RPGs with the best combat systems

[TheBansheeBomb]

Dark Souls comes out on top for me, it has very weighty and satisfying combat system in my honest opinion although I'd be remised if I didn't mention Fallout's V.A.T.S system.

 

[AuronFtw]

snip

I often get the feeling that those "the old games were so much more complex" statements come from a place of nostalgia and simply the fact that we all were alot younger when we first played these games, of course they seemed very complex back then.

I mean you are right that Baldurs Gate had all these sub- and hybridclasses but most of them were just slight variations of the mainclass, and you can build your chars in several different ways in DA:O too. You can build a heavily armored healer guy aswell as a Fighter who uses little armor and concentrates on offense.

For the other point, well thats just my opinion, but i like it more that I have to specialise my characters to do one, maybe two jobs very well instead of branching out, i found that to be most effective in BG too.

On the lower difficultys you can run around with whoever you want in DA:O too. Only on Nightmare(and probably Hard, but i never played that) you have to use the more effective setup of tank, healer, and two damage dealer.
Thats again a thing I like better, than just having six autoattack machines run around.

They were more complex because they... were more complex. I know it's a tautology, but just compare what you can actually alter or change in DA:O. You have fewer party members to begin with, which severely limits possible creative combos; fewer classes, which limits interesting cross-class party mixing and even singular builds down to a tiny list; and fewer spells, all of which are less complex than those in BG.

The BG class list is HUGE, by the way - it's not just warrior, thief, mage and subtypes for each, there are many that break the mold completely - even some of the subtypes stray so far from the path they seem like a different class entirely. Bards, paladins, druids, clerics, rangers (rangers like Aragorn, that can wear real armor and fight in melee if need be) are all base class types, with subtypes for each, and sorc/barbarian are also available for more specialized melee combat or casting allowance based on preference. The last two don't differ much in playstyle from their more common brethren, but the first 5 all have unique playstyles and viable builds, not to mention how much variation each has with its subclasses. Druids are typically midline support casters, ready to buff or heal or throw Insect Swarm on an enemy caster, but if you find you need another melee meathead, you can turn him into a fucking bear and he mauls shit in the face. It's like Ursan Blessing from Guild Wars, just not as hilariously broken.

DA:O also has fewer spells, most of which are for pure damage or healing, with very little in the way of utility (BG mages can open chests, detect traps, protect against elements, protect against status conditions, chain spells in a sequencer, pierce magic on target, dispel magic in an area, see through illusions, list goes on and on). This one's kind of a gimme - no game is going to be able to compete with the all-encompassing nature of a D&D spell list without being a D&D game, and DA:O seemed to realize this and didn't even try.

And that's without getting into the questing, the map layout, the often-frustrating camera angles, the NPC interactions (which DA:O did pretty well, just... with fewer party members at a time, you get fewer random interjections from people adding to a conversation - if you ever tried to do a serious quest in BG2 with Jan Jansen and Minsc, you'll know what I mean).

All in all, it was a prettier BG2 with a worse camera angle, more cluttered maps, and less stuff. Less stuff meant it was easier for a new generation of RPG gamers to jump into it, which is valuable to the gaming community, but the game itself just doesn't compare in complexity to its ancestor. I'd say it compares more evenly to Kotor, which, while itself a great game, was already showing signs of the devs cutting out lots of potential content to trim down party size, trim down spell lists, etc to be more approachable.

But if we're talking about RPGs with "the best combat systems," BG2 trumps any of its later clones. They might be "good," they might be "fun," and I admit I was never turned off of Dragon Age, despite my distaste for needlessly simple spell lists - but they don't hold a candle to the original.

This, also, is why (IMO, obviously) games like Oblivion and Skyrim will simply never compare. They sacrifice all meaningful party makeup for an attempt to put you face-first into the world, except the games are still so buggy, the combat is still so dull, the NPCs are still so lifeless that I'd have a better chance at getting immersed in the world if they let me manage a party of adventurers in an epic landscape on an epic journey than playing as Gordon Freeman in Platemail. And this is without even getting into how silly it feels to spend a lot of time and effort leveling up, say, pickpocketing or lockpicking, sneaking into a shop, stealing good items, and running out without being detected, only to realize that the Halberd of Awesomeness +5 you stole is useless to you because you're playing a game where you have little to no party, and no great warrior or fighter who can use it effectively.

Kind of a turnoff.

 

[waj9876]

Disgaea. I win. Seriously.

Disgaea definitely has the most unique RPG combat I've ever seen. And it's generally seen as fun, though it might not be for everyone. My favorite thing about it though? You can beat the game around level...80 or so. The highest level in the game is 9999. What I love the most about the series though is that you do not really ever have to use main characters. You can totally just use characters you created.

 

[Eduku]

snip

I often get the feeling that those "the old games were so much more complex" statements come from a place of nostalgia and simply the fact that we all were alot younger when we first played these games, of course they seemed very complex back then.

I mean you are right that Baldurs Gate had all these sub- and hybridclasses but most of them were just slight variations of the mainclass, and you can build your chars in several different ways in DA:O too. You can build a heavily armored healer guy aswell as a Fighter who uses little armor and concentrates on offense.

For the other point, well thats just my opinion, but i like it more that I have to specialise my characters to do one, maybe two jobs very well instead of branching out, i found that to be most effective in BG too.

On the lower difficultys you can run around with whoever you want in DA:O too. Only on Nightmare(and probably Hard, but i never played that) you have to use the more effective setup of tank, healer, and two damage dealer.
Thats again a thing I like better, than just having six autoattack machines run around.

They were more complex because they... were more complex. I know it's a tautology, but just compare what you can actually alter or change in DA:O. You have fewer party members to begin with, which severely limits possible creative combos; fewer classes, which limits interesting cross-class party mixing and even singular builds down to a tiny list; and fewer spells, all of which are less complex than those in BG.

The BG class list is HUGE, by the way - it's not just warrior, thief, mage and subtypes for each, there are many that break the mold completely - even some of the subtypes stray so far from the path they seem like a different class entirely. Bards, paladins, druids, clerics, rangers (rangers like Aragorn, that can wear real armor and fight in melee if need be) are all base class types, with subtypes for each, and sorc/barbarian are also available for more specialized melee combat or casting allowance based on preference. The last two don't differ much in playstyle from their more common brethren, but the first 5 all have unique playstyles and viable builds, not to mention how much variation each has with its subclasses. Druids are typically midline support casters, ready to buff or heal or throw Insect Swarm on an enemy caster, but if you find you need another melee meathead, you can turn him into a fucking bear and he mauls shit in the face. It's like Ursan Blessing from Guild Wars, just not as hilariously broken.

DA:O also has fewer spells, most of which are for pure damage or healing, with very little in the way of utility (BG mages can open chests, detect traps, protect against elements, protect against status conditions, chain spells in a sequencer, pierce magic on target, dispel magic in an area, see through illusions, list goes on and on). This one's kind of a gimme - no game is going to be able to compete with the all-encompassing nature of a D&D spell list without being a D&D game, and DA:O seemed to realize this and didn't even try.

And that's without getting into the questing, the map layout, the often-frustrating camera angles, the NPC interactions (which DA:O did pretty well, just... with fewer party members at a time, you get fewer random interjections from people adding to a conversation - if you ever tried to do a serious quest in BG2 with Jan Jansen and Minsc, you'll know what I mean).

All in all, it was a prettier BG2 with a worse camera angle, more cluttered maps, and less stuff. Less stuff meant it was easier for a new generation of RPG gamers to jump into it, which is valuable to the gaming community, but the game itself just doesn't compare in complexity to its ancestor. I'd say it compares more evenly to Kotor, which, while itself a great game, was already showing signs of the devs cutting out lots of potential content to trim down party size, trim down spell lists, etc to be more approachable.

But if we're talking about RPGs with "the best combat systems," BG2 trumps any of its later clones. They might be "good," they might be "fun," and I admit I was never turned off of Dragon Age, despite my distaste for needlessly simple spell lists - but they don't hold a candle to the original.

This, also, is why (IMO, obviously) games like Oblivion and Skyrim will simply never compare. They sacrifice all meaningful party makeup for an attempt to put you face-first into the world, except the games are still so buggy, the combat is still so dull, the NPCs are still so lifeless that I'd have a better chance at getting immersed in the world if they let me manage a party of adventurers in an epic landscape on an epic journey than playing as Gordon Freeman in Platemail. And this is without even getting into how silly it feels to spend a lot of time and effort leveling up, say, pickpocketing or lockpicking, sneaking into a shop, stealing good items, and running out without being detected, only to realize that the Halberd of Awesomeness +5 you stole is useless to you because you're playing a game where you have little to no party, and no great warrior or fighter who can use it effectively.

Kind of a turnoff.

Well I was going to write a few paragraphs in response, but you pretty much said what I was going to say, so uh, +1 I guess. Basically it's mostly about freedom of choice in building your character, and BG excels in that.

Man, this makes me want the BG2 enhanced edition to come out already. They're being quite tight-lipped about it, even the release date.

 

[runic knight]

Dark souls. I know others been saying it but damn, it IS good combat system. You can't block all day, you can't attack all day and you can't dodge roll all day. As such, you have to develop the ability to pick and choose what is best at any given time, lower defenses strategically to let stamina recharge faster, watch possibly several enemies at once and be well aware that all it would take is one unlucky hit to chain stun you. So, you know, it requires some skill. Pity the bow and magic systems weren't as nearly fleshed out.

Personally I would have loved a bit more control of the weapon moves (instead of it tied right to the weapons, have it based in a stance system or something, with movesets that work for categories of weapons). If you could have a little more control if you wanted a sweeping attack or a lunge with each sort of attack or whatever, while still using the weapons you liked best in stat or even just appearance, it would have been great. As for magic and bows, perhaps the option of changing effects based on how you cast (similar to how you attack with a melee weapon), charging spells or shots longer for more damage, being able to move more quickly while casting/drawing an arrow, and just making it have more flexibility.

 

[tangoprime]

As others have mentioned, I REALLY liked the system used in Knights of the Old Republic and KotOR II, I liked how it would pause (or could be paused, depending on settings) for combat, and let you queue up combat actions, then unpause and watch it play out. One of the things that makes me extremely sad about The Old Republic MMO is the fact that it has that feel, but since it's an MMO you can't pause, select, then watch it play out, because the fight animations really are great- you just never get a chance to see them for the most part unless you're one of the players that have everything mapped and know it by heart.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning manages the impossible by having both an excellent action battle system AND being a really good RPG... in that both Skill and Leveling are both extremely important AND extremely rewarding in the battles. The rest of the game is "alright" but DAMN the battle system is SO good that it's worth buying the game for.

Dragon Age 2 while the "salt shaker enemies" are annoying the general combination of Action/Reflexes and the classic Pause and Play of Dragon Age: Origins is a fantastic combination. Really I can't think of a Party Based Game with better combat than DA2.

Tales of Vesperia is probably the best "tales" combat system to date, but we'll see if Xillia surpasses it later this summer (hopefully, I love Tales games).

Final Fantasy X-2 while the rest of the game leaves a LOT to be desired the fast paced, ATB based Battle System, the on the fly Class Changing, the Chains and Interrupts... it was a pretty stunning action oriented update of Classic Final Fantasy Battles.

Shadow Hearts: From The New World is an amazing combination of pretty much every good idea for a Turn Based RPG Battle System ever... FFX's Turn Ordering Tactics, Legend of Dragoon's Timed Hits, a system for Combo Magic and Combo Attacks... man the battle system was good... too bad the story was really, really terrible.

Persona 4 has MY favorite iteration of the "Press-Turn" combat system but you could pretty much rank every SMT based game that has Press-Turn in here (SMT 3, Digital Devil Saga 1&2, Persona 3, Strange Journey). If you aren't familiar it's basically a pokemon style "Hit Weakness" System that really speeds things up by awarding extra turns for hitting weaknesses and takes away turns for hitting strengths. It's very fun and can be very strategic.

Fallout: New Vegas because damn if I don't just love VATS and in New Vegas the Melee and Unarmed skills finally get to be awesome by having special VATS effects even if you can't target body parts like you can with guns.

 

[Frankster]

Immediate favorites that come to mind are:

Star Ocean 2nd story: I dunno if this style of 2d real time combat was used often, but found it very refreshing and various special moves and their handling really made characters unique.

Vagrant Story: On paper the combat system shouldn't work but it just does, at least for me. Was a weird rythme based combo system mixed with semi turn based real time combat (as confusing as that sounds) where game pauses where you aim for enemy limbs and time stops as you do combos but then move normally.

Breath of Fire 3: I just love the transformation and skill system this game has. In isolation its a very standard turn based battle system but has a number of particularities that i greatly enjoyed.

Grandia: Just a fun game overall and combat system is just one of that games strengths.

Jade Empire: Real time martial arts combat in an rpg? Its more likely then you think!

FrontMission 3: I dont know about other front missions as sadly this is the only one i ever played. But had a great turn based combat system where you blow off enemies limbs off and your pilots would pull off cool skill combos.

KH1: I loved the combat system in this, shame the sequel had to mess it up a bit, but then again the franchise took a big nosedive after kh1 in my opinion.

 

[Akytalusia]

i'm particularly fond of the growlanser series battle system. it's a perfect mix of turn based/real time/strategy. everything is happening in real time, but you can micromanage every moment of the battle, so even though in real time the actual battles are hectic and only last a few seconds or so, it plays out in slow motion with full control over everything and no pressure.

 

[Chris Tian]

They were more complex because they... were more complex. I know it's a tautology, but just compare what you can actually alter or change in DA:O. You have fewer party members to begin with, which severely limits possible creative combos; fewer classes, which limits interesting cross-class party mixing and even singular builds down to a tiny list; and fewer spells, all of which are less complex than those in BG.

I think the list of builds in DA:O is alot longer than you might realise. Additionally I found the "cross-class party mixing" in DA:O alot more interesting, because your guys could work together more effectively. For example: Mages can freeze mobs and the Warrios than smash them to bits, the Warrior can then draw the next mob away from the caster and engage it while the rogue backstabs the sucker.
Most of the spells in BG were redundant or useless, I mean does having nine different healing spells, that just vary in strength, really add complexity? Not for me, at least.

The BG class list is HUGE, by the way - it's not just warrior, thief, mage and subtypes for each, there are many that break the mold completely - even some of the subtypes stray so far from the path they seem like a different class entirely. Bards, paladins, druids, clerics, rangers (rangers like Aragorn, that can wear real armor and fight in melee if need be) are all base class types, with subtypes for each, and sorc/barbarian are also available for more specialized melee combat or casting allowance based on preference. The last two don't differ much in playstyle from their more common brethren, but the first 5 all have unique playstyles and viable builds, not to mention how much variation each has with its subclasses. Druids are typically midline support casters, ready to buff or heal or throw Insect Swarm on an enemy caster, but if you find you need another melee meathead, you can turn him into a fucking bear and he mauls shit in the face. It's like Ursan Blessing from Guild Wars, just not as hilariously broken.

Okay thats a matter of opinion but to me the HUGE classlist was mostly redundant.
Paladin was just a Warrior with a superiority complex.
Ranger is just a warrior who prefers bows and wears light armor, you can totaly build one of those in DA:O.
Druids, Clerics, etc. are all just casters with different names but there actual gameplay differs little. You can build casters with different types of armor and jobs in DA:O too. Even the Druid that turns into a bear.
Is it at all possible that you saw that there are only three classes, thought "well that sucks" and didn't even try what fastly different builds you can achieve with those?

DA:O also has fewer spells, most of which are for pure damage or healing, with very little in the way of utility (BG mages can open chests, detect traps, protect against elements, protect against status conditions, chain spells in a sequencer, pierce magic on target, dispel magic in an area, see through illusions, list goes on and on). This one's kind of a gimme - no game is going to be able to compete with the all-encompassing nature of a D&D spell list without being a D&D game, and DA:O seemed to realize this and didn't even try.

Okay granted you have no outside of combat utility spells in DA:O but there is alot more than damage dealing and healing to the spell list. You have everything from healing, buffing, debuffing, damage dealing and crowd control. You even have protection spells that can make your caster a tank. That still adds alot of tactical options and depth to combat.

A DA:O caster can do all the things you list, exept the outside of combat utility spells. That you list those as differences makes me wonder if you even know the DA:O spell list.

I wouldn't say that spells which are capable of opening locks add alot to the complexity of combat or a game in general.

And that's without getting into the questing, the map layout, the often-frustrating camera angles, the NPC interactions (which DA:O did pretty well, just... with fewer party members at a time, you get fewer random interjections from people adding to a conversation - if you ever tried to do a serious quest in BG2 with Jan Jansen and Minsc, you'll know what I mean).

All in all, it was a prettier BG2 with a worse camera angle, more cluttered maps, and less stuff. Less stuff meant it was easier for a new generation of RPG gamers to jump into it, which is valuable to the gaming community, but the game itself just doesn't compare in complexity to its ancestor. I'd say it compares more evenly to Kotor, which, while itself a great game, was already showing signs of the devs cutting out lots of potential content to trim down party size, trim down spell lists, etc to be more approachable.

I have no clue what you mean by "often-frustrating camera angles" i never encounterd one of those.
"more cluttered maps, and less stuff" Again, no clue what you mean but I am pretty sure that falls both in the "I liked BG better" department, and not really in the "BG is way more complex".

And the party banter is fantastic in DA:O too, just take Liliana and Shale with you and listen to the conversation about shoes between the pretty girl and the fricking golem. Again thats not really a matter of complexity.

So my point is, I get the feeling people mean to say "I liked BG better" and out comes "BG is more complex". Alot of things you mention are more personal preferences than actually different levels of complexity.
Arguing over wich game is better makes no sense, that is a matter of opinion, but complexeiy is somewhat objective and DA:O has lots of that too.
Both games are complex, but in a different way and you like Baldurs Gate's way better. That does not make Baldurs Gate more complex.

If DA:O would not be complex there would be nothing to think about. Just go and google "Dragon Age Origins Dual Wield DEX vs. CUN", look at that gigantic sheet of math that compares the two builds and tell me that there is no complexety in DA:O.

This, also, is why (IMO, obviously) games like Oblivion and Skyrim will simply never compare. They sacrifice all meaningful party makeup for an attempt to put you face-first into the world, except the games are still so buggy, the combat is still so dull, the NPCs are still so lifeless that I'd have a better chance at getting immersed in the world if they let me manage a party of adventurers in an epic landscape on an epic journey than playing as Gordon Freeman in Platemail. And this is without even getting into how silly it feels to spend a lot of time and effort leveling up, say, pickpocketing or lockpicking, sneaking into a shop, stealing good items, and running out without being detected, only to realize that the Halberd of Awesomeness +5 you stole is useless to you because you're playing a game where you have little to no party, and no great warrior or fighter who can use it effectively.

Kind of a turnoff.

I wont argue with you here, TES combat is as blah as it gets, from a tactical perpective.

 

[Eduku]

Okay thats a matter of opinion but to me the HUGE classlist was mostly redundant.
Paladin was just a Warrior with a superiority complex.
Ranger is just a warrior who prefers bows and wears light armor, you can totaly build one of those in DA:O.
Druids, Clerics, etc. are all just casters with different names but there actual gameplay differs little. You can build casters with different types of armor and jobs in DA:O too. Even the Druid that turns into a bear.
Is it at all possible that you saw that there are only three classes, thought "well that sucks" and didn't even try what fastly different builds you can achieve with those?

Maybe it is but I would definitely disagree here. The paladin offers spells as well as turning of undead and basic healing, as well as different sub classes to the fighter. The ranger can become a melee specialist, gains an animal companion and excels in natural settings due to their utility skills. Druids also excel in natural settings, get different spells and martial feats than clerics, and shapeshift, whereas clerics tend to do better against undead enemies. These differences make the classes play vastly differently.

I'm not saying that Dragon Age: Origins isn't complex - I spent absolutely ages making different character builds - but I think you're definitely understating the complexity of BG.

 

[Auron225]

I'd have to say FFX-2 as others have said and also Kingdom Hearts in general (except Chain of Memories, it was terrible). Birth By Sleep especially had awesome combat but there was almost too much you could do in that one. Still crazy fun though!

I'd say Tales of Graces had pretty fun combat in it - it took me a while to figure out how exactly artes worked but when you finally know what you're doing then it's fantastic! X) I don't remember strategising a whole lot though, I always just kinda winged it.

FFX was good for strategies, particularly towards the end of the game when status effects can mean everything. Trying to time things like Curaga, Reflect and Dispel - it's such a feeling of satisfaction when you pull it off. Even more so if it's your first attempt at whatever it is!

 

[Chris Tian]

Okay thats a matter of opinion but to me the HUGE classlist was mostly redundant.
Paladin was just a Warrior with a superiority complex.
Ranger is just a warrior who prefers bows and wears light armor, you can totaly build one of those in DA:O.
Druids, Clerics, etc. are all just casters with different names but there actual gameplay differs little. You can build casters with different types of armor and jobs in DA:O too. Even the Druid that turns into a bear.
Is it at all possible that you saw that there are only three classes, thought "well that sucks" and didn't even try what fastly different builds you can achieve with those?

Maybe it is but I would definitely disagree here. The paladin offers spells as well as turning of undead and basic healing, as well as different sub classes to the fighter. The ranger can become a melee specialist, gains an animal companion and excels in natural settings due to their utility skills. Druids also excel in natural settings, get different spells and martial feats than clerics, and shapeshift, whereas clerics tend to do better against undead enemies. These differences make the classes play vastly differently.

I'm not saying that Dragon Age: Origins isn't complex - I spent absolutely ages making different character builds - but I think you're definitely understating the complexity of BG.

You can build equivalents to all the things you mention in DA:O too.
Want a Warrior with some buffing spells, build a Champion.
Want a Ranger with animal companion, build a Rogue with medium armor, the ranger spec, bow and melee skills.
Want a Druid, build a Mage with whatever spells you think fit a Druid and take the Shapeshifter spec.
Want a Cleric, build a Arcane Warrior with heavy armor and healing/buffing spells and top it of with the spirit healer spec.
Just because you only have to decide between three general directions for you character and not one specific class, doesn't mean that you can't build many different "classes"

I am not trying to understate Baldurs Gate complexity. I'm trying to say they are pretty equal.

 

[Black Reaper]

Tales games in general,especially Vesperia and Graces
A combo video speaks better than a thousand words

YMMV on which is better,Vesperia has Judith,and doesn't have that stupid accuracy system Graces had(if you don't have a high accuracy,your attacks won't stagger enemies with high evasion),Graces has the awesome quick step system(you can quickly dash in a direction by blocking and moving your stick where you want to go,or just press your stick twice real fast,if an enemy attacks you while you are doing this,you will get some CC and you will nullify all damage,even healing it if you have the right skills,this might seem broken,but it isn't),and the CC system(you can chain attacks as long as you have CC,it quickly regenerates when you are not attacking)

 

[The Madman]

I am not trying to understate Baldurs Gate complexity. I'm trying to say they are pretty equal.

Don't mean to be rude jumping into something mid-debate, but I wanted to chime in on the whole BG vs. Dragon Age thing seeing as awhile back I made this:


And honestly playing both the BG series and DA back to back, Baldur's Gate is far more complex when it comes to combat and the main reason isn't just the volume of classes and abilities, but also the need for preparation.

In Dragon Age Origins you're almost always prepared for every encounter, the only time you wouldn't be is if you were running out of supplies. But every ability and skill is always accessible to the player at all times. By contrast BG requires a level of foresight for encounters. Casters need to actively choose which spells to have available and need to have been able to rest in order to use those spells, which they often can but not always. Similarly BG especially when you get into the second game and the higher levels, requires more foresight in spells and abilities prepared because of the sheer diversity of your enemies. In DA the same basic strategy will work for every encounter with a minimum of fuss. Enemies have different abilities and strengths but in terms of combat are generally functionally the same. In Baldur's Gate however trying the same strategy that will work against bandits will be useless against golems, and tactics useful against Mindflayers will not work against Beholders. You need to change up your strategy and you need to have planned in advance in order to survive. You need to have had not only the foresight to have the proper spells prepared but to know when you should be getting ready to enter combat. A mage in Baldur's Gate is near helpless if caught unprepared, even the most high level ones. But a mage prepared for combat with the proper spells prepared is easily the most terrifying enemy in the game.

And that's the major difference between BG's combat and that of DA. DA works and is entertaining because it uses the ol' class trifecta: Tank, Healer, DPS. Then you've got your crowd control and your basic support characters to mix things up. Baldur's Gate also uses that but only to a certain degree as an encounter which might work perfectly with that combination of tanking and damage dealing simply wont work in other situations, forcing the player to improvise and try new strategy. It's the diversity not just of spells, classes and abilities but of enemies that helps make BG's combat more interesting, as is the need for foresight and preparation.

Dragon Age: Origins as well as Awakening are both great fun, I've probably played through them at least four times now. But in terms of tactical gameplay and combat I have to agree with the others in saying Baldur's Gate, despite using the old 2nd Edition DnD ruleset (Which truthfully isn't that great. My favourite is 3.5 still!) is just a richer and more rewarding experience. Generally speaking that is, obviously personal tastes will have a lot to do with it.

 

[A Weakgeek]

On the topic of DA:O magic: Yeah it was powerful, but for all the wrong reasons, and probably not intentional.

I dont know, those statements sound odd. You really think they did not intend the magic to be powerfull? And what are wrong reasons?

The wrong reasons would be the fact that it breaks the game. It doesn't deal incredible amounts of damage or anything like that, but it simply makes the enemy unable to retaliate. When you combine dumb AI with huge AOE spells that Freeze, knock people prone etc, and can cast it as much as you want, stunlocking the enemy. Its not about tactics anymore, its about running backwards and spamming the same 4 spells with 3 mages. Worse are the indoor areas, where you can cast these spells into other rooms you've yet to visit, clearing them before the enemy even sees you.

If you had to spam your spells so much I still think you skilled your casters "wrong". In DA:O you could wreck a whole room of standard mobs by casting one or two high level spells, just like in Baldurs Gate.

It's not that you "have to" but its the optimal strategy, its what I used to get through the game when I just wanted to see the end of the story.

Even if not, whats the big tactical difference or difference in depth between casting one mighty spell or having to cast three not so mighty ones?.

First of all, for me personally, its not mainly about the tactical difference, but more about the "feel" of the magic, because when you use your only lvl 5 spell it has signifigance, you won't be casting it again in a while, and you can't be sure whats coming ahead. And even when you're highlevel in Baldurs gate you wont be casting 15 spells during a single combat, not without scrolls anyhow.

just rest between encounters they rarely run out of spells in combat

First of all, I can't blame you for doing this, as theres no punishment for it ingame. But it really makes no sense to spam rest, and you could never get away with sleeping on the dungeon floor after every encounter in a real D&D session (Which the rules are based on). Spamming rest WILL make BG more like modern games in that respect, and will lessen my point. Its up to the player to do it though.

Then you said DA:O magic is overpowerd because of the spammability, but wouldnt that only be an issue if the spells are very powerfull and can be cast to often?

Ok. Powerfull was probably the wrong word, thats bad communication on my part. Signifigance might be more like it. My point was, that in DA:O magic is OP, plain and simple. But theres no weight to these spells, because you're throwing arena sized (which arent that big in DA:O, they could really have broadened the enviroments) stunlocks every 15 seconds, with 3 different characters.

EVEN IF you spammed rest after every encounter in BG, you couldnt use your Cone of Cold (Which was a lvl5 spell) more than once, MAYBE twice per combat per character. In DA:O, you can use Blizzard ATLEAST every 60 seconds, which is only 30 after it has ended, which is only ONE of the huge stunning AOEs of ONE of your characters. There is no weight in spellcasting, when even the most powerfull spells you have are so spammable. Never once did the thought "Should I use this spell now?" cross my mind when playing DA:O, because in max 60 seconds I would have the spell back. (Which you could very easily just spend running around in circles, since all enemies have the same movement speed as you, and you have a plethora of lesser stuns available)

EDIT: I also forgot this

Casters need to actively choose which spells to have available

 

[Chris Tian]

On the topic of DA:O magic: Yeah it was powerful, but for all the wrong reasons, and probably not intentional.

I dont know, those statements sound odd. You really think they did not intend the magic to be powerfull? And what are wrong reasons?

The wrong reasons would be the fact that it breaks the game. It doesn't deal incredible amounts of damage or anything like that, but it simply makes the enemy unable to retaliate. When you combine dumb AI with huge AOE spells that Freeze, knock people prone etc, and can cast it as much as you want, stunlocking the enemy. Its not about tactics anymore, its about running backwards and spamming the same 4 spells with 3 mages. Worse are the indoor areas, where you can cast these spells into other rooms you've yet to visit, clearing them before the enemy even sees you.

Baldurs Gate had dumb AI and huge AOE spells too, in fact AI is really a very big word for the mooks in BG.

You could just run through Baldurs Gate with 6 auto attack machines with different elemental weapons, if you want it even easier stack up on potions and scrolls.

The implication that Baldurs Gate needed more tactic or was harder is just not true. Or better, its not universaly true, I found Baldurs Gate to be not in the slightest harder or more tactical challanging and it had equally many ways to "break it"

If you had to spam your spells so much I still think you skilled your casters "wrong". In DA:O you could wreck a whole room of standard mobs by casting one or two high level spells, just like in Baldurs Gate.

It's not that you "have to" but its the optimal strategy, its what I used to get through the game when I just wanted to see the end of the story.

Not in my expirence, on NM the mobs are not as vulnerable to freeze an stun and whatever, having to cast your spells so many times would take time in wich they dish out damage.

First of all, I can't blame you for doing this, as theres no punishment for it ingame. But it really makes no sense to spam rest, and you could never get away with sleeping on the dungeon floor after every encounter in a real D&D session (Which the rules are based on). Spamming rest WILL make BG more like modern games in that respect, and will lessen my point. Its up to the player to do it though.

Honestly, meta-gaming is hardly an argument, nobody forces you to spam yur casts in DA:O or kite your enemies either.

First of all, for me personally, its not mainly about the tactical difference, but more about the "feel" of the magic, because when you use your only lvl 5 spell it has signifigance, you won't be casting it again in a while, and you can't be sure whats coming ahead. And even when you're highlevel in Baldurs gate you wont be casting 15 spells during a single combat, not without scrolls anyhow.

Ok. Powerfull was probably the wrong word, thats bad communication on my part. Signifigance might be more like it. My point was, that in DA:O magic is OP, plain and simple. But theres no weight to these spells, because you're throwing arena sized (which arent that big in DA:O, they could really have broadened the enviroments) stunlocks every 15 seconds, with 3 different characters.

You said it yourself: "for me personally, its not mainly about the tactical difference, but more about the "feel" of the magic" Thats basically the point I'm trying to make the whole time, the real distinction between the games is not about tactical depth or complexity but personal preference.

I am not trying to understate Baldurs Gate complexity. I'm trying to say they are pretty equal.

Don't mean to be rude jumping into something mid-debate, but I wanted to chime in on the whole BG vs. Dragon Age thing seeing as awhile back I made this:


And honestly playing both the BG series and DA back to back, Baldur's Gate is far more complex when it comes to combat and the main reason isn't just the volume of classes and abilities, but also the need for preparation.

In Dragon Age Origins you're almost always prepared for every encounter, the only time you wouldn't be is if you were running out of supplies. But every ability and skill is always accessible to the player at all times. By contrast BG requires a level of foresight for encounters. Casters need to actively choose which spells to have available and need to have been able to rest in order to use those spells, which they often can but not always. Similarly BG especially when you get into the second game and the higher levels, requires more foresight in spells and abilities prepared because of the sheer diversity of your enemies. In DA the same basic strategy will work for every encounter with a minimum of fuss. Enemies have different abilities and strengths but in terms of combat are generally functionally the same. In Baldur's Gate however trying the same strategy that will work against bandits will be useless against golems, and tactics useful against Mindflayers will not work against Beholders. You need to change up your strategy and you need to have planned in advance in order to survive. You need to have had not only the foresight to have the proper spells prepared but to know when you should be getting ready to enter combat. A mage in Baldur's Gate is near helpless if caught unprepared, even the most high level ones. But a mage prepared for combat with the proper spells prepared is easily the most terrifying enemy in the game.

I grant you the preperation of spells, that is a aspect DA:O has not, but instead you have to compose your party way more carefully. Like I stated before, there is not nearly that much need for that in Baldurs Gate.
You have to change your approach for different encounters in DA:O too, at least on the higher difficulties. While the basic strategy, namely using six auto-attack machines, while having different elemental weapons ready, totaly works for every encounter in Baldurs Gate.
So there are differnences, but not really differences in levels of complexity.

And that's the major difference between BG's combat and that of DA. DA works and is entertaining because it uses the ol' class trifecta: Tank, Healer, DPS. Then you've got your crowd control and your basic support characters to mix things up. Baldur's Gate also uses that but only to a certain degree as an encounter which might work perfectly with that combination of tanking and damage dealing simply wont work in other situations, forcing the player to improvise and try new strategy.

It's the diversity not just of spells, classes and abilities but of enemies that helps make BG's combat more interesting, as is the need for foresight and preparation.

Like I stated earlier, Baldurs Gate has nowhere near as much need for tactical diversity as you say.

I argued in posts above that you can recreate almost every class in DA:O and that just because two classes have different names doesn't mean they really play that different.

Thats the same thing with alot of the spells in BG, they are just stronger or different colored versions of another.

Dragon Age: Origins as well as Awakening are both great fun, I've probably played through them at least four times now. But in terms of tactical gameplay and combat I have to agree with the others in saying Baldur's Gate, despite using the old 2nd Edition DnD ruleset (Which truthfully isn't that great. My favourite is 3.5 still!) is just a richer and more rewarding experience. Generally speaking that is, obviously personal tastes will have a lot to do with it.

My point is again the same as above. What most people mean is "I like Baldurs Gate more", but for some reason they feel compelled to justify that by saying that Baldurs Gate is far more challenging and complex etc. etc.
I'm just trying to say that's not universally true.

 

[The Madman]

I grant you the preperation of spells, that is a aspect DA:O has not, but instead you have to compose your party way more carefully. Like I stated before, there is not nearly that much need for that in Baldurs Gate.
You have to change your approach for different encounters in DA:O too, at least on the higher difficulties. While the basic strategy, namely using six auto-attack machines, while having different elemental weapons ready, totaly works for every encounter in Baldurs Gate.
So there are differnences, but not really differences in levels of complexity.

No it wont.

Try sending a group of pure melee classes into battle against vampires, they'll be level drained and slaughtered within seconds. Try sending them against high level mages and all they'll accomplish is flailing wildly before being butchered. Try sending them against demilich, which are pretty much immune to all but the absolute best melee weapons of which there aren't even enough of in BG2 to equip a full group. Mind Flayers will literally eat a group of melee characters brains before you can kill them all, that's why the trick is to use summoned undead or elementals to beat them.

You're grossly oversimplifying BG's combat, which I dislike. Look at the video I posted, I've played both games multiple times on the highest difficulty. You are wrong in this regard. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's true. Unless you're playing on the absolute lowest difficulty with the absolute most overpowered characters you simply can't do in BG what you're saying you can, in which case I might as well be saying Dragon Age: Origins is so easy I don't even have to use abilities since now we're apparently judging games based on their easiest possible settings.

There's the Kensai/Mage combo, which is powerful enough a canny player can beat Baldur's Gate solo with it, but even then you're relying on building a character up perfectly and knowing the in's and out's of every encounter so you can prepare the right spells beforehand. That's also not just a melee class or, as mentioned above, he'd be level-drained/magically incinerated/imprisoned/and then have his brains eaten before he can even react.

Meanwhile what encounters in DA:O have you switching up your tactics? Because honestly having Shale/Alistair taunt and pull the enemies, then having Morrigan/Wynne freeze them with Cone of Cold while everyone else just deals damage works on every single encounter save solo boss fights. Crushing Prison the mages, freeze the melee, rinse, repeat, be sure to heal tank when needed and Bam, done. We just beat the game!

As mentioned Origins uses the tried and true MMO style tank/healer/dps combo. Anyone familiar with that sort of gameplay will instantly be at home with DA's combat. Heck, I even found it quite refreshing as it's not necessarily a bad thing by any stretch.

Taunt, CC, DPS, Heal, Repeat!

Like I stated earlier, Baldurs Gate has nowhere near as much need for tactical diversity as you say.

I argued in posts above that you can recreate almost every class in DA:O and that just because two classes have different names doesn't mean they really play that different.

Thats the same thing with alot of the spells in BG, they are just stronger or different colored versions of another.

Fighting a mage in BG requires at least a few spells to break through their spell defences. Spell breach, Pierce magic, Kheldon's Whip, etc. You'll also need spells to make your own mage similarly defended. Globe of invulnerability, Stoneskin, Shield and so on. Then you have utility spells like Knock, Oracle or Chain Contingency, summoning spells that can summon a whole variety of allies useful in different situations, group effect spells, curses, and crowd control spells like Sleep or Hold. THEN you have damage spells, most of which deal different types of damage in a variety of different ways that make them more or less useful given the situation.

For example Disintegration despite having a badass name isn't much use against high level monsters that can shrug off the magic, but against a mage who's spell defence you stripped away using the spells mentioned above it has a good chance of killing them instantly simply because they're not physically adept enough to resist it without their magical aid. Meanwhile Magic Missile despite being a 1st level spell remains consistently useful because each 'missile' has its own saving throw to have to resist, meaning a swarm of magic missiles will almost assuredly do at least 'some' damage where a higher level spell like Fireball might simply be shrugged off without having done any at all.

And you've got to balance and plan all this out in advance, since there's no way you can have everything memorized all the time... unless you're a filthy sorcerer. And even those degenerates have their limits! Pshaw. No good mage wannabes!

Anyway there is a LOT of complexity to DnD magic and Baldur's Gate which again you're deliberately underplaying. I don't even know why either, it's not like anyone is insulting Dragon Age.

My point is again the same as above. What most people mean is "I like Baldurs Gate more", but for some reason they feel compelled to justify that by saying that Baldurs Gate is far more challenging and complex etc. etc.
I'm just trying to say that's not universally true.

Baldur's Gate is more challenging and complex in a whole range of ways however, I think the people who are debating you such as myself are only confused because you seem to want to dismiss much of the good about BG while simultaneously ignoring DA's own many, many faults.

Again you can't say I haven't played both games a lot, and I definitely enjoy both. But simply put Baldur's Gate IS more complex. It DOES have more in-depth combat. It IS more tactical in a whole variety of ways. This is simple fact and it doesn't make Origins a lesser game. Origins isn't even trying to be as complex at BG, it's streamlined, it cuts away the fat and gets straight to the very basic core mechanics. And that's fine, a lot of people prefer that even over BG's bloated complexity and myriad of underlying rulesets. Hell 2nd Edition DnD is sometimes a pain, I don't blame people who prefer DA's streamlines approach at all.

It's not a bad thing.

I also want to point out that in this topic I didn't say BG's combat was my favourite rpg combat, because it isn't despite all my defending it here. I can see all sorts of flaws with the Infinity Engine and its gameplay, and 2nd edition DnD wasn't exactly the best either. Honestly I just jumped in because I felt you weren't being very fair to the BG games in your posts.

 

[AuronFtw]

Baldurs Gate had dumb AI and huge AOE spells too, in fact AI is really a very big word for the mooks in BG.

You could just run through Baldurs Gate with 6 auto attack machines with different elemental weapons, if you want it even easier stack up on potions and scrolls.

Er... no. No, you could not. A *single* lich, a *single* red dragon, a tiny group of mindflayers, a pack of vampires - they would tear you apart in a heartbeat. Yes, you can autoattack your way past bandits and kobolds - but that tactic stops working as soon as you enter a real fight against a real enemy. Please stop misrepresenting Baldur's Gate here. We've played both games. Trying to autoattack your way through Bodhi's lair (to name a single area) is suicide.

The implication that Baldurs Gate needed more tactic or was harder is just not true. Or better, its not universaly true, I found Baldurs Gate to be not in the slightest harder or more tactical challanging and it had equally many ways to "break it"

Baldur's Gate had more ways to break it, actually, because it was more complex and had more classes to choose from. But that's just it - you had to prepare for a fight and put actual thought into your tactics before the battle even began, or you'd die in two seconds. The hardest fights require several rounds of buffing - bless, chant, resistance to evil, resistance to fear, ironskin, mage defensive buffs, potions of clarity and freedom quaffed - and *then* you start the battle and have to micromanage each individual member's spells, movements and targets. In Dragon Age, I prepared for all of like... 1 fight? The rest I just kind of waded into without any preparation at all, moved out of aoe attacks, and won. That is not tactically equal to Baldur's Gate. Not by a longshot.

You said it yourself: "for me personally, its not mainly about the tactical difference, but more about the "feel" of the magic" Thats basically the point I'm trying to make the whole time, the real distinction between the games is not about tactical depth or complexity but personal preference.

Er, no, there's a difference in personal preference and there's also a difference in tactical depth and complexity. A huge one. As in, Dragon Age is not nearly as tactically deep or complex, for a number of reasons, which we've covered here and you've ignored/understated/strawmanned.

DA:O on its hardest setting is leagues easier to play + less demanding tactically than the hardest mode in BG, and a lot of it is because BG requires far more pre-planning - both in the long term (class selection) and short term (spell preparation, what potions or scrolls you have available, managing the daily-use spells, etc). In addition, every hard fight in BG/2 required micromanaging every unit in your team. You couldn't just leave them on autofire/autocast and even HOPE to win the fight, they'd be slaughtered in 1 round. You had to keep your thief safe but still close enough to be able to strike when needed, you had to make sure your Called Shots or similar abilities were up while your fighters were attacking priority targets, you had to choose every spell individually, often changing your mind on what you need to cast based on how the fight is going for the other members, making decisions on classes like druids or rangers in terms of shape-shifting or equipping melee gear and changing their entire fighting style based on the flow of combat... I mean... in DA:O, I micromanaged my own character (a mage) and that was all I ever needed. As long as I personally kited, my AI party members spamming taunt was enough to clear even High Dragon with minimal effort (will admit though, that fight took 3 tries, but when I micro'd each person to not group hug constantly the dragon just died).

Again, a lot about these games is personal preference. I "enjoyed" playing both. Neither one chased me away or caused me to quit playing. But looking back on both of them, Baldur's Gate 1/2 are clearly more complex and required far more thought (both before combat and during) to get through every hard encounter. For the record, BG1 was much easier than 2 - I found myself autoattacking with slings and darts on casters in lieu of actually wasting spells in early fights, and got through most of it just fine. But pretty much the entire last third of BG1, in the hardest setting, any weapon below +2 had no chance of damaging a foe, let alone enough to kill it before it killed you. And BG2 only got harder from there.

I grant you the preperation of spells, that is a aspect DA:O has not, but instead you have to compose your party way more carefully.

Er... no, that's wrong. You have to compose your party as carefully as you did in Baldur's Gate. No less, and certainly no more. Going into BG2's hardest fights with a random class mix spelled certain doom before you even got to the lich's chamber, because no amount of micromanaging a party of 6 swashbucklers was going to cut it. BG's class list is larger and more diverse than DA's (and no, trying to pretend paladins are like fighters is a fallacy neither of us actually believes), so if anything, BG's variety made its class selection more thought-provoking than DA's. Again, though, this is merely the pre-planning - I'm willing to call it equal here. But don't try to lie and say DA requires "way more careful" class selection, cos that's just bollocks.

You have to change your approach for different encounters in DA:O too, at least on the higher difficulties.

You change them far less frequently, and in far fewer ways, and nearly all of them can be changed on the fly as situations arise - like my High Dragon example. That's one of the hardest fights in the game (for my party setup, anyway), and I beat it without changing my "strat" so much as making sure my downs baby AI party members didn't stand in the fire. Without serious pre-battle prep, the Lich in the Sewers in BG2 is an impossible fight, and no amount of changing where my warrior or thief stands will make it beatable.

While the basic strategy, namely using six auto-attack machines, while having different elemental weapons ready, totaly works for every encounter in Baldurs Gate.

Yes, it works on the lowest difficulty setting in BG1 just like it works for the lowest difficulty setting in Dragon Age. For the record though, it doesn't even work for the lowest difficult setting in BG2 - the mind flayers will still eat your brains if you try to have 6 people autoattacking.

And that's the major difference between BG's combat and that of DA. DA works and is entertaining because it uses the ol' class trifecta: Tank, Healer, DPS. Then you've got your crowd control and your basic support characters to mix things up. Baldur's Gate also uses that but only to a certain degree as an encounter which might work perfectly with that combination of tanking and damage dealing simply wont work in other situations, forcing the player to improvise and try new strategy.

It's the diversity not just of spells, classes and abilities but of enemies that helps make BG's combat more interesting, as is the need for foresight and preparation.

Like I stated earlier, Baldurs Gate has nowhere near as much need for tactical diversity as you say.

Yes, yes it does. Stop playing it on easy, and make sure you're playing BG2. BG1 was just kind of an intro. If you've ever fought the red dragon, beholders, rooms full of umber hulks, caves full of vampires, or a lich, you'd know that "tactical diversity" is required for each fight. Each one has different things to watch out for. They don't all breathe fire. They don't all drain levels. They don't all mind control. They don't all stop time. But the individual ones do, and you have to be prepared for it before going in or you get slaughtered in seconds. No single tactic works for all of those fights - you have to have a different one for each. That's precisely what tactical diversity IS, and what DA lacks in even its hardest fights. The most I changed in DA was where my people stood. Once they stopped group hugging in the middle of a dragon's breath attack, or rogue stopped standing next to where a bunch of adds popped out of, or warrior stopped getting stuck behind a table and unable to move, the fight just ended. I never had to manually activate a party ability aside from taunt - and that was rare, since the AI used it pretty well on its own. I was able to manage my own snares, healing, buffs and damage spells and get my party through every encounter. Microing movement alone does not make Dragon Age as complex as BG, since BG requires that in addition to skills in addition to pre-battle planning.

I argued in posts above that you can recreate almost every class in DA:O and that just because two classes have different names doesn't mean they really play that different.

Thats the same thing with alot of the spells in BG, they are just stronger or different colored versions of another.

There are stronger versions of weaker spells, but even if you "count" them as 1 spell, there's more spells and spell diversity in BG than there is in DA. And again, trying to claim a paladin is a fighter despite having less weapon selection and healing/buffing/utility spells is a fallacy. A paladin is not a fighter. They aren't played the same way, and they don't fill the same role. And that's without even getting into subclasses or weapon abilities (i.e., a sword/shield paladin is played vastly different from one with Holy Avenger).

My point is again the same as above. What most people mean is "I like Baldurs Gate more", but for some reason they feel compelled to justify that by saying that Baldurs Gate is far more challenging and complex etc. etc.
I'm just trying to say that's not universally true.

No, they're separate points. Baldur's Gate (2, in particular) IS more complex, and it IS more challenging. You have more options for literally everything, and a greater number of diverse encounters (where even the diversity is greater). This doesn't make BG "better" or "worse" than DA, but it certainly makes it more complex. In fact that's pretty much exactly what complex means: "so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with."

Dragon Age was not ever "hard to understand," and it was rarely "hard to deal with." When the hardest encounters can be beaten by moving your mages out of the fire and warriors into the dragonling adds, it's difficult to say the game presents anything that's hard to deal with. Additionally, the smaller class selection, spell selection, and party size made the actual prep/theory crafting much faster and easier for me.

Even the presence of the AD&D framework in BG was inherently complex. The round system, the THAC0 system, even individual spell effects all required a good deal of thought to fully comprehend what they were and how they could be used. This is (oddly enough!) one of Baldur's Gate's biggest weaknesses - it's TOO complicated in some ways, and not always in good ways. AD&D on the whole was a limited system, and is *very* dated nowadays. Trying to figure out concepts like THAC0 requires reading old ass literature to fully understand the system. It's not something that's logically figured out at first glance - equipping platemail armor gives you a lower armor stat than chainmail. That shit is confusing until you figure out precisely what it all means.

Here's the rub, though: does that dated, arcane framework of old rules and systems make BG a "better" game? Does it make it more "fun?" I'd say no, it really doesn't. But does it make BG more "complex?" You bet your ass it does. There's not even a comparison.

In the end, "liking" BG or DA more is personal preference, and they both have strengths and weaknesses. DA's simplicity is both a strength and a weakness - it's easier to pick up and understand, but lacks the tactical diversity that BG offers. BG's complexity is also a strength and a weakness - it has far more options for builds and strats, but at the cost of a needlessly complicated system using old rules and mechanics. It's hard to say if either game is "better" or "worse" than the other, taking each on its own merits - but all it takes is a glance at how many games Baldur's Gate has influenced to see how powerful it was in the medium. It was a huge milestone, a pinnacle of tabletop-RPG-as-video-game effort - the first, and quite possibly last, of its kind. A game might come out someday that matches the complexity of Baldur's Gate without also matching its confusing framework and systems, and that will truly be a legendary game. But Dragon Age tried to avoid the confusing framework and systems, and unfortunately lost a lot of the depth in the process. It still came out okay, and again I enjoyed it, but it didn't change the world - and certainly isn't influencing games for generations to come.

 

[Souplex]

Dark Souls is pretty up there.
The determining factor of whether or not they were stabbed in a face with your spear is whether or not you successfully stab them in the face with your spear.
Fire Emblem is also up there.