Dragon Age

[Velorath]

So what we are really getting here is a half-assed sequel and NOT an expansion.  We won't be carrying over any party members(except the shitty one), no DLC that people even paid for(this includes new powers from wardens keep i assume)and I have a sneaking suspician we may not even carry over regular gear. Also, since it's an expansion there probably won't be as much content as was in the original game, nor will anything be greatly improved upon gameplay-wise. Basically, the worst of both worlds.

Man, Mass Effect 2 was such a half-assed sequel.  Only two party members carried over, none of the DLC carried over, you didn't get to keep any of your gear...

[Reg]

If I thought that the Dragon Age expansion had the time and work put into it that Mass Effect 2 did I wouldn't care about any of that stuff.

[Lakov_Sanite]

If I thought that the Dragon Age expansion had the time and work put into it that Mass Effect 2 did I wouldn't care about any of that stuff.

Exactly what he said. ME2 was a sequel with even more love and care than the original, this is just an expansion pack using the same toolset. Maybe if they'd gone the half-lfe route and made you play an entirely diff character it'd make sense but you are literally porting the dude you ran through wardens keep...except it was all a drug-induced dream apparently.

[Venkman]

Wait, what? About the only two members of my party who expressly said they were sticking around with me after the game ended were Leilana and Zevran. So, the two who specifically said "hey, I want to stay with you" aren't coming back? WTF?

Heh, total aside. I love how this game is so different between people. We're going to need to start associated our various savefiles with pocket universe names or something. Because in Ferelden|DQ, Zevran turned on me in some back alley of Denerim so I had to smoke his punk ass, and I never even met Leilana.

So I wonder if I'll have anyone sticking around now.

[tmp]

and I have a sneaking suspician we may not even carry over regular gear.

The regular gear is part of "core rules", base content which is something all 'story modules' including the main campaign draw from. So all regular items can be transferred easily from one story to another, because every story has access to database entries which describe these items. In contrast, the DLC they've published is all designed to expand not the base content but just one specific module -- the main campaign. So any separate module they (or some 3rd party) make just doesn't have access to these items, purely due to technical reasons.

[Sjofn]

If they were worried about "shortchanging" they wouldn't have a bunch of choices in the base game, either, because you can't see everything they've written in one playthough.

There's a difference between not being able to see everything in one playthrough, and telling players, "ok, you killed off these characters so now you don't have the option of using them in every subsequent game we put out unless you start a new character".  It essentially punishes people who play "evil" characters because each game they'd probably be missing out on more and more content.

That's assuming people don't have more than a single save. If it's that important to a person they see all that shit, they are GOING to have more than one save. Even then, it's not "punishing" them. It's not like you'd be doing the expansion solo or something stupid like that. You'd just have to do it without characters you had already deemed expendible.



EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to essentially scrap previous parties, I just find your insistance that they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts for the PLAYERS, and not because it's roughly a million billion times easier on them to not have to worry about every single possible variation upon the first game ... uh ... unlikely.

[Velorath]

It's not a matter of "out of the goodness of their hearts".  It's just what makes the most sense.  It probably takes as much work for them to create a bunch of new characters as it would to continue on with the old ones.  You seem to think that it's a matter of being too hard to develop with all the various choices players can make in the base game in mind, but almost all of them result in "x is no longer alive, and won't show up in the expansion.".  A lot of the other choices are being addressed in the expac.

[Khaldun]

I have radically more variant experiences with Dragon Age play than ME2, for some reason. I'm way way more likely to ignore some DA npcs or kick them out of my party than with ME2, where even the Renegade play is about getting the Dirty Dozen types what they need. If Sten was ME2, I'd find out what he needs and get it to him. In DA plays, I'm often perfectly happy letting him languish in the camp. In my current run with a tough elf warrior-bitch, I haven't even bothered to equip him, he's just hanging out in his jammies.

[Sjofn]

It would be harder, simply because you WOULD have to add in new characters anyway, because you can't really have someone who managed to kill off all their partymates previously to just wander around alone.

I think we agree that it would be a pain in the ass to include the previous party, you just give it more motivation than "it's a pain in the ass," which I think is overly charitable.

[Sheepherder]

So any separate module they (or some 3rd party) make just doesn't have access to these items, purely due to technical reasons.

This smells like bullshit.  Weird inheritance trees can do that, but it wouldn't preclude them simply reproducing the DLC set of armour in the expansion along with a short script to detect the presence of the DLC.

[Reg]

Bioware is handling all this DLC crap very badly. I loved Dragon Age but the overpriced DLC and this expansion are leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth. From what I've read over at QT3 the expansion is only about 25 hours of play. Not worth 40 bucks as far as I'm concerned - not when the original game was only 60 and was four times as long.

I'll get it eventually but I'll wait for it to go on sale.

[eldaec]

25 hours of play. Not worth 40 bucks as far as I'm concerned

Just how many hours do you expect a typical single player game play through to last?

[Velorath]

Bioware is handling all this DLC crap very badly. I loved Dragon Age but the overpriced DLC and this expansion are leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth. From what I've read over at QT3 the expansion is only about 25 hours of play. Not worth 40 bucks as far as I'm concerned - not when the original game was only 60 and was four times as long.

I'll get it eventually but I'll wait for it to go on sale.

The original game was more like 50 hours and that's including the time it takes to get through all the DLC and doing every side-quest.  Add on a few more hours if you count going through every origin story.  So it's only about twice as long as the expansion give or take.

[Reg]

More than that. I generally like games with a lot of replayability and I like long RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and the original Dragon Age. I won't pay 10 dollars for some shitty DLC that has a couple of overpowered items and 3 or 4 hours of gameplay. And I won't pay 40 bucks for an "expansion" that's 1/4 the size of the original game and almost the same price.

Oh I'll get it eventually but I'll wait for the sale. There's lots of other stuff to play in the meantime.

Fake Edit: We'll see. Whether it's half the size of the original or a quarter I'll still wait for the sale. I'm not that anxious to play any more Dragon Age just now anyway. The expansion seems to have come out awfully fast.

[stray]

25 hrs is pretty long relatively speaking.. Just not in RPG terms.

But then.....


Some of those hours required in an RPG are crap. Hello, mage tower anyone? Not sure how long that was, but it could have been shorter.

That said, $40 is pretty high. You could buy 2 older games for that. Good ones too, in brand new boxes. Like a Gears of War or something.

[edit] i'm ambivalent and have no point. 

[eldaec]

More than that. I generally like games with a lot of replayability and I like long RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and the original Dragon Age.

25 hours for a play through doesn't say much about whether there is replayability.

DA has a good bit of replayability which I'll hardly use because I need 60 hours to run through it.


If you want more than 25 hours from each play through for single player games, then your life is going to be full of disappointment.

(whether this is actually 25 hours long remains to be seen ofc)

[Lakov_Sanite]

Dragon age didn't have much replayability beyond the origin stories. Most of the choices were A or B and didn't effect the endgame much if at all "do you want werewolves or elves fighting your dragon today sir?" In fact nearly all the choices in dragon age were chilidishly simplistic and immaterial to the actual plot. Things just kept chugging along no matter what you did, hell even the last big choice with loghain it doesnt really matter what you pick, you're still gonna have to do the end dungeon with the dragon.

Adding to this that the combat was pretty dull...I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the game, I did but it's pretty shallow

[Venkman]

See, this is why I hate the $$$ = Hours crap. 25 hours for a $40 is almost unheard of these days. Granted, that's because so many games with campaigns have tacked on multiplayer components. But that's an unmeasured component safely filed under "we don't care when you stop playing". And the campaign modes are at best 5-10 hours. Or far less. Like, ya know, that big ass FPS launch from last year.

This whole comparison has always been a red herring. There's no actual objective way to compare dollars invested with time invested. Just head over to any MMO forum to hear people bitch about how they don't think they got their money's worth after playing one for eight months or something.

Specific to DA, it'is only replayable if you like to roll MMO alts merely to hit the level cap, or are a fast reader that reads a book again for the things you missed the first time. There's a market for that.

[Lakov_Sanite]

See, this is why I hate the $$$ = Hours crap. 25 hours for a $40 is almost unheard of these days. Granted, that's because so many games with campaigns have tacked on multiplayer components. But that's an unmeasured component safely filed under "we don't care when you stop playing". And the campaign modes are at best 5-10 hours. Or far less. Like, ya know, that big ass FPS launch from last year.

This whole comparison has always been a red herring. There's no actual objective way to compare dollars invested with time invested. Just head over to any MMO forum to hear people bitch about how they don't think they got their money's worth after playing one for eight months or something.

Specific to DA, it'is only replayable if you like to roll MMO alts merely to hit the level cap, or are a fast reader that reads a book again for the things you missed the first time. There's a market for that.

Ok let us indeed truly cut the bullshit.  Anyone who thinks this expansion is going to vastly revolutionize the game in any way is delusional. This is an expansion pack, a module using the same game engine and most of the same files.  There will be some new story and some new npc's.  If you think they were also spend the same amount of time/energy/money they did on the original box, you are also delusional. It's an expansion pack, it will be good but not quite as good as the original game.

Now lets add all this together we have in column A: DA:o which is a 50-60 hour game for 59.99 at release.  Then in column B we have a reportedly 25 hour expansion for that game for $40


God of War/Bayonetta/COD2 are not long games but there is a condensed quality to them and while the gameplay might be shorter, the resources put in to making them are surely equal or greater than many long rpg's.  No, time is not a factor in the quality of games but comparing the DA expansion to these shorter games is apples and oranges.

[Venkman]

Comparing this expansion pack to full games isn't valid in the first place. Who the heck is going to look at an expac and ask "do I want that or God of War"?! For one, they're completely different games. For another, fans who love DA:O already made their choice, completely independent of buying into a new game.

If you have limited money and can only buy one, you're going to do so based on whether you want a new game experience altogether or want to continue playing the story of a world you love. This is not BF:BC2 vs MW2. This is an EQ1 expac vs WoW.

As in, a choice made with no consideration at all between dollars and hours.

[Reg]

It's not worth arguing about. I'm not buying it at release for 40 dollars because for whatever reason it doesn't feel like a good value for the money to me.

[Goreschach]

Comparing this expansion pack to full games isn't valid in the first place.

It is when the expansion pack costs as much as a new game.

[Venkman]

Reg's point is sound, and is what I was driving at. It's entirely a personal decision. Any comparison to a full standalone retail game is a false equivalency.

But as an aside, and only since you mentioned: what AAA title are you paying only $40 for? Or are you waiting a year before picking it up?

[Velorath]

See, this is why I hate the $$$ = Hours crap. 25 hours for a $40 is almost unheard of these days. Granted, that's because so many games with campaigns have tacked on multiplayer components. But that's an unmeasured component safely filed under "we don't care when you stop playing". And the campaign modes are at best 5-10 hours. Or far less. Like, ya know, that big ass FPS launch from last year.

This whole comparison has always been a red herring. There's no actual objective way to compare dollars invested with time invested. Just head over to any MMO forum to hear people bitch about how they don't think they got their money's worth after playing one for eight months or something.

Specific to DA, it'is only replayable if you like to roll MMO alts merely to hit the level cap, or are a fast reader that reads a book again for the things you missed the first time. There's a market for that.

Ok let us indeed truly cut the bullshit.  Anyone who thinks this expansion is going to vastly revolutionize the game in any way is delusional. This is an expansion pack, a module using the same game engine and most of the same files.  There will be some new story and some new npc's.  If you think they were also spend the same amount of time/energy/money they did on the original box, you are also delusional. It's an expansion pack, it will be good but not quite as good as the original game.

Now lets add all this together we have in column A: DA:o which is a 50-60 hour game for 59.99 at release.  Then in column B we have a reportedly 25 hour expansion for that game for $40


God of War/Bayonetta/COD2 are not long games but there is a condensed quality to them and while the gameplay might be shorter, the resources put in to making them are surely equal or greater than many long rpg's.  No, time is not a factor in the quality of games but comparing the DA expansion to these shorter games is apples and oranges.

I'm not sure why you're so deadset against the expansion pack.  If you like Dragon Age, it would stand to reason that 25 more hours of it would be a positive thing, even if you plan on waiting for the price to drop.  I doubt even I'll pick it up right at launch since God of War 3 will be my first priority and I still might pick up FFXIII, but I won't hold out too long for a price drop either.  I like 2 out of 3 of the new characters they've shown so far, impressions from people who have played it seem to be that it's done a lot to address the balance issues between mages and everyone else, the new specializations are supposed to be pretty fun, they've added in a way to respec characters...  seems like a good value for $40 to me.

I can see people waiting because we've had a lot of Bioware product in a short amount of time and a lot of people aren't in a hurry to dive into DA again so soon, or because they're patient enough to wait for price drops.  I'd say only about 10% of the stuff I buy is at full price, this year just has a lot of Day 1 stuff for me.  But "Ok let us indeed truly cut the bullshit."?  Fuck off with that shit.  People know what they're getting with the expansion.  There are enough hands-on impressions and interviews to figure out exactly what it entails.  Nobody was waiting for you to come in a break it down for them.

[Azazel]

Eventually, there'll be a massive GOTY-style pack with the original game, most of the DLC, the expansion, and all the patches. Including the one that lets you use the DLC in the expansion (maybe). You might just have to wait a year or two for it.

[Sir T]

The european version of the game (that i just bought) had the Shale DLC for free, though you still had to download it.

Incidently what class would people reccomend for a first playthrough? (Yeah I havent read through a 70 page thread yet)

[Lakov_Sanite]

The european version of the game (that i just bought) had the Shale DLC for free, though you still had to download it.

Incidently what class would people reccomend for a first playthrough? (Yeah I havent read through a 70 page thread yet)

MAGE

[Engels]

Mage with Arcane Warrior spec is the bomb. Who needs taunt when you can fireball as an opening salvo. Then with the Juggernaught resist gear you can just firestorm your own area with little damage to yourself, especially if you pre-chug a fire resist potion. The other party members can be locked down behind you using range while you stand there like a blazing lunatic on fire, occasionally chugging health potions.

[Fraeg]

Mage is good as others mentioned.   I enjoyed my rogue more than my mage.  Mages have more bang out of the box, but rogues only get better and better with time.

Honestly, the game even on nightmare mode isn't that challenging, (as others have mentioned in this thread there are some serious scaling issues), I would just say play what interests you the most.  If you do go rogue I recommend picking up the Ranger abilities, the pet is great.

But yeah, as far as "holy crap my character is insane" the above mentioned arcane warrior stuff is spot on.

[Ingmar]

I wouldn't do arcane warrior as a first playthrough, its kind of annoying to set up and it will get in the way of your just exploring around and experiencing stuff and experimenting with spells. Mage is a good choice but I'd just go for a regular old blasty one on a first game.

[Goreschach]

Arcane warrior is overpowered, but boring as hell. The fireball and corpse bomb lines are powerful, and totally not boring, so a squishy mage that throws tons of spells is a good choice. Defense is for pussies, anyway.

[MournelitheCalix]

Mage is good as others mentioned.   I enjoyed my rogue more than my mage.  Mages have more bang out of the box, but rogues only get better and better with time.

Honestly, the game even on nightmare mode isn't that challenging, (as others have mentioned in this thread there are some serious scaling issues), I would just say play what interests you the most.  If you do go rogue I recommend picking up the Ranger abilities, the pet is great.

But yeah, as far as "holy crap my character is insane" the above mentioned arcane warrior stuff is spot on.

I agree completely,  I found the nightmare game rather boring with the exception of that Gwaxkang side quest.  That guy was horrible.  I must have tried about 40 things before settling in on a combination/strategy that worked.

On a side note has anyone attempted to use this toolset?  Its the most god aweful unintuitive PoS I have ever seen.  I used to think that NWN was unintuitive and hard to use, this thing almost seems as if they intentionally didn't want people to use it.

[Riggswolfe]

On a side note has anyone attempted to use this toolset?  Its the most god aweful unintuitive PoS I have ever seen.  I used to think that NWN was unintuitive and hard to use, this thing almost seems as if they intentionally didn't want people to use it.

I haven't tried it but if you consider the NWN toolset hard to use then ummm...I'm not sure what to say. A 2 year old could make an adventure with NWN toolset.

[MournelitheCalix]

On a side note has anyone attempted to use this toolset?  Its the most god aweful unintuitive PoS I have ever seen.  I used to think that NWN was unintuitive and hard to use, this thing almost seems as if they intentionally didn't want people to use it.

I haven't tried it but if you consider the NWN toolset hard to use then ummm...I'm not sure what to say. A 2 year old could make an adventure with NWN toolset.

I agree you could make basic things very easily with NWN's toolset.  Problem is, I never much interested in doing anything "basic."

[Dion]

On a side note has anyone attempted to use this toolset?  Its the most god aweful unintuitive PoS I have ever seen.  I used to think that NWN was unintuitive and hard to use, this thing almost seems as if they intentionally didn't want people to use it.

I haven't tried it but if you consider the NWN toolset hard to use then ummm...I'm not sure what to say. A 2 year old could make an adventure with NWN toolset.

I agree you could make basic things very easily with NWN's toolset.  Problem is, I never much interested in doing anything "basic."

What do you mean by basic? The NWN toolset was used to create all the campaigns and there have been many mods with complex puzzles and interactions.

The only way the toolset is limited is by the ruleset and limits of the engine.