Dragon Age - Preview @ Games Radar
 

Games Radar serves up a preview of Dragon Age from a console perspective:
More information.

-ehm-

Did Games Radar miss the memo? where Bioware stated that DA: Origins was the company's returns to its roots? The game, DA:O, plays exactly like Baldur's Gate, I think? A much more strategiv and tactical approach to combat.

Games Radar is also forgetting that ombat isn't everything in a game these days.
The stories, origins and otherwise, told in DA:O, seems to be very interesting indeed, so does the background for the stories told in the game.

I also think, personally, that the time is just right for a complex, deep and tactical games as DA: Origins seems to be…

That would be wonderful if it's true, I'm not holding my breath though…

I am holding my breath. I doubted Bioware when they claimed in the late 90's that Baldur's Gate would revolutionize crpgs but they have not come close to disappointing since, every commercial game from them on PC or Xbox has been at least very good in my view, every single one. Anything is possible but I would bet big that DA:O will be at least a very good game.

I hope its true. God I am so sick of combat heavy games. I enjoy a good battle but when the whole game is nothing but one fight after another - ugg just so boring. If I want that I will just grind in some combat focused MMORPG.

I'm one that believes in defining one's self through opposition -when you read something that you totally disagree with, it helps you to clarify what you really beleive yourself.

Mmmm, I hope this one sells like hotcakes on the consoles. If it doesn't, then it's just going to confirm the belief among many that visveral games will always outsell cerebral games. Mind you, it does look like they are going for a very visceral feel. That doesn't bother me at all, provided the combat is truly cerebral, the choices meaningful, and the story thought provoking.

And there was much rejoicing

Every cRPG has been almost all combat. Every Single One. Even PS:T and the Baldur's Gate games.

I suppose it depends on definition though. Since I have played all those games (i.e. BG series, PS:T plus countless others - been playing games for ages) and don't think they have been "almost all combat" its clear we have a different definition. I mean I have played them and while there was a lot of combat there was also a lot of dialogue, exploration and other things besides the combat.

On the other hand I have played truly combat heavy games where there was pretty much nothing at all the game except combat.

I don't mind combat as long as it is balanced with other things. Mysteries over Westgate was about the perfect balance of combat versus non-combat for me. Icewind Dale II was an example of being to combat heavy. Diablo games, while fun, were also to combat heavy. Then again it had its own charm but I didn't play diablo games for its RPG, more as a way to release stress.

Its pretty much all opinion clearly since we have played the same games and have different viewpoints on the combat status.

You must have played a very different version of PST than I did!!

If you add up the play time and remove "dead" time (re-traveling through areas you've already been in) even with PS:T you will have spent most of your play time in combat.

Well then you could easily say that about all crpgs, not just Bioware games..

You probably didn't mean it that way, but I agree to what JDR indicated: What you call "dead times" is what may distinguish a good game from a linear fighting game.

For example in PS:T you have some errands to do for an old woman (you-know-who) in order to be able to learn magic. There is no single killing involved in that.

Also see all the quests in the bordell and in the house of the sensists (correct English term?- didn't play the English version).

Not only was no killing involved but there are no enemies even the first time you get there.

With little overstatement you can define the difference between an aRPG and a cRPG by: Having at least one quest, which you can fullfill without killing anybody.

So if you call times you run through non-fighting areas "dead time", you get a self-fullfilling statement.

Moreover you implictly assume that every area, which you enter the first time, is filled with enemies, which is also a typical sign for an aRPG.

Exactly!! In PST there are many quests which not only don't involve combat, but which give better rewards for actually avoiding any combat.

I love it when people make generalized statements that are so called "absolute", like "Every cRPG has been almost all combat. Every Single One. Even PS:T and the Baldur's Gate games. "
You must not have known all the different ways in which you can play these games:
Fallout 1 & 2
Arcanum
Alien Logic

Granted it is not a bucketload, but there are some CRPGs where you can play through the whole game without ANY combat.

In every cRPG I know (or remember at least) you HAVE TO fight, but I wouldn't call it "almost all combat". Anyway I'd love to see good cRPG with no combat at all.

An RPG without any combat at all would probably be labelled as an adventure game.

To be fair at least the Fallouts and Arcanum have plenty of unavoidable combat, even if they excel at offering non-violent solutions to quests. It could also be noted that given the crappiness of the combat systems in these otherwise excellent games odds most players probably spend more than half their playtime fighting. Baldurs Gate is also very much about combat, even if it has more to offer:)

I havent played Alien Logic, so it might be an exception to the rule. Otherwise PS:T (which I havent played) is supposed to be the main exception with a very limited number of unavoidable combat situations.

There is a thread on RPGcodex where it describes how several have played FAllout without ANY combat. I'll try to find it and link it for your reading pleasure haha.

No, it wouldn't.

Because in most adventure games, you don't get options # 1, 2 or 3 to choose from when you talk to someone. Post Mortem and Still Life 1 tried to do something about this; how well they did it, I don't know.

In adventure games, you don't get experience points; you character can't level up, there's a fixed story for you to travel through, even if you sometimes get 1-4 endings, more or less depending on what you character did in the game.

PS: Torment could be seen, I agree, as more of an adventure type game, much of its combat could be avoided.

You forgot the primary driving force in all adventure games = puzzles.

The vast majority of modern CRPGs more or less completely omit puzzles, and even when they don't - they tend to be more like annoying obstacles than things actually requiring a brain.

Nah, combat is but one aspect that sets CRPGs apart from adventure games - among many others.