider is now for.

It's not real time with pause because the entire mechanics are still based around a round and what you can do within that. Even NWN 1& 2 still have an internal (though asynchronous, unlike BG) round mechanic which you have to use custom heartbeats to get around. RTwP would be something like Dungeon Siege.

[aries100]

I'll just post this thread

http://dragonage.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=642635&forum=135

where Georg Zoeller, senior technical designer at Bioware, states that Bioware made the ruleset for DA from scratch; reason being they wanted to have absolute control over the creative proces. The ruleset for DA was made with the computer in mind. There's no D&D ruleset being used, but

Georg Zoeller wrote:
Characters in Dragon Age act on their own time, meaning there is no concept like a combat round.

This could mean that each character will have their own initiative, maybe based on their agility? and their speed?

Then the thread sort of made it it techie-land, but as it was 1:30 AM over here in Europe...I went to :sleep: instead...

[Alrik Fassbauer]

It's not real time with pause because the entire mechanics are still based around a round and what you can do within that.

Okay, then it's round-based with pause.

So what ?

[Dhruin]

I thought I explained - Baldurs gate is a computer game using the AD&D rules and fully round-based system, but it's not trying to emulate the table top experience in the way that something like D&D Insider is now for.

It's not real time with pause because the entire mechanics are still based around a round and what you can do within that. Even NWN 1& 2 still have an internal (though asynchronous, unlike BG) round mechanic which you have to use custom heartbeats to get around. RTwP would be something like Dungeon Siege.

I understand exactly how it works, thank you.

In the post I originally quoted, you imply a turn-based implementation of BG would be pointless, because it brings nothing the current system doesn't achieve in either authenticity or tactics. In this post, you acknowledge BG doesn't try to fully emulate the table top experience.

Some of us would enjoy it if BG (etc) did emulate the table top experience closer, and therefore, a sequential turn-based system does have something to offer in authenticity and tactics.

[Yeesh]

My name's Yeesh and I chime in.

I found the real-time but 'round-based' mechanism of BG to be particularly lame on my most recent attempt at a play through. I got to a part where I had to walk into a room with 4 or 5 hostile mages, and I just gave up. Too annoying. But let me focus on what I thought was lame.

In pure real time, a spell that takes 2 seconds to cast could be cast 10 times in 20 seconds (hope I got the math right). In BGII, my casters could fire off one spell per round; whether the spell takes 2 seconds or 10 seconds, that caster is done until the next round. Except this is a real-time game, so I can't see when the frigging rounds are. So time and time again, I'd select a caster who was just standing there, and I'd tell him to cast so and so spell, and he'd just keep standing there. And I'd go ARRRRGHHH and somebody would get their brain eaten by a mindflayer. RELOAD.

Anywho, I found that to be lame, in a game where magic plays such a critical role. In a true TB system, of course, this is not an issue. One spell per turn? Fine with me. And in a pure real-time system, this is not an issue. Some spells take long and some don't? Fine with me (I can cast more of the ones that take less times, and less of the long ones). But in this mixed mode, this round-based but real-time system, I can't tell what's going on.

Well, they could pop a yellow light above each char's head once that char has done some once-a-round action, and when the new round starts the lights could all turn green. But which actions trigger and which don't?

At some point, you just have to make the call, real-time or TB. And you have to accept (and we have to accept) that if the devs take real-time, there will be less control, no matter how pausible the game is. Unless you simplify gameplay down to Syndicate-like levels... (Move the group, click on the enemy. Rat-tat-tat-tat. Move the group...)

[woges]

Well, BG is RTwP you and your enemies act in real-time there's no taking turns. Turns are 'simulated' in time but they are real-time. Fallout is turn-based with AP deciding the amount of actions you do per turn. All I said is that Bioware have never released a turn-based game, and they haven't. Maybe the Sonic game they are releasing is turn-based? I just don't think any of their 3G/PC releases will be turn-based because they would probably believe that to be a step back.

[Maylander]

I love how Heroes of Might and Magic 3 implemented TB. Fallout was too slow, as killing rodents in slow motion just doesn't do it for me - in HoMM3, you could select "automatic combat" if your army was a lot stronger than the enemy army. Such an automatic fight was over instantly, but often lead to a bit more casualties than if the player manually controlled the fight (a price I'm more than willing to pay).

If I have to choose between BG and Fallout in terms of combat, I prefer BG by far, since all the mindless fights are over instantly.

[Dez]

One of the reasons why baldur's gate is such a wonderfull rpg game is that those battles don't have to last forver everytime.. Its just tons of fun seeing my heroes marching through horders of low level enemies in few seconds without sweat.. However I love the paused turn-based combat when I'm facing bunch of enemy mages.. So having the option to pause and give commands is imo the best system. Not fully turn-based but not entirely real-time. Call me weirdo if you like:)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

One of the reasons why baldur's gate is such a wonderfull rpg game is that those battles don't have to last forver everytime.. Its just tons of fun seeing my heroes marching through horders of low level enemies in few seconds without sweat..

You can have that with any Action-RPG nowadays. You don't need BG for that.

[Maylander]

Doesn't make you *feel* as powerful though. There's somethig special about a mage (or sorcerer) with the Robe of Vecna shooting out instant chain lightnings, wiping out entire rooms in one bang.

[Corwin]

That's why I still play NWN every week!! :)