Dragon Age - Hands On @ Eurogamer

Very positive hands-on from Dan Pearson at Eurogamer.

In gameplay if not dramatic terms, then, Dragon Age is a slow-burner. Throughout the origins and the prologue, combat happens in brief bursts, while story-telling happens in great spools of meandering, branching conversation as the world, the plot, the forces at work and the principal characters are mapped out in loquacious detail. It's not until you get stuck into your first major quest that you will spend as much time fighting as you spend talking, and by then you could be a dozen hours or more into the game. You will also have spent much of your time fighting accompanied by bit-part-players rather than the long-term party companions, interaction with whom - both on and off the battlefield - defines the game.
When it does eventually reveal itself in full, Dragon Age proves to be a flexible RPG that accommodates a wide range of playing styles. Baldur's Gate veterans will be happy pulling the camera back to a top-down view, pausing the action with the space bar and micro-managing the party's actions and placement in a quasi-turn-based mode. World of Warcraft players might prefer to zoom in close, let AI take care of party behaviour and punch out skills in real time, flicking between characters for variety. It's perfectly possible to smash through the game in this way on easy mode (the difficulty can be adjusted at any time) without ever hitting pause or needing to think, but even the normal setting is a significant step up that will require the occasional moment of reflection.

More information.

Once again, this sounds pretty good.

If they managed to make the game fun for both BG veterans and WoW players… I see nothing to complain about.

Dumbed down shitbox RPG!!! Just kidding.

Well, if you can succeed either by managing the whole party or letting NPCs be controlled by the AI, doesn't party control become rather moot? To a degree, Mass Effect (PC) did the same thing. You could let the AI take over or give the orders yourself. It turned out that giving orders was more like something you did to not get bored, because no input from you was necessary even on the hardest difficulty setting. I wonder whether player input can be meaningful if it's completely optional.

Baldur's Gate veterans will be happy pulling the camera back to a top-down view, pausing the action with the space bar and micro-managing the party's actions and placement in a quasi-turn-based mode

I kinda like the way that sounds.

Originally Posted by Grandor Dragon
Well, if you can succeed either by managing the whole party or letting NPCs be controlled by the AI, doesn't party control become rather moot? To a degree, Mass Effect (PC) did the same thing. You could let the AI take over or give the orders yourself. It turned out that giving orders was more like something you did to not get bored, because no input from you was necessary even on the hardest difficulty setting. I wonder whether player input can be meaningful if it's completely optional.

I think they mentioned that in the easy difficulty setting this was fine, but in normal and above you would need to be more involved in the tactics.

Originally Posted by wolfing
I think they mentioned that in the easy difficulty setting this was fine, but in normal and above you would need to be more involved in the tactics.

Exactly! Else, it would be as in NWN2 OC and I would completely agree with you, Grandor Dragon.

Originally Posted by wolfing
I think they mentioned that in the easy difficulty setting this was fine, but in normal and above you would need to be more involved in the tactics.

Or spend some points on AI tactics, as the article suggests.

I read the article entirely to know what you are talking about. I guess you are talking about this :

Using Tactics, you can tell a party member to always attack the target of the player-controlled character, for example, or always assist the healer if it's attacked, or use a certain skill on enemies with less than 25 per cent health, or always heal party members with less than 50 per cent health. You can also choose to stick with that character's presets, or use one of a handful of standardised setups, or expand either of those by investing in extra Tactic slots.

Personally, I'm against this sort of automation. Call me "conservative" if you want but the nice thing about battles in a game such as DA is the tactical aspect. Making your group to cooperate together and react to different situations. When I want to play something for the «action thrill», I play a game such as Mount & Blade.

That was one of the bad thing about NWN2. Overly repetitive and tedious fights. After that, no wonder some people wanted to play it the same way they play Guild
War.

By the way, I wonder about this (found in the article under a screenshot):

Only Canadians could make a game in which the coolest, strongest character is called Duncan.

What? In Europe, Duncan sounds wussy?

Originally Posted by vanedor
What? In Europe, Duncan sounds wussy?

Yes (this is here so that i can answer a simple question without pissing off the forum rule checker!)

I'm a little concerned at the WoW or Baldur's Gate play style comment - you can't be everything to everyone. Surely they had a target audience in mind - and that is who/what the game should have been designed around. I don't think BG had pretensions to by anything other than what it was (phased turn-based yadda yadda yadda…) You really *needed* careful tactics and that made the game challenging and fun. If the game can play itself (a la DSiege, where you could sit back and watch) - what is the point? May as well be a single player game. I want a BG, full party-based experience - that was kind of what was promised: 'spiritual successor' and all.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Yes (this is here so that i can answer a simple question without pissing off the forum rule checker!)

Strange. Because what comes to my mind when I think «Duncan» is this :

Originally Posted by booboo
I'm a little concerned at the WoW or Baldur's Gate play style comment - you can't be everything to everyone. Surely they had a target audience in mind - and that is who/what the game should have been designed around. I don't think BG had pretensions to by anything other than what it was (phased turn-based yadda yadda yadda…) You really *needed* careful tactics and that made the game challenging and fun. If the game can play itself (a la DSiege, where you could sit back and watch) - what is the point? May as well be a single player game. I want a BG, full party-based experience - that was kind of what was promised: 'spiritual successor' and all.

And you know what's the most shitty thing about this - you let combat tactics do the job OR you manage all characters yourself every second if you want full use of their abilities.
Why is that you ask? Because biowhore decided you can't cue actions/abilities…

Originally Posted by wolfing
I think they mentioned that in the easy difficulty setting this was fine, but in normal and above you would need to be more involved in the tactics.

Sounds better. Let's hope it turns out to be like that!

Originally Posted by booboo
I'm a little concerned at the WoW or Baldur's Gate play style comment - you can't be everything to everyone. Surely they had a target audience in mind - and that is who/what the game should have been designed around. I don't think BG had pretensions to by anything other than what it was (phased turn-based yadda yadda yadda…) You really *needed* careful tactics and that made the game challenging and fun. If the game can play itself (a la DSiege, where you could sit back and watch) - what is the point? May as well be a single player game. I want a BG, full party-based experience - that was kind of what was promised: 'spiritual successor' and all.

Yeah, I agree this is also worrying me. But so far I have no indication that they have not managed to create a game that require careful tactic (medium, hard setting) or not (easy setting). I guess it’s possible by designing the combats for medium setting right away but also create an easy setting that enable you to fight most combats without using much tactics.

This game is gonna be a win,mark my words.

I think with BG and WOW "style" they just mean changing the game camera.. which as we know is a new revolutionary thing every review of this game will mention.

As far as controlling characters is concerned, I always enjoy doing a bit of both. Controlling and letting AI take over. In most minor battles in DA, Planescape to NWN I would let AI take over (mostly cause I HATE DnD crap they have for no reason ruining the whole experience) and only in tougher fights would I bother targeting powerful foes with all my units manually. I am pretty sure this is how I will end up playing DA.

I am just looking forward to their much hyped story and characters. Considering that they couldn't even be arsed to get rid of Elves and Orcs in this revolutionary title, I won't be surprised if the story is as predictable as.. umm.. predictable.


PS: After the RISEN review on Eurogamer I can't really take that site seriously with anything they do anymore (actually, that includes Witcher review, among other moronic reviews there). The only thing that place is good for is the funny captions under thumbnails.

Originally Posted by vanedor
Strange. Because what comes to my mind when I think «Duncan» is this :

That's better than this at least…

And what is it?

PJ & Duncan.