RPGs with the best combat systems

[Chris Tian]

Spells per day makes it so that spells can be more powerfull without being OP. For example, your mage in baldurs gate can have Sleep first level, which absolutely wrecks any encounter in the start. Thats because its literally the only thing a LVL1 wizard has. Compare that with an average videogame starter mage. You have some spammy recolor of magic missile that you boringly toss around.

I am not sure what you mean by "average videogame starter mage" but the last mages I played could choose alot of different spells in the beginning.

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?

Magic is OP in DA:O because of huge AOEs with stacking status effects, and yet even the power of those spells was dependant on their spammability (Essentially you can stack all the last level elemental spells, and once the enemies finally crawl out of the ridiculous Freeze>Fall prone>Catch on fire>Freeze again... etc. you can already cast it again.

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.

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?.
I remember the high level Casters in BG having alot of casts per day and since you could just rest between encounters they rarely run out of spells in combat. Its not that you had to hold back in fear of beeing cought with your pants down in a later battle.

Well, my point is that I am not sure I get your point. You said you loved D&D magic for being powerfull, that would mean in comparison DA:O magic is not powerfull, no?
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?

In the end I dont really see the difference between being able to cast several less powerfull or one very powerfull spell.
Especially because in my experience the games don't have that difference at all, in both games your caster would pretty soon reach a level on which he could cast all his bread and butter spells as often as he needed to.

 

[Ishigami]

I fondly remember the combat system of Final Fantasy X. Since it was turn based there was no rush to get through the menus therefore it became more accessible and it was always clear how a move would affect the combat order which made it easy to plan in advance. All in all the system was simply transparent something many JRPGs lack (e.g. The Last Remnant).
If I remember right it became somewhat broken in the end game e.g. the Anima only served as meat shield and stuff like that but it never mattered to me since I never played it to that extend.

The combat of Tales of Vesperia was also highly addictive and enjoyable for me. Again it becomes very broken once you enter the ?game+? area. But I still enjoyed ranking up combos even though I was practically immortal.
The challenges were a nice touch and made me repeat a fight over and over again just to get it right.

Valkyria Chonicles was also very well done. There is nothing really remarkable here other than that the combat rules were pretty simple and crystal clear at any given time. I like it when you know what is going on and there is no ?wtf just happened?? moment.

The Legends of Dragoon is also a title I remember with nostalgia. Basically the combat was pretty much standard JRPG fare at the time in line with FFVIII and that sort of thing. It had this little QTE thing going on. An attack would have several stages and you had to press a button once several squares aligned on screen in order to progress to the next stage of the attack. It therefore felt a little bit more active then the usually rather passive combat systems at the time of most JRPGs.

As for CRPGs I have to admit that I was not really into that stuff. AD&D and this stuff always seemed to restrictive or confusing. The first out of these to work for me was KotOR. I loved that game but tbh today I can not remember if the combat was actually any good... the characters, dialogues and twist were great but the combat? ? can't remember...
While I like playing e.g. Sykrim I don't really think much of the combat system in these sort of games. They are basically action games...

 

[Chris Tian]

Well by 'realism' I meant things like the importance of positioning and not getting flanked and that kind of stuff. In hindsight realism probably wasn't the best word but I can't think of the right one. In truth, a 'realistic' fight between knights would probably be incredibly slow and boring. I guess the most 'realistic' combat system in the true sense of the word would be Mount and Blade.

If by "Knight" you mean guy in full plate armor, that would be the most interesting "real fight" to watch, since they dont die from the first blow landed. Those guys really had to work for it, whailing at each other until ones armorjoints are messed up so bad that he couldn't move giving the other one the opportunity to crack that thing open and land a killing blow.
But i get your gist and liked those things about TW2 too.

For me, combat in games like Baldur's Gate was so much better than Dragon Age: Origins because of the variety in the class system as well as the fact that you traditionally had six members in your party instead of the limited four. AD&D wasn't just a case of 'warriors hit things, spellcasters blast things, rogues unlock things', there were tons of different classes, each with their own characteristics and nuances. For example, maybe the man on the front line was a heavily armored war cleric, supporting themselves with healing and destructive holy spells. Or maybe they were a kensai, a fighter subclass who gains bonuses for not wearing armor and relies on dodging and pure offense. There was also the ability to multi-class, so you could create countless combinations of classes for a hybrid character - perhaps as a level 8 druid you were to take some levels in fighter for some martial combat prowess, you could do that.

And then there is the fact that you could mix the party up if you wanted. You could run with a group of six martial combat classes, with fighters, paladins, barbarians or whatever. You maybe you'd like to go with a party of spellcasters - druids, clerics, wizards, sorcerers. The game gave you a lot more freedom and choice into how you could build characters and tailor them to your exact liking. Of course in my opinion, Dragon Age: Origins, despite being a very good game, is still a very shallow imitation of Baldur's Gate 2.

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.

 

[babinro]

Tales of Symphonia: This is the only Tales game I've played but the combat was very fun. It had the potential to be frustrating but gladly they didn't make monsters as cheap as they could have.

Dragon Age 2: I found DA:O combat to be great but DA2 improved upon it utilizing class synergies to deal extra damage which made the experience extremely rewarding. The attack animations really enhanced the experience as well.

Final Fantasy 12 / 13: I realize there is a ton of hate for all these games but I found the combat systems to be fantastic and flawed with each game.
- FF12 had you buy combat triggers forcing you to play through 80% of the game before you get the one you want. If you could have just set the commands from the start this would have been truly great.
- FF13 simply took far to long for the combat to become engaging due to a slow tutorial

 

[anonymity88]

Dark Souls, forever Dark Souls.

I also really liked Final Fantasy XII even though the gambit system is something that regularly gets ragged all over.

 

[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.