Dragons Age - Bored at beginning, does it get better?
Rin Stowleigh
player class.. but I'm basically a human mage, so maybe this is a mild
intro spoiler (first couple of hrs of play) but I went through the
harrowing..ok, interesting enough with some combat.. now I am in some
fucking cathedral running errands.. I'm trying to help some horny
couple sneak out or something and its become a bunch of chasing down
paperwork.
So my question is.... is the entire game like this? Right now I feel
ripped. Does it get better? If so, how soon?
Greg Johnson
You're still in the pre-intro stage. When you reach the couple's goal,
things get a lot more interesting for a little bit, and then you're in
the intro proper. That involves some wilderness questing and then a
dungeon crawl. After that, the game opens up a lot in terms of where
you can go.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
Ok, I'll stick with it again. I'm not averse to questing, I enjoyed
it in The Witcher, Oblivion, Far Cry 2, GTA IV, and many others, but
this is downright laborious so far. I figured it had to get better at
some point, I just hope its soon :(
Insane Ranter
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:54:57 +1100, Greg Johnson <greg....@gmail.com>
It does.
Vincenzo Beretta
> it in The Witcher, Oblivion, Far Cry 2, GTA IV, and many others, but
> this is downright laborious so far. I figured it had to get better at
> some point, I just hope its soon :(
Well, I completed all six "origins" and I liked all of them (some more some
less, of course). So, maybe I'm not in tune with you. However I can say that
DA is like a good novel: I was sucked in by the plot. I still have to finish
it, but I'm always looking forward to the next session.
Rin Stowleigh
Well I knew the story was the big selling point when I bought it, and
I knew that historically, I'm not nearly as much into the story of a
game as much as the gameplay and immersiveness of the world, so I
suppose if it turns out that I hate it, it's purely my own fault. I
never really liked Balders Gate either, but it came out so long ago I
couldn't remember if it was the game itself that didn't pull me in or
just a lot of other things going on in my life at the time (that too
can pull me away from a game). I never was much on reading sci-fi or
fantasy novels, which may account for my position so far.
Traveler
DA:O is one of the most interesting and absorbing games ever.
Rin Stowleigh
Given that I mentioned boredom only in the beginning (even in the
title), I'd say that's a rather shallow response. Assuming someone
would like CoD simply because they have not yet gotten interested in
DAO is indicative of synapse malfunction, possibly due to head trauma.
Arccos
"Traveler" <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb31593d-aa17-4622...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> If you find it boring, maybe you should try games like CoD because
> DA:O is one of the most interesting and absorbing games ever.
I would say the main plot is interesting. Some of the side quests are quite
tedious. And the mechanics of gameplay are getting really stale, being the
same since the Baldur's Gate era games. If you drag out that old carcass, at
least introduce some spice with it. KOTOR 1 was about the last time I found
this style interesting.
For the OP, I would stick it out through at least the end of the intro. The
mages tower, IMHO, was the best intro there was. If the combat is tedious by
that time, know that it doesn't really change throughout the rest of the
game.
It wasn't the end-all be-all of RPGs for me like most of the reviewers are
saying. I preferred Torchlight as best RPG of the year.
Gilmartin
another Doom-with-stats posing as an RPG.
Went back to play through Avernum 5 again, this time being EVIL :)
I may give DA another go once I'm finished- unless the Windows version
of Avernum 6 comes around first..
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
I played a bit tonight, and did have more fun than before.. I had to
go clear out some spiders to get some chick to sign my paperwork,
which got my interest back a bit. It might have been the boring
nature of that circular building, and the "go get this item, ok for
that you need a signature" etc routine that turned me off for a while.
That sort of questing, without something interesting between runs,
just gets to me. I think it was because I had to get a signature of a
"senior enchanter", with nothing on the map to indicate where they
were (and one of them being a crotchety old fart without a clue and
the other being equally useless) that pissed me off. Going in and
doing a little battle to get things done helps keep it lively.
But, I know what you're saying about the interface and I agree. It
gets a bit more compelling (sort of) when you zoom down to a close 3rd
person view, but then its harder to navigate around. I really enjoy
first-person because of the feeling of being in the game (Ultima
Underworld comes to mind as an early example), and I don't care to
manage parties so I hope I don't have to do that later on.
Anyway I am having a bit more fun with it now so I will keep on for
the time being. I do see how it would appeal more to those steeply
invested in fantasy reading. So far, I think I've spent more time
listening to voice acting, and when I want that I am better off
watching a movie.... but I already paid for it so I will play it and
withhold judgement until later in the game.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
Hmm... Doom with stats is not really what came to my mind at all, Doom
being an intense action game. Here, I am watching lots of cinematic
clips (more so than playing I think)... I do see signs (even very
early) of a well developed story, its just that this is less important
to me than gameplay.
We'll see. My interest has been reinvigorated enough to keep playing.
Its hard to see myself finishing it at this point, but it could
happen.
I would say that I definately did not see enough in the first hour to
keep my interest..listening to the acting along and trying to absorb
the story took a good part of the first hour, so in terms of providing
entertainment hours they may have done a good job with this game.. The
quality of voice acting and the dialog branches are a feather in their
cap.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
>It wasn't the end-all be-all of RPGs for me like most of the reviewers are
>saying. I preferred Torchlight as best RPG of the year.
BTW, I agree Torchlight is great (many will say its not really an RPG
though but a dungeon-punch game). Thanks for reminding me, I need to
go back and work on that one as I am quite far in.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:06:44 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh
>wrote:
>Gotta get me that game. I really enjoyed "Fate," and Torchlight looks even
>better.
Single player Diablo clone with WoW graphics for the most part, but
still enough newness about it to be well worth the twenty bucks.
Rin Stowleigh
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:05:48 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh
>wrote:
>
>I was noticing longish sit-and-watch cut-scenes too. They're bad enough to give
>the guys at "Unskippable" some fodder.
>
>Mostly, what grates to me is that the graphics are not entirely up to modern
>standards, and so there isn't a lot of "wow" factor to the cut-scenes. They're
>also very dull and expository in the origins. That gets better, at least.
>
>They might have done better with plain Bink cinematics for all of the scenes,
>and make them entirely skippable FFS (IIRC, they are not, you can only skip
>lines of dialogue one at a time). Not everyone wants to sit down and watch a
>movie, especially not any crossover players. It shouldn't be a requirement of
>the game to do so. They can easily put the necessary background in your journal
>if you choose to skip.
>
>The ratio of play-to-watch is going to get better for you, of course, but not
>the long-windedness of the non-interactive material. :^/ It's unfortunate.
>
>The approach they have taken is a bit like when a company puts you on hold,
>plays pleasant music, but then insists on breaking in every minute to tell you
>how much they "care about your call," usually just when you're starting to
>enjoy the music.
>
>Here, you sit and get a little glassy eyed, and then the game gives you some
>dialogue choice, often meaningless, just to check if you're still awake. IMO,
>the cinematic material should be compelling enough to hold anyone's attention,
>or it should be skippable. This in-between semi-interactive crap does not work
>for me.
>
>The rest of the game is aces though. Stick with it and see. You should be able
>to resell if you don't like it, at least.
I was playing a little more since prior posts and liking it a lot
more. I'm now in the Wilds with a party, which has an adventuresome
feel to it.
Toolpackinmama
> They might have done better with plain Bink cinematics for all of the scenes,
> and make them entirely skippable FFS (IIRC, they are not, you can only skip
> lines of dialogue one at a time).
I admit to skipping a lot of that, now that I am on my third
play-through, but the first play-through is not an appropriate time to
skip all of it, I don't think. Seeing as how the story is a big part of
the game, I assume most people would actually like to experience the story.
But yeah, it's skippable. I hit the skip button a lot now that I
already know what everybody is going to say.
BTW, you actually can skip whole chunks of stuff, including entire
conversations and cut-scenes. As far as I know, you can skip every
cut-scene if you want to. What you can't skip is when they require a
response from your character.
Werner Punz
> I played it for an hour and formed the impression that it was yet
> another Doom-with-stats posing as an RPG.
Arccos
"Rin Stowleigh" <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bbri5p2m9a561g0k...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:09:22 -0600, "Arccos" <as...@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Traveler" <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fb31593d-aa17-4622...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
>>It wasn't the end-all be-all of RPGs for me like most of the reviewers are
>>saying. I preferred Torchlight as best RPG of the year.
>
<SNIP>
> But, I know what you're saying about the interface and I agree. It
> gets a bit more compelling (sort of) when you zoom down to a close 3rd
> person view, but then its harder to navigate around. I really enjoy
> first-person because of the feeling of being in the game (Ultima
> Underworld comes to mind as an early example), and I don't care to
> manage parties so I hope I don't have to do that later on.
<SNIP>
The only game I found close to Underworld in recent years is Arx Fatalis.
I'm not sure if you've played that, but it's about as close as you'll get to
the original Underworld these days. Arx was an enjoyable game that I always
quit when I got to the city, for some reason. But I, too, would love to see
some more games like that. Shame it doesn't seem to be where the industry is
going.
Michael Cecil
There's actually an Underworld Easter egg in AF where you use the cursor
to write UUW as if you were casting a spell that way (by writing sigils in
the air) which makes the graphics look like Underworld. Also I think the
snake lady in the library talks using Ophidian speech. So it's
resemblance to Underworld wasn't just a coincidence.
--
Michael Cecil
mac...@gmail.com
Traveler
> I would say the main plot is interesting. Some of the side quests are quite
> tedious. And the mechanics of gameplay are getting really stale, being the
> same since the Baldur's Gate era games. If you drag out that old carcass, at
> least introduce some spice with it. KOTOR 1 was about the last time I found
> this style interesting.
>
Stale???? There almost perfect. Yes pure turn based is better, but
DA has a great compromise.
Werner Punz
>> But, I know what you're saying about the interface and I agree. It
>> gets a bit more compelling (sort of) when you zoom down to a close 3rd
>> person view, but then its harder to navigate around. I really enjoy
>> first-person because of the feeling of being in the game (Ultima
>> Underworld comes to mind as an early example), and I don't care to
>> manage parties so I hope I don't have to do that later on.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> The only game I found close to Underworld in recent years is Arx Fatalis.
> I'm not sure if you've played that, but it's about as close as you'll get to
> the original Underworld these days. Arx was an enjoyable game that I always
> quit when I got to the city, for some reason. But I, too, would love to see
> some more games like that. Shame it doesn't seem to be where the industry is
> going.
>
>
Actually Arx to my knowledge was started as UUW 3, the Arcane studios
wanted to sell it to Origin/EA under that title, but EA had no interest
so they moved the game into a different direction storywise and released
it nevertheless.
You can see the similarities to the UUWs left and right event he icons
for the potions are very similar (although not the same)
And yes unfortunately the industry is not going into the direction of
the later Ultimas (6 and 7 that is), Bethestha could but they never do,
the only ones holding the candle up currently is Piranha Bytes, and they
constantly are scored down by the US game raters (while they usually get
high 80s and 90s scores here in europe) for not being mainstream enough.
NFLed
> I realize the story and all that can change based on your choice of
> So my question is.... is the entire game like this? Right now I feel
> ripped. Does it get better? If so, how soon?
I started out as a mage and while I enjoyed the opening origins story
I felt that it was not a good introduction for those who are not
familiar with these types of games. The only other origins story I
have played so far is human rogue and that one is much more standard
and seemingly much shorter, much more appropriate for someone not
familiar (and patient) with this type of game.
After the origins story there is one more opening section and then
after a big-in-the-world event occurs the game becomes more "standard"
in the sense of being much less linear, choice of party, etc. Also,
the opening sections are more cinematic-per-minute than the rest of
the game as there are long stretches of the game without cinematics
(but not in the opening sections).
In any case, in my view Dragon Age is one of the best games even if
not the best.
Werner Spahl
> Actually Arx to my knowledge was started as UUW 3, the Arcane studios
> wanted to sell it to Origin/EA under that title, but EA had no interest
> so they moved the game into a different direction storywise and released
> it nevertheless.
I don't know what's supposed to be so great about Arx Fatalis. It started
out quite well but then sometime in the middle I lost track of what I was
supposed to do and I could never finish the game without a cheat because I
got a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly after all these years.
--
Dr. Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
Wesp5 @ Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines Vorlonships
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:06:44 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Rin Stowleigh
>wrote:
>
>Gotta get me that game. I really enjoyed "Fate," and Torchlight looks even
>better.
The biggest crying shame for now is that they didn't include co-op tcp mode,
& who knows how far away the mmo is? Eh.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0500, Anno Domini:
Yeah, it's so good, it inspired me to go back & play some more D2 MedianXL
mod <rolls eyes>
--
Nostromo
Memnoch
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Werner Punz wrote:
>
>> Actually Arx to my knowledge was started as UUW 3, the Arcane studios
>> wanted to sell it to Origin/EA under that title, but EA had no interest
>> so they moved the game into a different direction storywise and released
>> it nevertheless.
>
>I don't know what's supposed to be so great about Arx Fatalis. It started
>out quite well but then sometime in the middle I lost track of what I was
>supposed to do and I could never finish the game without a cheat because I
>got a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly after all these years.
I've finished the game a couple of times and the only bug I came across was
where you have to save this abducted girl. It was some kind of spawning bug
where the creature(s) you are supposed to fight don't appear. I'd love to see
a sequel, perhaps with some overland travel between cities.
Ross Ridge
>I don't know what's supposed to be so great about Arx Fatalis. It started
>out quite well but then sometime in the middle I lost track of what I was
>supposed to do and I could never finish the game without a cheat because I
>got a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly after all these years.
I could never finish Arx Fatalis the two times I played. I'm not sure if
it was because I missed something and wasn't doing what I was supposed
to, if there was some sort of scripting bug, or if the game just got
too hard combat wise for me.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Rin Stowleigh
Well its following cannot be denied. I havent played in a couple of
days but plan to resume (I'm at the top of the tower battling the big
Orc bastard that keeps picking up members of my party and tossing them
around).
So, yeah, overall my impressions of the game are better than before. I
probably do not fall into the category of those unfamiliar with this
type of game....I'm not what I consider a hardcore RPG'er by any
stretch but I've played my share of well known RPGs (in recent years
The Witcher, Oblivion, Fallout3... going much farther back than that I
spent a fair share of time on Ultima Underworld in the early 90s and
the original Bards Tale in the mid 80s). I guess what had me torqued
there for a while, and the reason for the original post, was the part
where the couple wanted to escape, and they claimed to need a burning
rod, which required a signature and not just from any senior enchanter
but a particular one.. So that part, especially since it took place
in that annoying circular building, was on my nerves at the time, but
I'm further along and feeling more value from the game at the moment.
I just don't like scenarios where its "go here to get a signature from
such and such, go there to get approval of the signature, then come
back after you've walked around for a while". But it wasn't as bad as
all that after all, and those who said it gets better were right.
Rin Stowleigh
<sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Werner Punz wrote:
>
>> Actually Arx to my knowledge was started as UUW 3, the Arcane studios
>> wanted to sell it to Origin/EA under that title, but EA had no interest
>> so they moved the game into a different direction storywise and released
>> it nevertheless.
>
>I don't know what's supposed to be so great about Arx Fatalis. It started
>out quite well but then sometime in the middle I lost track of what I was
>supposed to do and I could never finish the game without a cheat because I
>got a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly after all these years.
Its hard for me to comment on things that happen deep into the game, I
really didn't play long enough to find these kind of bugs, but I did
want to comment on "a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly
after all these years". This game came out many years ago and was a
PC title to the best of my knowledge.. This means that, due to
software pirates, there is not enough money to be made to justify a
software development company to go back and revisit design decisions
many years later, so to comment on the amount of time the game has
been out with regard to lack of patches is irrelevant. One thing many
people don't realize is that for all the evils that result from
console ports, there is one saving grace: that is that software makers
are able to reach the idiot audience. I don't really mean that as
disrespectful as it sounds, but it ultimately translates to higher
audience numbers, thus more revenue, thus more dollars spent on talent
and testing and making sure the product is ready. Arx Fatalis came
out with little hoopla around it, and I got the impression it was the
product of a few talented individuals who never had the funding or
backing to take it where they really wanted to go.
I've been in that situation myself a few times, as a software
developer, where deadlines were given to us (usually by idiot
management who doesn't care as much about quality as they do about
meeting deadlines), and what is there to do? The idiot MBA types have
sold them on elaborate time-tracking systems with lots of metrics and
fancy graphs that they think will make strategic decision-making easy
enough for a monkey... that is their dream right? Sit at the top,
look at colorful graphs, and without the need to think, push buttons
that make things happen? It's the dream of power that so many want.
Ultimately it results in shitty technology and the fucktards get their
feet kicked out from under them. The real reason for my post is to
explain (from a software developers perspective) why "bugs" do not get
patched in games or any other software for that matter. At the end of
the day we write code... it nobody wants to pay for that code, we will
stop writing. In the case of games it is even tougher because even if
we do want to make things perfect, we often cannot after the company
lays us off due to intellectual property rights and such. Most of us
developes just persue our passion, make it as good as we can within
the crappy parameters we are given... So if you don't like the game,
you can usually blame some management dildo for rushing it out the
door, calling it done, then moving on without being accountable.
Arccos
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:33:25 +0100, Werner Spahl
> <sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Werner Punz wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Arx to my knowledge was started as UUW 3, the Arcane studios
>>> wanted to sell it to Origin/EA under that title, but EA had no interest
>>> so they moved the game into a different direction storywise and released
>>> it nevertheless.
>>
>>I don't know what's supposed to be so great about Arx Fatalis. It started
>>out quite well but then sometime in the middle I lost track of what I was
>>supposed to do and I could never finish the game without a cheat because I
>>got a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly after all these years.
>
> Its hard for me to comment on things that happen deep into the game, I
> really didn't play long enough to find these kind of bugs, but I did
> want to comment on "a game breaking bug that wasn't fixed correctly
> after all these years". This game came out many years ago and was a
> PC title to the best of my knowledge.. This means that, due to
> software pirates, there is not enough money to be made to justify a
> software development company to go back and revisit design decisions
> many years later, so to comment on the amount of time the game has
> been out with regard to lack of patches is irrelevant.
<snip>
Well, the comment came from Werner. From his background, I think he's
commenting that the community hasn't picked up the slack and polished up the
game, like he did (and then some) with Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
He's right that Arx has a big enough following that a fan patch is
conceivable, and he's probably the only one around here who really has the
credibility to call attention to it without getting a response of "so fix it
yourself".
I can program, but I've never tried to patch binaries or even reverse
compile. I imagine if the source was available, it would already have been
done, and some great addons created. Meh... maybe I'll look into what would
be involved, but I wouldn't expect much. I'm pretty damn lazy.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Werner Spahl
> Well, the comment came from Werner. From his background, I think he's
> commenting that the community hasn't picked up the slack and polished up
> the game, like he did (and then some) with Vampire: The Masquerade -
> Bloodlines.
Something like that ;). After all it was a similar game breaking bug that
made me start the Bloodlines patching and it was really annoying to have
to resort to cheats in the middle of a game to finish it. Something about
a cutscene not triggered if I remember correctly...