When you finally get some time to sit down play some quality games on your console or PC do you prefer to play something from Bioware or Blizzard?
In all honesty I'm a total Bioware fanboy but I also enjoy playing WoW or Warcraft (never played anything else by Blizzard :/ ). Also what is your favourite game made by them?
My fave by Bioware is Dragon Age but Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic will always have a place in my heart as it was one of the first proper games I had. Enough from me, what's your opinion?
@Freakenstein I wouldn't REALLY consider Dragon Age: Origins to be turn-based combat because a Dual swordsman can attack like idk, 3 times in the space some two-handed swordsmen can. Also if you're a mage you can cast spells with basically no stop (until your mana runs out of course) while people are slowly attacking. Still, I can see why you see it that way.
I wouldn't REALLY consider Dragon Age: Origins to be turn-based combat because a Dual swordsman can attack like idk, 3 times in the space some two-handed swordsmen can.
This is what many Pen-and-paper games call Ambidexterity. Does Dragonage:Origins not have passive skills to grant bonuses to double combat?
Also if you're a mage you can cast spells with basically no stop
A game that is meant to be action-oriented isn't supposed to be relying on chance, however. Either the character is resistant to attacks or isn't.
However, many action-orientated games are. I don't know about you but I consider World of Warcraft an action MMORPG. Some classes like the Warlock may need Critical Chance as their base trait - it's in the name, Crit CHANCE. Many things are random, it's only how reliable they are that determines how good it is.
But, I think the bottomline is - what's your point? It may be a design flaw but it is one of the reasons buy the game - and I find it enjoyable as well.
Only when design flaws like incredibly poor hit registration (*Cough* CoD: Black Ops *Cough*) effect how effective I am in the fight I can hate it. Bioware may have done what they wanted to do wrong, but they done it wrong the right way (if you understand). It's not like it was a total loss - because I like it, and I'm sure other people do.
Marketing wise? Definitely good, playing wise? I'm pretty sure as well. There's a thin line between the two because as I've said, Call of Duty: Black Ops was poorly designed in some respects. Still, because it's a CoD game people proceed to play it, possibly no matter how bad it becomes.
Think about the raging CoD-Halo arguments a while ago when Halo was a viable thing to talk about. How many people would stfu if a "Call of Duty: Halo Edition" came out? It could be a Halo game with a tagged on CoD label and people would love it.
Blizzard of course! Bioware don't put much effort in the games and they just release it too early.
And Blizzard because, Starcrafts, Warcraft (which I play still), WoW (another thing I play still) and of course the Diablo series, Diablo 3 coming at the end of 2011! YEAH! CAN'T ****IN WAIT. Diablo 3 is best!
I believe what you're saying is the opposite of what you meant. DragonageII contains real-time combat elements, while Origins was turn-based. That's not realistic at all.
Actually, I believe I was saying exactly what I said. I wasn't talking about the turn-based VS real-time casting, I was talking about the animations. In DA2, a mage using basic attacks with his staff waves it around like crazy. Looks like he's being attacked by a swarm of wasps or something. Half of the time he's not even looking at the opponent, he's too busy making fancy moves.
Are you talking about spells or their combat?
I'm talking about basic attacks (attacks with your staff, and not using your staff).
I'm just saying that games like Dragonage and Neverwinter Nights aren't meant to be turn-based, or Pen-and-Paper RPGs. They are meant to be action-oriented.
And I still think it's a matter of taste. I thought the turn-based combat of Neverwinter Nights was interesting, and I really think that the game was more about strategy than action, which is most likely why you were given control of your party as well as a pause button.
It's not like it was a total loss - because I like it, and I'm sure other people do.
I love BioWare games too, and this only proves that it's just a matter of taste. Just because you don't like it, Freakenstein, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Bioware don't put much effort in the games and they just release it too early.
Blizzard of course! Bioware don't put much effort in the games and they just release it too early. And Blizzard because, Starcrafts, Warcraft (which I play still), WoW (another thing I play still) and of course the Diablo series, Diablo 3 coming at the end of 2011! YEAH! CAN'T ****IN WAIT. Diablo 3 is best!
Hey, first you could do is back this claim up, and secondly you could explain why you feel that way.
It's not like Blizzard hasn't been slacking, World of Warcraft has gone downhill since Wrath of the Lich King, lacking challenge and ultimately only developing the storyline. It's slowly getting better, but it's changed the playerbase a lot.
Also, they made the Bonus Pool for SCII, the worst thing you could do to such a competitive game - I don't mind it too much because I am not a mega-competitive player on SCII, but I hate the fact that someone can overtake me twice as easy because he hasn't been playing ladder-matches for a few days.
They stick to their own games, and they are all amazing in my opinion. Why you said what you said Mooooooo... it's a moo point imo.
Just because you don't like it, Freakenstein, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
To be fair he hasn't said anything about it being true or anything. I don't know if he intended it that way or anything but if it were him rethinking it like so would be good
That's just not true. Really. Shame on you.
Fight illogical arguments with illogical arguments. Pow!
Meh, I already explained for you iMogwai
If you feel like being picky with what I said, feel free XD
You lacked explanation in your reply to the Moooooooo point that he made.
I disagree.
Through benefit of the doubt, I'd say:
I'm just saying that games like Dragonage and Neverwinter Nights aren't meant to be turn-based, or Pen-and-Paper RPGs.
is from his perspective and
A game that is meant to be action-oriented isn't supposed to be relying on chance, however.
is actually true in my opinion. Unless it's reliable chance, I don't want anything flooky coming about and killing me halfway through a fight or something.
It would be nice if Freakenstein came and explained himself because as of right now I can't debate for him and to me it looks like iMogwai just proved me wrong.
Nowhere in my posts did I say I disliked Bioware's products (except Knights of the Old Republic. That game needs to be burned in the eyes and majesty of Enchiladotuilluptah). I only said that the methods in which they went about their game mechanics are questionable and that they could have been better if they went a different route.
Now then...
In DA2, a mage using basic attacks with his staff waves it around like crazy. Looks like he's being attacked by a swarm of wasps or something. Half of the time he's not even looking at the opponent, he's too busy making fancy moves.
The same could be said of all other melee attacks. In the mage's (therefore in Bioware's) defense, he/she is targeting the opponent in different locations, as if he/she is trying to damage the opponent as much as possible. This involves swinging the staff with as much force as possible. VERY effective, though too realistic for a game such as this.
I thought the turn-based combat of Neverwinter Nights was interesting, and I really think that the game was more about strategy than action, which is most likely why you were given control of your party as well as a pause button.
Good, because Neverwinter Nights is a spin-off of D&D. Neverwinter employs nearly-all elements of a Pen-and-Paper RPG system, which is fine. Dragonage, however, has taken partial elements and stuck action-oriented elements alongside. This makes some sort of electrophobic Yin-Yang, because two partials do not mix at all for it to be meaningful.
Now back to the accusations.
[quote=Freakenstein]A game that is meant to be action-oriented isn't supposed to be relying on chance, however. I'm just saying that games like Dragonage and Neverwinter Nights aren't meant to be turn-based, or Pen-and-Paper RPGs.[/quote]
Does this really imply that I dislike Bioware's games? This sounds more like an opinionated comment towards the game's mechanics that would be fitting of a proper review.
I only said that the methods in which they went about their game mechanics are questionable and that they could have been better if they went a different route.
This covers nothing Freakenstein until you could explain why, explain how it could be better and hopefully give an example.
Personally? How it was done made it strategic in many ways, and I liked it. It's mostly opinionated and they've gone down this route - it's worked so... As of now I don't see the need of them making it different.
Of course if its a new game they need some new stuff. But the base mechanics should still be there otherwise it mays well be called a different name.
Does this really imply that I dislike Bioware's games? This sounds more like an opinionated comment towards the game's mechanics that would be fitting of a proper review.
And it's that game mechanic I'm trying to defend, because I happened to like it.
The same could be said of all other melee attacks. In the mage's (therefore in Bioware's) defense, he/she is targeting the opponent in different locations, as if he/she is trying to damage the opponent as much as possible. This involves swinging the staff with as much force as possible. VERY effective, though too realistic for a game such as this.
I'm not talking about melee attacks, I'm talking about using the staff's basic attack to fire bolts of whatever element the staff is. Obviously in that situation it would be best to focus on aiming those bolts of whatever, and then just firing them away, rather than spinning around like a figure skater. And that was just an example of how the new combat animations make it look less like a real battle and more like a scene from Matrix. I still love the game though, and I do like the new animations, even if it's kind of unrealistic.
Basically, what I meant was the same as what Highfire said:
How it was done made it strategic in many ways, and I liked it. It's mostly opinionated and they've gone down this route - it's worked so... As of now I don't see the need of them making it different.
This covers nothing Freakenstein until you could explain why, explain how it could be better and hopefully give an example.
Read my previous post, as well as my other posts last night. I suggested implementing an all-and-none principle. In World-Adventure RPGs such as Dragonage, you are either action-oriented or turn-based pen-and-paper. Implementing partials does not work, because the varying degrees of combat do not work. They set in place the lowest of both realms. Diablo worked because its combat system maintained consistent boundaries. The mechanics did not "shift gears" when playing on and against a different class.
Of course if its a new game they need some new stuff. But the base mechanics should still be there otherwise it mays well be called a different name.
Different mechanics =/= different game. Just look at the Jade Cocoon series.
