Dragon Age 2 - Shorter but More Cinematic

So, a good 50-60% of all the combat was a total bore for me - because it was endless waves of samey encounters with 1-3 "hard" dudes that needed special care - and I dealt with most of them in the exact same ways.

Indeed.

Played the PC version on Nightmare, i've finished the game five times now and i must admit that most fights were like that .Found it a little more "challenging" without any mage in the party - but still easy.That is my personal, subjective opinion.

As for DA:2, i can't say that i am really looking forward to it as a solid RPG title - more like a Mass Effect-ish game.. with that in mind and with completely forgetting how good of an RPG DA:O was - i will probably be able to enjoy it as a game.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Hell
I played the PC version on hard.

Once the primary party structure was in place - the VAST majority of battles played out almost exactly the same. Using 1 decked out tank, 2 buffers/controllers/healers, and 1 major DPS character.

Strikes me more as a somewhat elaborate blueprint tailored with a few personal tweaks.

1) I fail to see how you can apply a similar blueprint in the "VAST" majority of cases given the stunning array (imho) of combat scenarios in the game. Like revenant, vs golems with gas in the room, vs dwarven spirit statue, vs field with refugees, vs circle tower with templars etc etc etc. Unless you were playing a different game, you must have had several blueprints. That's a good thing, isn't it? I appreciate this is subjective, but I think you are being harsh on one of the few titles that at least made an effort.

2) I bet your blueprint(s) were different to mine, and that mine were different to the next poster's. That's a good thing, isn't it? My tactics involved blood wound, fireball, force field. Never any healer.

3) The argument that you get good at combat and then it becomes repetitive goes for almost anything in life. I like to ride motorbikes, but once I could do the cones in less than 4 minutes I lost interest. That doesn't mean that doing a slalom on a 140hp motorbike is boring. So what is the message to BioWare from "trash mobs (= we good good at tactics)" - shorten the games so we don't have time to get bored? Well they just took that request right on board with DA2, judging by the OP.

4) I repeat my earlier question - what are we benchmarking this combat system against? Preferably examples from the last 4 years (although my memory does go back to Ultima IV). Or is this site like rpgcodex where everything is bashed for fun?

5) You realize that by harshly criticizing DA:O combat with words like "filler combat", you are saying to BioWare - "we as RPG aficionados didn't like what you did there". This is unlikely to motivate them into producing an even more complex game, in fact, just the opposite. Look at the thousands of people who struggled on "normal" difficulty, such that patch 1.02 made "normal" the new "casual". And now we have DA2 with no 'miss', no friendly fire, no tactical view, no being overwhelmed by enemies (waves instead), no need for pause and play etc.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
360
Let's hope the lower length is due to them not adding in less filler combat like the Deep Roads.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
1) I fail to see how you can apply a similar blueprint in the "VAST" majority of cases given the stunning array (imho) of combat scenarios in the game. Like revenant, vs golems with gas in the room, vs dwarven spirit statue, vs field with refugees, vs circle tower with templars etc etc etc. Unless you were playing a different game, you must have had several blueprints. That's a good thing, isn't it? I appreciate this is subjective, but I think you are being harsh on one of the few titles that at least made an effort.

I was talking about Mass Effect 2 when mentioning blueprints.

Still, a lot of Dragon Age combat seemed superfluous to a quality experience.

2) I bet your blueprint(s) were different to mine, and that mine were different to the next poster's. That's a good thing, isn't it? My tactics involved blood wound, fireball, force field. Never any healer.

What? I'm not using a blueprint.

3) The argument that you get good at combat and then it becomes repetitive goes for almost anything in life. I like to ride motorbikes, but once I could do the cones in less than 4 minutes I lost interest. That doesn't mean that doing a slalom on a 140hp motorbike is boring. So what is the message to BioWare from "trash mobs (= we good good at tactics)" - shorten the games so we don't have time to get bored? Well they just took that request right on board with DA2, judging by the OP.

I'm not sure what kind of life you're living, but in my life - it's quite possible to make challenges feel different within a relatively limited timeframe (like the length of a game) - no matter how skilled you might get.

So, instead of pouring out endless samey encounters - you could try making some enemies untauntable - or you could make movement during combat a necessity, and a million other things that Bioware didn't bother doing.

Beyond that, it's quite possible to simply decrease the frequency of them.

I don't know about Dragon Age 2, but judging from the demo - it seems they've increased the amount of pointless crappy trash fights - and made the overall game flat, short, and trite.

4) I repeat my earlier question - what are we benchmarking this combat system against? Preferably examples from the last 4 years (although my memory does go back to Ultima IV). Or is this site like rpgcodex where everything is bashed for fun?

Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege 2, and games of a similar nature.

Filler combat isn't so bad if you make the fights themselves have variety, and especially consider what characters are able to do during fights - as well as a superior character development system.

The primary problem with Dragon Age filler combat - was that most fights could be, basically, automated.

About your Codex comment - I think you're going to have to accept that people can dislike certain games and certain directions of development, without being the Codex. If you can't understand how such a thing is possible, I think you should put some effort into understanding humanity.

5) You realize that by harshly criticizing DA:O combat with words like "filler combat", you are saying to BioWare - "we as RPG aficionados didn't like what you did there". This is unlikely to motivate them into producing an even more complex game, in fact, just the opposite. Look at the thousands of people who struggled on "normal" difficulty, such that patch 1.02 made "normal" the new "casual". And now we have DA2 with no 'miss', no friendly fire, no tactical view, no being overwhelmed by enemies (waves instead), no need for pause and play etc.

I'm saying I don't like crappy filler combat - and I say that because I don't like crappy filler combat.

I'm not sure why that would be interpreted as wanting easy and non-complex combat as the two concepts aren't related. In fact, I'm saying the combat was trivial because it wasn't complex or interesting enough.

Even so - I doubt Bioware care about what I like, as they seem to be catering only to casuals. But if they can't comprehend such a simple message - I don't have much hope for their ability to develop an interesting combat and encounter system - and as such it won't matter.
 
Last edited:
And what does this mean for ME3 - ME2 was so streamlined you could apply it to planes to make them go faster. Can even ME have further to go?

Talking about "streamlining" - I thought we had already reached the bottom of the valley by StarSiege ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
40 hours isnt that bad plus Bioware creates their games to revolve around DLC . BIG DLC PLANS ! Games that are to long might overwhelm the average gamer, this is the new model .
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
576
I was talking about Mass Effect 2 when mentioning blueprints.

OK sorry, misunderstood you.

I'm not sure what kind of life you're living, but in my life - it's quite possible to make challenges feel different within a relatively limited timeframe (like the length of a game) - no matter how skilled you might get.

Snarky backhand implication: "your life is impoverished because you can't work out how to find new challenges in things you do often". Nice. And you lecture me on humanity...

My comment stemmed from reading your earlier argument as: "I got the hang of combat, mastered it, therefore it is boring". To which my reply was "if you take that attidude, even the most fun things in life can become boring, because there is always a finitie number of permutations you can do them as". But what the heck, let's keep it as a personal attack on the lack of imagination in my life.

So, instead of pouring out endless samey encounters - you could try making some enemies untauntable - or you could make movement during combat a necessity, and a million other things that Bioware didn't bother doing.

Did you try doing the Ogre of Ishaal battle without moving? Did you play a rogue without moving to backstab? All enemies have to pass a taunt resist check, if I recall correctly.

I don't know about Dragon Age 2, but judging from the demo - it seems they've increased the amount of pointless crappy trash fights - and made the overall game flat, short, and trite.

Agreed.

Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege 2, and games of a similar nature.

Don't know if you're being serious if you benchmark Dungeon Siege 2 against Dragon Age 1 combat. Dungeon Siege 2, while fun, played itself. You just hit a power now and again and managed your stats.

The primary problem with Dragon Age filler combat - was that most fights could be, basically, automated.

If found just the opposite. Every encounter had its own pace, traps, surprises, mix of opponents etc, such that I gave up setting complex tactics (on hard+) and used stamina as I saw best.

About your Codex comment - I think you're going to have to accept that people can dislike certain games and certain directions of development, without being the Codex. If you can't understand how such a thing is possible, I think you should put some effort into understanding humanity.

That is breathtaking, I mean, just wow. Please do not lecture me on understanding humanity. There is a lot of nastiness on the codex, but have you done justice to rpgwatch with what you just wrote? My comment about the codex was basically about bashing without much substatiation. Or bashing for a laugh. I posted with the bona fide question of why you put down DA1 so harshly, which surely cannot be seen as a terrible game. It can - and should - be criticized, but not bashed. Unless for fun. Which is also OK and does not detract from one's humanity.

Even so - I doubt Bioware care about what I like, as they seem to be catering only to casuals. But if they can't comprehend such a simple message - I don't have much hope for their ability to develop an interesting combat and encounter system - and as such it won't matter.

They will always cater to casuals, if a relatively hardcore RPG gets so much negativity on a serious site like this. So what is on the horizon that's better than DA1 - Skyrim, Witcher 2?
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
360
OK sorry, misunderstood you.

No worries.

Snarky backhand implication: "your life is impoverished because you can't work out how to find new challenges in things you do often". Nice. And you lecture me on humanity…

I'm probably just the snarky kind :)

I prefer to be like that upfront, instead of endlessly pretending that my suggestions are nothing but innocent little remarks.

So, when people assume I haven't really thought about things - and talk to me like I'm a bit stupid - I tend to be snarky about it.

My comment stemmed from reading your earlier argument as: "I got the hang of combat, mastered it, therefore it is boring". To which my reply was "if you take that attidude, even the most fun things in life can become boring, because there is always a finitie number of permutations you can do them as". But what the heck, let's keep it as a personal attack on the lack of imagination in my life.

I'm not sure why you think it was a personal attack.

I was just saying that if you can't imagine the combat being more interesting, and you think most things in life is boring in the same way (as you basically suggested) - you must live another kind of life than I'm living.

Either that, or you didn't really think about what I was saying.

Did you try doing the Ogre of Ishaal battle without moving? Did you play a rogue without moving to backstab? All enemies have to pass a taunt resist check, if I recall correctly.

I don't remember the battle in question - but my main character was a rogue and I always backstabbed when possible.

I don't remember a single instance of an enemy not being taunted, frankly.

Don't know if you're being serious if you benchmark Dungeon Siege 2 against Dragon Age 1 combat. Dungeon Siege 2, while fun, played itself. You just hit a power now and again and managed your stats.

Well, you were quite active during combat - and the flow of combat was just a lot more entertaining. A lot of enemy variety too.

Perhaps not the best example, but I clearly remember having a ton of fun in Dungeon Siege 2 combat.

If found just the opposite. Every encounter had its own pace, traps, surprises, mix of opponents etc, such that I gave up setting complex tactics (on hard+) and used stamina as I saw best.

My tactics were pretty basic, and yet I don't remember the surprises making much of a difference. As I said, maybe 10-15% of the combat was interesting after having learned the mechanics.

That is breathtaking, I mean, just wow. Please do not lecture me on understanding humanity. There is a lot of nastiness on the codex, but have you done justice to rpgwatch with what you just wrote? My comment about the codex was basically about bashing without much substatiation. Or bashing for a laugh. I posted with the bona fide question of why you put down DA1 so harshly, which surely cannot be seen as a terrible game. It can - and should - be criticized, but not bashed. Unless for fun. Which is also OK and does not detract from one's humanity.

I tire of people suggesting we have to be from the Codex because we don't like everything about Bioware. Let's just say I REALLY tire of that baseless assumption or "suggestion".

Since you suggest that as an option, I have to assume you don't understand how it's very possible to not like Bioware's work and yet not be from the Codex. Otherwise, why do you assume it as the very first thing?

I don't have any interest in doing justice to anything at all - so I can't say I care.

I'm just being me, and I have nothing to do with the Watch - other than the fact that I like being here.

They will always cater to casuals, if a relatively hardcore RPG gets so much negativity on a serious site like this. So what is on the horizon that's better than DA1 - Skyrim, Witcher 2?

I'm not sure the first game gets a lot of negativity. I'm talking about the filler combat, not the entire game.

I think Dragon Age - as a whole - was a great game.

I can't speak about the quality of future games, but I'm certainly more interested in both games you mentioned than I am in anything from Bioware.
 
I know this thread will devolve into another repetitive slanging match but please leave out any personal insults in the ensuing melee.

From my personal perspective, the length of a game has no relation to the quality and I already assumed DA2 was shorter. For those who are going to argue that Dragon Age 2 is crap (as well it may, or may not be), I would suggest the length is subsequently irrelevant.

I already assumed it would be somewhat shorter or at least it having a bit less replay factor on the account of the Origins part being taken out.

But then again, I haven't replayed Origins yet with Dwarf or Elf either.

40 hours is still not a short game anyway. I do think lenght can count for something but these 40 hours is still alot compared to 4-8 hours for shooters.

I still dislike them stepping away from the Origins concept but not on account of the length but for other reasons.

It's a problem I've had with Bioware as far back as Jade Empire. It's not a right or wrong thing in an RPG, but a personal taste thing of mine. I don't mind a fixed PC in other RPGs who've had it from the start. But since this is a sequel to Origins, where you had some more choice in character creations/backstory. Even though the origins part already took away your choice of starting your character carte-blanche and making your own backstory. I had hoped for atleast the level of choice from Origins.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
409
60 hours for DA:1? The first time I played all the way through it took me a lot longer than that. And I played it twice all the way through plus did all the origins.

BTW, saying PS:T has "800.000 words, 20 hours - 40.000 words per hour" is ridiculous.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
the stunning array (imho) of combat scenarios in the game
I tend to agree. In absolutes, DA:O had a good variety of combat encounters.
There was however a lot of needless repetition as well. Personally I didn´t mind it much (Storm of the Century, huh), but the game would simply be better with less filler combat. Cultist Temple and Deep Roads were probably the worst offenders. For example, I´m sure people would remember Deep Roads much more favorably if it contained only the latter stage (starting with the bridge fight, there was some unnecessary filler afterwards too, but from Hespith encounter onwards most was quite brilliant), plus one big fleshed out thaig beforehand which would contain only the better stuff (like spider queen encounter).

And now we have DA2 with no 'miss', no friendly fire, no tactical view, no being overwhelmed by enemies (waves instead), no need for pause and play etc.
For what it´s worth, there is friendly fire, but only on nightmare which of course is quite stupid.
I dug for some info on nighmare and some changes are even quite interesting:
"Enemy health is increased. Enemy damage is increased. Enemy force is increased. Enemy cooldowns are decreased. Hostile effect durations on enemies are decreased. Less health potions drop. Enemies heal themselves more often. Party members can have more injuries. Some enemies have additional effects on their abilities (dispel, bypass damage resistance, steal health potions, etc) as well as some miscellaneous things (like the combat cooldown reset not being present). Oh yeah, if you're below 10% health, you start bleeding to death."
(source)

Friendly fire also includes warrior/rogue attacks (10% of damage) and their abilities (100% damage). The latter highlights the inherent discrepancy between party members and enemies - on one hand enemy hit points are inflated, but party members´ are not, on the other hand party members´ damage output is inflated, while enemies´ isn´t - so in later stages a lot of abilities will one hit kill a companion if FF occurs.
Speaking of discrepancies, I really dislike that party members attack at much higher rate than enemies.

Aaaand speaking of inflations (I´ve already mentioned it few times but it´s quite relevant to the topic so I´ll do it again), due to relation between enemy HP and party basic attack damage output, fights are very likely to last similarly long as in DA:O, maybe even longer since it´s quite likely the game uses the wave mechanic extensively (it´s possible to access some other encounters via demo debug console and all have the enemies-out-of-nowhere feature).


Anyway,
the length of a game has no relation to the quality
agreed in principle, though in a story driven game with character development as one of its supposed foci, there are some bounds I think.
40 hours is completely ok for this type of game.
Quality>quantity is a no brainer.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
BTW, saying PS:T has "800.000 words, 20 hours - 40.000 words per hour" is ridiculous.
Haha, yeah, quite so.
PS:T isn´t a superlong game, but 20 hours is seriously pushing it.
I´d say an average around 35 hours is better estimation.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
Yeah I get it guys, mainstream bad, indie good. Is this a Euro centric site?
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
18
So, when people assume I haven't really thought about things - and talk to me like I'm a bit stupid - I tend to be snarky about it.
Did I do this? Did I talk to you as if you were "a bit stupid"? Tell me where and I will apologize.
I'm not sure why you think it was a personal attack.
How about the line starting "I don't know about your life…" Or the next line of your response "you must live another kind of life". I can assure you, I am an inhabitant of planet earth, much like yourself.
I was just saying that if you can't imagine the combat being more interesting, and you think most things in life is boring in the same way (as you basically suggested) - you must live another kind of life than I'm living.
The point you make is valid. The way you make it is unfriendly. Believe it or not, I can imagine things! I can imagine combat being better than DA1. My point was not that combat is perfect in DA1, it was "why do you dislike it so much". It's counter-productive and leads BioWare to dumb their games down.
Either that, or you didn't really think about what I was saying.
Maybe you could explain what you were saying, then we can work out if the problem was with your writing or my comprehension.
Well, you were quite active during combat - and the flow of combat was just a lot more entertaining. A lot of enemy variety too.
Yes, I liked DSII a lot, in fact it is still installed on this machine. But to compare just clumps of -albeit varied- mobs to the intricate orchestra that was Branka or Caradin or Silverfang is not fair, in my opinion.
My tactics were pretty basic, and yet I don't remember the surprises making much of a difference. As I said, maybe 10-15% of the combat was interesting after having learned the mechanics.
Are you sure you were playing on nightmare? If I set tactics to autopilot on hard, I will die with any party composition. This is because some battles were against archers, some against bosses, some mages, some in corridors, others in fields, and one size did not fit all.
I tire of people suggesting we have to be from the Codex because we don't like everything about Bioware. Let's just say I REALLY tire of that baseless assumption or "suggestion".
I merely asked if the Dragon Age bashing was for fun LIKE on the codex. Because it seems grossly unfair to me, especially when benchmarked against anything else we've had in the last 4 years, possibly excepting NWN2.
Since you suggest that as an option, I have to assume you don't understand how it's very possible to not like Bioware's work and yet not be from the Codex.
No I understand perfectly how its possible not to like BioWare and yet not be from the Codex. What I don't understand is why that dislike has to be expressed in an aggressive 'we hate', 'we mock' attitude, like they have on the codex. There is not a thread on there about Origins that does not have the words "cliched" and "filler combat" and 'trash mobs". Anyone who praises anything about the game, has their sexuality questioned... Not quite that bad here, but I just wanted to know if it's serious and whether there are reasons behind this that I missed.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
360
Yeah I get it guys, mainstream bad, indie good. Is this a Euro centric site?

No - simplification/streamlining = bad, retaining (and improving) the things that allowed diversity in game play, tactics, immersion = good. Indie's or games from europe have nothing to do with it
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,137
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
Aaaand speaking of inflations (I´ve already mentioned it few times but it´s quite relevant to the topic so I´ll do it again), due to relation between enemy HP and party basic attack damage output, fights are very likely to last similarly long as in DA:O, maybe even longer since it´s quite likely the game uses the wave mechanic extensively (it´s possible to access some other encounters via demo debug console and all have the enemies-out-of-nowhere feature).

agreed in principle, though in a story driven game with character development as one of its supposed foci, there are some bounds I think.
40 hours is completely ok for this type of game.
Quality>quantity is a no brainer.

I have a feeling the fights will feel shorter because pause and play is an optional feature (as opposed to essential in Origins). In the demo, because moves were executed so quickly I tended to lose track of who was supposed to be doing what and where, so I just went with the flow in real time. Maybe this just takes some getting used to.

It will be hard to judge if they have only cut quantity out of DA2. If the noises coming out of Redmont are - let's get the modern warfare crowd in, then maybe both have suffered, from an RPG fan's point of view. Does anyone have a link to a the Swedish PC Gamer magazine where they said you can rush the main quest through in 20 hours?
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
360
I have a feeling the fights will feel shorter because pause and play is an optional feature (as opposed to essential in Origins).
I think pause will be essential on nightmare, especially given the FF implementation.

But I also think that due to sped up moves, hassle-y targeting, limited camera view, wave mechanic, enemy HP through the roof and general clusterfuck-y nature of encounters, nightmare will be major PITA not for the right reasons.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
Back
Top Bottom