Would another platform have made Dragon Age better?

[Chase Yojimbo]

Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age had a fantastic story, and Bioware has always delivered on that, but does every single game with godly story have to have a D&D Platform, which is RTS, do you think it could have worked as an Action Platform like God of War *Without the useless Liniarity*? Truthfully I keep wishing for that type of thing, because I like fast paced games like God of War, Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce *I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri.*, so on so forth. It doesn't even have to be fast paced with jumping hundreds of feet or running at the speed of your nearest Kenyan.

My true question though is this, do you think DA:O *and soon DA:2* or any other D&D Platformed game *ie: Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate* would work better on another platform? If you agree or even disagree, speak your mind.

 

[Darmort]

Dragon Age wasn't built with the Dungeons and Dragons ruleset. I believe Atari are the only company with rights to make D&D games. Dragon Age uses it's own format.

As to the actual question, no. Sure, I would have perhaps liked swinging a sword in real time to kill Darkspawn, but on PC controls that could either be tedious or tiring. Or both. Besides that, it wouldn't then be the spiritual successor. The only game that has succeeded was Jade Empire, but you never faced more than two or three enemies at a time. Besides that, when it comes to eventually having moves like Overpower you'll be hitting BXBY or something. That would detract even more from the story than the combat already does.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

*I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri. 9 hells!? its 7 you dolts!*

You might want to reconsider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29#The_Nine_Circles_of_Hell].

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

*I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri. 9 hells!? its 7 you dolts!*

You might want to reconsider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29#The_Nine_Circles_of_Hell].

*Reads the last parts of The Inferno* I have not finished the book... i really thought it was 7 lol. they bring up the other 2 circles later, damn you Dante! So yes, i will reconsider ^.^ I still think the game is a perversion to the book though.

 

[veloper]

Sure, a DA on the DS or PSP would've been nice, if it meant Da were oldschool and turn-based game, like alot of handheld srpgs.
No chance of Bioware doing such a thing though.

 

[BobRedshirt]

Dragon age uses the D&D 3.5 ruleset in the same way WoW does - it's vaguely based off of it, but the resemblances are relatively superficial - similar stat names (even if they do very different things), prestige classes/specializations, etc. It's in real time, not turn-based, for one; fighters actually have abilities beyond "stab dude with sword," for two; and skills are completely different (not to mention the fact that DA doesn't have anything like feats).

Even though it's in real time, I don't think it would work well as an action game. I feel that to do that would mean removing a lot of the interesting spells and abilities.

 

[geldonyetich]

Ironic that I have such a hard time choosing the genre of the game I want to develop in my own little independent dabblings, and here we have a game which was already ludicrously successful and there's players who want to switch its genre to something else.

 

[icyneesan]

It would probably end up like Mass Effect 1 and 2, greatest RPGs of there years

 

[Ertol]

Hmm that's actually really tough. I really enjoyed the combat in Dragon Age Origins because it was challanging and a lot of the time I had to stop and think about how to get through a room. It might be better with more action oriented gameplay, but I think Dragon Age 2 will have some sort of change that will bring it more towards that sort of mechanic.

 

[Continuity]

Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age had a fantastic story, and Bioware has always delivered on that, but does every single game with godly story have to have a D&D Platform, which is RTS, do you think it could have worked as an Action Platform like God of War *Without the useless Liniarity*? Truthfully I keep wishing for that type of thing, because I like fast paced games like God of War, Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce *I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri.*, so on so forth. It doesn't even have to be fast paced with jumping hundreds of feet or running at the speed of your nearest Kenyan.

My true question though is this, do you think DA:O *and soon DA:2* or any other D&D Platformed game *ie: Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate* would work better on another platform? If you agree or even disagree, speak your mind.

What what what!?

DAO was not D&D based which was one of its main critical flaws, compared to the BG ID and NWN series' DAO is absolute rubbish, its shallow on very level. Dropping D&D rules was an EPIC FAIL in my books and Bioware ought to be shot.

 

[Ninjamedic]

I think introducing a Co-op campaign (4 players going through the campaign) would be a good idea.

 

[Shpongled]

Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age had a fantastic story, and Bioware has always delivered on that, but does every single game with godly story have to have a D&D Platform, which is RTS, do you think it could have worked as an Action Platform like God of War *Without the useless Liniarity*? Truthfully I keep wishing for that type of thing, because I like fast paced games like God of War, Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce *I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri.*, so on so forth. It doesn't even have to be fast paced with jumping hundreds of feet or running at the speed of your nearest Kenyan.

My true question though is this, do you think DA:O *and soon DA:2* or any other D&D Platformed game *ie: Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate* would work better on another platform? If you agree or even disagree, speak your mind.

What what what!?

DAO was not D&D based which was one of its main critical flaws, compared to the BG ID and NWN series' DAO is absolute rubbish, its shallow on very level. Dropping D&D rules was an EPIC FAIL in my books and Bioware ought to be shot.

Why? I don't think being tied to rigid D&D rules would have helped to be honest. The fact that Bioware were able to overhaul the basic ruleset to get the game to what they wanted it to be is half the reason the combat is so involving for me. Don't get me wrong, i loved BG, but i don't feel the combat of DA has any less depth.

OP: I guess a more fast-paced style of combat could work, but the real question is, what would it add? You'd certainly lose a lot of the strategy and tactic that goes into maneuvering your party, working as a team through a difficult room. With that depth gone, what are getting in return for the sacrifice? Fast-paced combat is great in other games, but i struggle to see its place in this game. I suppose only time will tell what DA2 is going to end up like.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age had a fantastic story, and Bioware has always delivered on that, but does every single game with godly story have to have a D&D Platform, which is RTS, do you think it could have worked as an Action Platform like God of War *Without the useless Liniarity*? Truthfully I keep wishing for that type of thing, because I like fast paced games like God of War, Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce *I refuse to play Dante's Inferno, mostly because they butchered the work of Dante Alighieri.*, so on so forth. It doesn't even have to be fast paced with jumping hundreds of feet or running at the speed of your nearest Kenyan.

My true question though is this, do you think DA:O *and soon DA:2* or any other D&D Platformed game *ie: Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate* would work better on another platform? If you agree or even disagree, speak your mind.

What what what!?

DAO was not D&D based which was one of its main critical flaws, compared to the BG ID and NWN series' DAO is absolute rubbish, its shallow on very level. Dropping D&D rules was an EPIC FAIL in my books and Bioware ought to be shot.

you need to pay for a license and it would probaby be cheaper to start a new ruleset from scratch than pay whatever atari would offer, not to mention D&D has blown ever since 4th ed rules you may aswell play WoW if you want things that streamlined,

 

[migo]

I think most RPGs would benefit from being handled like Deus Ex. Oblivion was kind of like that actually.

 

[Polaris19]

Dragon Age is exactly what it should be. An amazingly detailed, amazingly long, brilliantly designed RPG.

 

[Wolfram23]

Personally I'd love to see more RPGs with combat like Demon's Souls... IE: It takes skill. Slower paced than God of War action types, but very strategic and involving.

 

[Condiments]

Personally I'd love to see more RPGs with combat like Demon's Souls... IE: It takes skill. Slower paced than God of War action types, but very strategic and involving.

The difference here is Demon's Souls isn't a tactical party based RPG. The more action oriented you make a game like that the more your additional party members seem like needless fluff and not integral the party.

"Skill" in my book, mostly means twitch and reaction. RPGs by their very nature are a more cerebral genre, where application and strategic planning are more important than individual sword swings.

 

[Wolfram23]

Personally I'd love to see more RPGs with combat like Demon's Souls... IE: It takes skill. Slower paced than God of War action types, but very strategic and involving.

The difference here is Demon's Souls isn't a tactical party based RPG. The more action oriented you make a game like that the more your additional party members seem like needless fluff and not integral the party.

"Skill" in my book, mostly means twitch and reaction. RPGs by their very nature are a more cerebral genre, where application and strategic planning are more important than individual sword swings.

I know what you're saying, and I partially agree. However, Dragon Age was already heading away from this "cerebral" skill. Yes it takes some thinking still when playing on Hard but at the same time, they clearly were going for a more action oriented game. At least the console version was. And look at another "great" BioWare RPG - Mass Effect. That game is way more action based, allowing only some commands to be given to teammates but no direct control.

RPGs have been more cerebral in the past but over the last, oh, 10 years or more we're seeing more and more RPGs moving away from that ideal. No longer is an RPG just about turn based combat (the original stretegic/tactical "cerebral" party based RPGs). Many of my favorite RPGs aren't really strategic at all in that sense - Demon's Souls, Fallout 3, STALKER.

I think it can definitely be done, having a squad based game with Demon's Souls type combat. Why not? Have some basic ally programing like DA:O. Maybe allow formations based off your character. It could definitely be a "tactical party based RPG". I mean really, DA:O on PS3 is pretty much just like that, except for the skill timers and auto attacks. I set up my party members and only under dire circumstances had to really direct what each member was doing. But rarely ever would I have said the party was needless fluff. Support is welcome in my books.

 

[Condiments]

Personally I'd love to see more RPGs with combat like Demon's Souls... IE: It takes skill. Slower paced than God of War action types, but very strategic and involving.

The difference here is Demon's Souls isn't a tactical party based RPG. The more action oriented you make a game like that the more your additional party members seem like needless fluff and not integral the party.

"Skill" in my book, mostly means twitch and reaction. RPGs by their very nature are a more cerebral genre, where application and strategic planning are more important than individual sword swings.

I know what you're saying, and I partially agree. However, Dragon Age was already heading away from this "cerebral" skill. Yes it takes some thinking still when playing on Hard but at the same time, they clearly were going for a more action oriented game. At least the console version was. And look at another "great" BioWare RPG - Mass Effect. That game is way more action based, allowing only some commands to be given to teammates but no direct control.

RPGs have been more cerebral in the past but over the last, oh, 10 years or more we're seeing more and more RPGs moving away from that ideal. No longer is an RPG just about turn based combat (the original stretegic/tactical "cerebral" party based RPGs). Many of my favorite RPGs aren't really strategic at all in that sense - Demon's Souls, Fallout 3, STALKER.

I think it can definitely be done, having a squad based game with Demon's Souls type combat. Why not? Have some basic ally programing like DA:O. Maybe allow formations based off your character. It could definitely be a "tactical party based RPG". I mean really, DA:O on PS3 is pretty much just like that, except for the skill timers and auto attacks. I set up my party members and only under dire circumstances had to really direct what each member was doing. But rarely ever would I have said the party was needless fluff. Support is welcome in my books.

The PC version of Dragon Age, while still not hard, is FAR more tactical in its approach than the consoles. In actuality, Dragon Age was "supposed" to be a throwback to that slower thought based design that comprised the cRPG genre. I feel that it didn't quite achieve that goal but it was a step in the right direction.

The reason why I said making the game more action oriented takes away from the whole "tactical party based" approach is because...it does. If I'm so worried about my character parrying, sword connects, blocking etc. I ain't gonna give half a crap about positioning party members because its simply way too much micro AND macro to deal with. They'll have basic AI that you can setup like a game such as Kingdom Hearts, and end up being mere satellites in your quest of wanton destruction.

I liked games like Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale, etc. because you HAD to utilize every party member to their fullest advantage otherwise you were screwed. You cared less about if your main character connected an individual sword swing, and more that your mages were dropping magical debuffs and controlling the flow of the fight, while your warriors kept at bay incoming enemies and kept the pressure on archers and enemy spellcasters. Some of my most compelling game encounters occurred when I had to manage my six members to their fullest in truly inventive encounters like Sendai and Draconis in Throne of Bhaal(BG2 expansion).

Making it more action oriented would be a disservice to what its was trying to represent(at least what Bioware said they wanted it to be). I don't particularly mind action RPGs, but I think it would be a detriment here.

 

[Continuity]

you need to pay for a license and it would probaby be cheaper to start a new ruleset from scratch than pay whatever atari would offer, not to mention D&D has blown ever since 4th ed rules you may aswell play WoW if you want things that streamlined,

They can afford it, to be honest i've not played any AD&D since 3rd ed but I always liked 2nd ed best, they could just use one of the older rule sets if 4 blows so much though?

Why? I don't think being tied to rigid D&D rules would have helped to be honest. The fact that Bioware were able to overhaul the basic ruleset to get the game to what they wanted it to be is half the reason the combat is so involving for me. Don't get me wrong, i loved BG, but i don't feel the combat of DA has any less depth.

It was too simple, you've got 3 character classes and only 4 people in the party, everything was basic, more like a souped up hack n slash rather than a mature RPG. Plus the simplicity made the combat really boring, every fight was more or less the same and the spells were really boring compared to the D&D spells.