200 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

I particularly remember one thread where one person said she had a human ranger as a mental character, who was withdrawn an anti-social, and being forced to be a human noble rogue meant that she would need to interact with the family etc. and that would just wreck role-playing.

God help me, I remember that.



I also remember that really VERY FEW PEOPLE liked the name "Origins." for DA1.

You're an idiot, and you're ilk will be the creative death of the industry.

Whine and cry all you want, but at the end of the day It looks like I'm getting the game I wanted and you'll still be crying and get it too.



Unlike, say, Fallout:New Vegas, a game which old school fans harp about because it's made by Obsidian, completely failing to do their homework and learning that very few of the original Fallout programmers are working on FNV, the majority of the returns are the management who don't program or write games at all.



Those old school fans are going to be in for one very dirty surprise in a few months!



I digress: But the fact remains that I called it almost immediately after DAO was released: I said DA2 would NOT be an origins game, HAVE one preset made character, and he would be voiced.



And many of you posting here were around then, and did not listen.



No wonder you fellows are so disappointed...

[joriandrake]

AlanC9 wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Roland Aseph wrote...

"Executive Producer Mark Darrah. “We are amplifying the things that made
Dragon Age: Origins such a huge success while introducing a more dynamic
combat system, improving the graphics, and telling the most important
story in our world.”

I'm laughing and throwing up at the same time over the "improving graphics" part.....

I cry reading them talking about "amplifying" when they in fact got rid of races and origins

Maybe they don't think those are the things that made DA:O a success. Maybe they're right.

I wonder what the "most important story" would be for hawke, i
thought about it and I am sure it doesn't mean becoming a grey Warden, a
King or even Emperor as those come and go and is not a big deal, the
only four things I oculd come up with is that he either becomes a
dragon, the next Archdemon, cleanses the Black City, or becomes God
itself

[joriandrake]

Vicious wrote...

I particularly remember one thread where one person said she had a human ranger as a mental character, who was withdrawn an anti-social, and being forced to be a human noble rogue meant that she would need to interact with the family etc. and that would just wreck role-playing.

God help me, I remember that.

I also remember that really VERY FEW PEOPLE liked the name "Origins." for DA1.

You're an idiot, and you're ilk will be the creative death of the industry.

Whine and cry all you want, but at the end of the day It looks like I'm getting the game I wanted and you'll still be crying and get it too.

Unlike, say, Fallout:New Vegas, a game which old school fans harp about because it's made by Obsidian, completely failing to do their homework and learning that very few of the original Fallout programmers are working on FNV, the majority of the returns are the management who don't program or write games at all.

Those old school fans are going to be in for one very dirty surprise in a few months!

I digress: But the fact remains that I called it almost immediately after DAO was released: I said DA2 would NOT be an origins game, HAVE one preset made character, and he would be voiced.

And many of you posting here were around then, and did not listen.

No wonder you fellows are so disappointed...

continuing a "**** fight" where you mutualy flame eachother will not help neither side, please ignore insults and don't offend others yourself neither

I consider myself also somewhat an "old school fan", I would still not call people disagreeing with me idiots on the forum

[Kalfear]

Azriel77 wrote...

"Executive Producer Mark Darrah. “We are amplifying the things that made
Dragon Age: Origins such a huge success while introducing a more dynamic
combat system, improving the graphics, and telling the most important
story in our world.”"

Read your own poll:
www.bioware.com/_poll/view_poll.html
It clearly shows that The NPCs, dialogs and romances are what made DA:O what it is.  Now you didn't flat out say that you dumbed it down, but when you focus your speach on combat and graphics that sends warning bells going off in my head.  Of course it doesn't help that a developer in another thread said that the dialog/npc interaction in awakening(piece of crap for dialog compared to DAO) is where you are headed for DA2.  On top of that we have a voice actor for our character which just kills making a unique character that was truly yours(you know, one of those things that made the first game GREAT!), I can't help feel that the game is going to be some mass effect fantasy game and that is definetly NOT what I want to play.

I will keep an eye on this and hope I am wrong, but in the end I get the feeling that it will be an inferior product that will strip out the real things that made the first game great and replace it with stuipid action sequences and time sinks(wonder what the DAO version of planet scanning will be) to make the game seem longer than it really is so they can say 100+ hours of game play(when its really like 15 hours).

Sorry if this sounds negative, but Bioware has a history of this type of behavior, mass effect to mass effect 2, dragon age and then awakening(even though it was an expansion, it shows the direction its headed).  Etc.

Edit:
Ok, found the thread where a developer is talking about how Awakening is
where they want to go with DA2.  Just skip to anywhere you see a bioware
response and read it.  Not very encouraging:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/127/index/1761467/1

This sucks bloated dead donkey balls!

I just finished playing Awakening and didnt realize I was suppose to talk to group members while exploreing and adventureing.
I was wondering why everyone had so little to say but just assumed it was cause its a expansion.
Boy was I wrong!

And how exactly is talking to people when your running around in the heat of battle more realistic?
Do you really want Alister to stop running while your fighting off a hoarde of undead attacking Redcliffe to say "Oh btw, I have a sister in Denerim who id like to look up, is it ok if we talk about that right this instant?"
Bull Pucky, its far more realistic that he waits till your in camp and says "now we have the time and not fighting off undead. I have a long lost sister id like to look up. Mind if we have a conversation about that now?"

And who exactly was complaining about having to check into camp to talk?
I certainly havent seen any RPG fans (last I checked this was still a RPG. Right?) complain about that!

And whats with the crack about people who like tons of chat, even if it doesnt have something specific to do with the plot. THATS CALLED IMMERSION! you know, the thing ME2 didnt have any of. Thos elittle chats you now so quickly dismiss Mister Gaider create bonds between the player and the npc and help form connections.
Sure learning about Shales hatred of birds not relevant to the plot, it was FUN (lord forbid we have fun while playing a game) and added depth to the character.

Azriel77, I actually wish you hadnt made this thread cause I didnt know about those statements made in other thread (only read Gaiders responces for 2 pages, all I could stomach sadly). Now I have that deep churning feeling in pit of stomach that everything I loved in DA:O is going to be gutted and DA2 is going to be the shallow, undeveloped, no emotional connection game that ME2 was

When did making RPGs for RPGer become souch a terrible thing Bioware? I just dont get it. I really dont.

[Kalfear]

joriandrake wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

disenfranchised wrote...

I think this article sums up my feelings on Dragon Age 2 announcement.

http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

Where the publishers are pushing the market, is not where I'm headed. I think there are more than a few people like me.

I feel the same.

You aren't the only one

Add me to list

[Tirigon]

Saibh wrote...

Okay. I don't want to defend either, but I will say this: shooter combat is essentially point-and-shoot. If your reticle moves over that enemy, hit the button and kill. Yes, occasionally you must change/conserve ammo or guns, but that's pretty much it.

Whereas the DA-style of RPG combat, the tactics, require you to think which character's specs are best for this situation, where to move, what power to use and a myriad of other things to do that I'm not even brushing. If you don't like the system--and I really don't--then fine, but that doesn't make it unintelligent. It certainly doesn't make it stupider than FPSs.

Your description of shooters is only true for bad ones, however.

Also, while I do like the combat in DAO, I find it unarguably slower and less action-oriented than shooter combat, while it is not nearly as complex as you say. It takes longer until you figure out how it works, yes (I needed about 30 hours, as DAO was my first RPG, Oblivion not counting here), but once you figure out ho it works it´s pretty easy and consists mainly of repeating your working tactics that own everything.

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 juillet 2010 - 08:35 .

[Grommash94]

David Gaider said in a thread that the dialogue system would not be the one they used in Awakening. It will be a combination of both DA:O and DA:A, or some such.



Maybe BioWare wants to make these kind of games now. Maybe they are sick of making the same games, and just want to be innovative and have their games evolve. Whether you stick with them through this is up to you....but I myself will.

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
It's a matter of holding down your mouse button versus knowing what skills to use when and against what.

Have you ever played a shooter?

He has not, or he wouldn´t write that sh!t.


Also, I would want to make sure that having to learn dozens of skills or alternatively reading pages of skill descriptions does NOT equal challenge.


In a shooter, you have to be quick, cunning and efficient or you´re dead before you have time to "hold down your mouse button", in DAO combat you can pause whenever you want and have all the time in the world.
Lastly, skills like dualwield´s momentum make every planning redundant. I stopped my Dualwielder playthrough after I cleared the Tower of Magi on nightmare difficulty without a single death and WITHOUT EVER USING AN ACTIVATED ABILITY! That much for having to know what skills to use. It´s a matter of knowing how to activate momentum, in fact.

[Hollingdale]

Kalfear wrote...

Azriel77 wrote...

"Executive Producer Mark Darrah. “We are amplifying the things that made
Dragon Age: Origins such a huge success while introducing a more dynamic
combat system, improving the graphics, and telling the most important
story in our world.”"

Read your own poll:
www.bioware.com/_poll/view_poll.html
It clearly shows that The NPCs, dialogs and romances are what made DA:O what it is.  Now you didn't flat out say that you dumbed it down, but when you focus your speach on combat and graphics that sends warning bells going off in my head.  Of course it doesn't help that a developer in another thread said that the dialog/npc interaction in awakening(piece of crap for dialog compared to DAO) is where you are headed for DA2.  On top of that we have a voice actor for our character which just kills making a unique character that was truly yours(you know, one of those things that made the first game GREAT!), I can't help feel that the game is going to be some mass effect fantasy game and that is definetly NOT what I want to play.

I will keep an eye on this and hope I am wrong, but in the end I get the feeling that it will be an inferior product that will strip out the real things that made the first game great and replace it with stuipid action sequences and time sinks(wonder what the DAO version of planet scanning will be) to make the game seem longer than it really is so they can say 100+ hours of game play(when its really like 15 hours).

Sorry if this sounds negative, but Bioware has a history of this type of behavior, mass effect to mass effect 2, dragon age and then awakening(even though it was an expansion, it shows the direction its headed).  Etc.

Edit:
Ok, found the thread where a developer is talking about how Awakening is
where they want to go with DA2.  Just skip to anywhere you see a bioware
response and read it.  Not very encouraging:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/127/index/1761467/1

This sucks bloated dead donkey balls!

I just finished playing Awakening and didnt realize I was suppose to talk to group members while exploreing and adventureing.
I was wondering why everyone had so little to say but just assumed it was cause its a expansion.
Boy was I wrong!

And how exactly is talking to people when your running around in the heat of battle more realistic?
Do you really want Alister to stop running while your fighting off a hoarde of undead attacking Redcliffe to say "Oh btw, I have a sister in Denerim who id like to look up, is it ok if we talk about that right this instant?"
Bull Pucky, its far more realistic that he waits till your in camp and says "now we have the time and not fighting off undead. I have a long lost sister id like to look up. Mind if we have a conversation about that now?"

And who exactly was complaining about having to check into camp to talk?
I certainly havent seen any RPG fans (last I checked this was still a RPG. Right?) complain about that!

And whats with the crack about people who like tons of chat, even if it doesnt have something specific to do with the plot. THATS CALLED IMMERSION! you know, the thing ME2 didnt have any of. Thos elittle chats you now so quickly dismiss Mister Gaider create bonds between the player and the npc and help form connections.
Sure learning about Shales hatred of birds not relevant to the plot, it was FUN (lord forbid we have fun while playing a game) and added depth to the character.

Azriel77, I actually wish you hadnt made this thread cause I didnt know about those statements made in other thread (only read Gaiders responces for 2 pages, all I could stomach sadly). Now I have that deep churning feeling in pit of stomach that everything I loved in DA:O is going to be gutted and DA2 is going to be the shallow, undeveloped, no emotional connection game that ME2 was

When did making RPGs for RPGer become souch a terrible thing Bioware? I just dont get it. I really dont.

Jesus Christ dude, everything outside of camp isn't combat.

[KalDurenik]

Azriel77 wrote...

"Executive Producer Mark Darrah. “We are amplifying the things that made
Dragon Age: Origins such a huge success while introducing a more dynamic
combat system, improving the graphics, and telling the most important
story in our world.”"

Read your own poll:
www.bioware.com/_poll/view_poll.html
It clearly shows that The NPCs, dialogs and romances are what made DA:O what it is.  Now you didn't flat out say that you dumbed it down, but when you focus your speach on combat and graphics that sends warning bells going off in my head.  Of course it doesn't help that a developer in another thread said that the dialog/npc interaction in awakening(piece of crap for dialog compared to DAO) is where you are headed for DA2.  On top of that we have a voice actor for our character which just kills making a unique character that was truly yours(you know, one of those things that made the first game GREAT!), I can't help feel that the game is going to be some mass effect fantasy game and that is definetly NOT what I want to play.

I will keep an eye on this and hope I am wrong, but in the end I get the feeling that it will be an inferior product that will strip out the real things that made the first game great and replace it with stuipid action sequences and time sinks(wonder what the DAO version of planet scanning will be) to make the game seem longer than it really is so they can say 100+ hours of game play(when its really like 15 hours).

Sorry if this sounds negative, but Bioware has a history of this type of behavior, mass effect to mass effect 2, dragon age and then awakening(even though it was an expansion, it shows the direction its headed).  Etc.

Edit:
Ok, found the thread where a developer is talking about how Awakening is
where they want to go with DA2.  Just skip to anywhere you see a bioware
response and read it.  Not very encouraging:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/127/index/1761467/1

I agree most people i know find the "wheel" horrible...

[TMZuk]

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
It's a matter of holding down your mouse button versus knowing what skills to use when and against what.

Have you ever played a shooter?

He has not, or he wouldn´t write that sh!t.


Also, I would want to make sure that having to learn dozens of skills or alternatively reading pages of skill descriptions does NOT equal challenge.


In a shooter, you have to be quick, cunning and efficient or you´re dead before you have time to "hold down your mouse button", in DAO combat you can pause whenever you want and have all the time in the world.
Lastly, skills like dualwield´s momentum make every planning redundant. I stopped my Dualwielder playthrough after I cleared the Tower of Magi on nightmare difficulty without a single death and WITHOUT EVER USING AN ACTIVATED ABILITY! That much for having to know what skills to use. It´s a matter of knowing how to activate momentum, in fact.

But... I don't WANT to be quick, cunning and efficient. If I did, I'd play shooters. I haven't played a shooter since Duke Nukem Forever, and most likely I never will again.

Because I like RPG's. With RPG-combat, where your characters skills and reflexes are important, not your own.

That is one of the definitions on RPG's, and one of the things I seriously disliked about ME and especially ME2, was that I had to play something akin to a shooter, in order to get to the.... woefully few..... roleplay situations.

Bioware attempts to please several crowds at the same time, and all they manage is to make several crowds ever more angry. The FPS crowd looks at the ME-games, and gets upset that they aren't MORE like shooters, while the RPG-crowd gets upset it is SO MUCH like a shooter.

With the ME-series they have the excuse that they always marketed them as action-rpg's. Fine, but when one of the developers talks of a more dynamic and action-filled combat system for DA2, all my alarm-bells goes of. Actually, they do that with just about everything we've heard about the game so far. I'll make certain to put up a post expressing my joy and delight, when we receive some news about DA2, that I consider good.

Modifié par TMZuk, 18 juillet 2010 - 09:36 .

[Grommash94]

TMZuk wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
It's a matter of holding down your mouse button versus knowing what skills to use when and against what.

Have you ever played a shooter?

He has not, or he wouldn´t write that sh!t.


Also, I would want to make sure that having to learn dozens of skills or alternatively reading pages of skill descriptions does NOT equal challenge.


In a shooter, you have to be quick, cunning and efficient or you´re dead before you have time to "hold down your mouse button", in DAO combat you can pause whenever you want and have all the time in the world.
Lastly, skills like dualwield´s momentum make every planning redundant. I stopped my Dualwielder playthrough after I cleared the Tower of Magi on nightmare difficulty without a single death and WITHOUT EVER USING AN ACTIVATED ABILITY! That much for having to know what skills to use. It´s a matter of knowing how to activate momentum, in fact.

But... I don't WANT to quick, cunning and efficient. If I did, I'd play shooters. I haven't played a shooter since Duke Nukem Forever, and most likely I never will again.

Because I like RPG's. With RPG-combat, where your characters skills and reflexes are important, not your own.

That is one of the definitions on RPG's, and one of the things I seriously disliked about ME and especially ME2, was that I had to play something akin to a shooter, in order to get to the.... woefully few..... roleplay situations.

Bioware attempts to please several crowds at the same time, and all they manage is to make several crowds ever more angry. The FPS crowd looks at the ME-games, and gets upset that they aren't MORE like shooters, while the RPG-crowd gets upset it is SO MUCH like a shooter.

With the ME-series they have the excuse that they always marketed them as action-rpg's. Fine, but when one of the developers talks of a more dynamic and action-filled combat system for DA2, all my alarm-bells goes of. Actually, they do that with just about everything we've heard about the game so far. I'll make certain to put up a post expressing my joy and delight, when we receive some news about DA2, that I consider good.

They have already confirmed that combat will be the same in DA 2 for the PC version though. The console combat is quite gimped, so if they make it more to the strengths of the controller, then I don't mind.

[Hollingdale]

The criticism against shooter combat having little to no skill is ridiculous. Especially when most RPG combat (bar FF XIII actually) comes down to simply aquiring enough knownledge and then destroying everything with ease.



In general shooters take skill whereas RPG's take experience if you really want to make a fair generalization.

[Jimbe2693]

Hollingdale wrote...

The criticism against shooter combat having little to no skill is ridiculous. Especially when most RPG combat (bar FF XIII actually) comes down to simply aquiring enough knownledge and then destroying everything with ease.

In general shooters take skill whereas RPG's take experience if you really want to make a fair generalization.

Depends what you call skill I guess. Point and Shoot, reflexes etc or the use of tactics, combo's, damage types...

[Kalfear]

Hollingdale wrote...

The criticism against shooter combat having little to no skill is ridiculous. Especially when most RPG combat (bar FF XIII actually) comes down to simply aquiring enough knownledge and then destroying everything with ease.

In general shooters take skill whereas RPG's take experience if you really want to make a fair generalization.

Well then a more correct statement is

Shooters take dex (which is a atribute, not a skill)
RPGs take experience (and in DA:O case tactical planing which is a skill)

just to keep it honest

[Tirigon]

TMZuk wrote...

But... I don't WANT to be quick, cunning and efficient. If I did, I'd play shooters. I haven't played a shooter since Duke Nukem Forever, and most likely I never will again.

Because I like RPG's. With RPG-combat, where your characters skills and reflexes are important, not your own.

That is one of the definitions on RPG's, and one of the things I seriously disliked about ME and especially ME2, was that I had to play something akin to a shooter, in order to get to the.... woefully few..... roleplay situations.

Bioware attempts to please several crowds at the same time, and all they manage is to make several crowds ever more angry. The FPS crowd looks at the ME-games, and gets upset that they aren't MORE like shooters, while the RPG-crowd gets upset it is SO MUCH like a shooter.

With the ME-series they have the excuse that they always marketed them as action-rpg's. Fine, but when one of the developers talks of a more dynamic and action-filled combat system for DA2, all my alarm-bells goes of. Actually, they do that with just about everything we've heard about the game so far. I'll make certain to put up a post expressing my joy and delight, when we receive some news about DA2, that I consider good.

This is a valid point, and in fact I share it. I like shooter, yes, but if I buy an RPG I want it to be an RPG, and I hope DA2 stays close to DAO combat-wise (though I wouldn´t mind a few improvements, for example removing momentum so activated abilities are finally stronger than autohit).

What annoys me is only some people´s attitudes who call shooter combat stupid. It is not. It´s more action-oriented. If you don´t like that, that´s fine, but it doesn´t mean it´s stupid or less challenging.

[Collider]

And then Bioware was a zombie.

[Tirigon]

Kalfear wrote...

Well then a more correct statement is

Shooters take dex (which is a atribute, not a skill)
RPGs take experience (and in DA:O case tactical planing which is a skill)

just to keep it honest

In theory, yes. Unfortunately, most fights in DAO can be won without any use of tactics even on Nightmare, while good FPS games (especially the legendary and all-perfect Alien vs Predator) require planning and skill rather than only "dex".

Sadly, COD´s awful approach to combat removes all tactics and replaces it with bunnyhopping. But COD is a disgrace to FPS anyways, so it´s no surprise.

[Hollingdale]

Kalfear wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

The criticism against shooter combat having little to no skill is ridiculous. Especially when most RPG combat (bar FF XIII actually) comes down to simply aquiring enough knownledge and then destroying everything with ease.

In general shooters take skill whereas RPG's take experience if you really want to make a fair generalization.

Well then a more correct statement is

Shooters take dex (which is a atribute, not a skill)
RPGs take experience (and in DA:O case tactical planing which is a skill)

just to keep it honest

Yes because the fair objective view is the one from that originates from an RPG perspective to start with!

Oh and BTW: ''A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both''

So yes shooter combat take skills whereas for more classical RPG combat like the one in DA experience suffices (Mass Effect 2 requires both experience and skill btw being as it is a hybrid).
 
Remove the ability to pause and DA would indeed also require skill though. But why do that anyway? In fact I'm only discussing this because I'm sick of the crap that dogmatic rpg fans write.

[TMZuk]

Tirigon wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

But... I don't WANT to be quick, cunning and efficient. If I did, I'd play shooters. I haven't played a shooter since Duke Nukem Forever, and most likely I never will again.

Because I like RPG's. With RPG-combat, where your characters skills and reflexes are important, not your own.

That is one of the definitions on RPG's, and one of the things I seriously disliked about ME and especially ME2, was that I had to play something akin to a shooter, in order to get to the.... woefully few..... roleplay situations.

Bioware attempts to please several crowds at the same time, and all they manage is to make several crowds ever more angry. The FPS crowd looks at the ME-games, and gets upset that they aren't MORE like shooters, while the RPG-crowd gets upset it is SO MUCH like a shooter.

With the ME-series they have the excuse that they always marketed them as action-rpg's. Fine, but when one of the developers talks of a more dynamic and action-filled combat system for DA2, all my alarm-bells goes of. Actually, they do that with just about everything we've heard about the game so far. I'll make certain to put up a post expressing my joy and delight, when we receive some news about DA2, that I consider good.

This is a valid point, and in fact I share it. I like shooter, yes, but if I buy an RPG I want it to be an RPG, and I hope DA2 stays close to DAO combat-wise (though I wouldn´t mind a few improvements, for example removing momentum so activated abilities are finally stronger than autohit).

What annoys me is only some people´s attitudes who call shooter combat stupid. It is not. It´s more action-oriented. If you don´t like that, that´s fine, but it doesn´t mean it´s stupid or less challenging.

No, of course it isn't stupid or less challenging, and I wish people would stop throwing insults at each-other for disagreeing.

I used to know one of the top-three Quake 3 players in Denmark, and I was absolute in awe when I watched him playing. It is not what I want in an RPG, but that does not mean that FPS-games are stupid. 

Modifié par TMZuk, 18 juillet 2010 - 09:57 .

[AlanC9]

Hollingdale wrote...

The criticism against shooter combat having little to no skill is ridiculous. Especially when most RPG combat (bar FF XIII actually) comes down to simply aquiring enough knownledge and then destroying everything with ease.

In general shooters take skill whereas RPG's take experience if you really want to make a fair generalization.

The only thing I'd add to that is that mastering some RPGs require you to keep more stuff in your head than some people seem to be able to do. I'm fairly notorious on this board for maintaining that the IE games are as easy as DAO, but after some recent threads I've had to re-evaluate this. An awful lot of players have beaten the games with horribly inefficient tactics. Not because they were trying to challenge themselves, but because they couldn't see the correct answers.

Though I'm not sure it's a bad thing to be able to beat a game without mastering it.

[IronVanguard]

Vicious wrote...
Unlike, say, Fallout:New Vegas, a game which old school fans harp about because it's made by Obsidian, completely failing to do their homework and learning that very few of the original Fallout programmers are working on FNV, the majority of the returns are the management who don't program or write games at all.

Those old school fans are going to be in for one very dirty surprise in a few months!

Eh, it still looks pretty awesome to me.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
The only thing I'd add to that is that mastering some RPGs require you to keep more stuff in your head than some people seem to be able to do. I'm fairly notorious on this board for maintaining that the IE games are as easy as DAO, but after some recent threads I've had to re-evaluate this. An awful lot of players have beaten the games with horribly inefficient tactics. Not because they were trying to challenge themselves, but because they couldn't see the correct answers.

Though I'm not sure it's a bad thing to be able to beat a game without mastering it.

I think it has to do with how much you're willing to learn the system and your prior experience with it. BG was a pain of a game that I only played because I had already gotten through NWN and was familiar with D&D... but NWN itself was the first RPG I technically owned and thought it was garbage because of how leveling and skills in D&D work.

Not to mention that saying that an RPG looks at your character's skill is a little misleading, given the amount of physical sculpting you're free to do, especially in a game like DA:O.

[tiredofbs]

Personally, I enjoyed the multiple races in DA:O, I think it made the game more re-playable. I actually wanted to play new characters and learn their starting areas, as well as their stories. I enjoy getting immersed in the characters, that's why I enjoy playing RPGs. DA:2 sounds a little boring. You have Hawke. That's it. No elf, dwarf characters to play. So, in other words, I would play through DA:2 what, twice, perhaps 3 times? Play good once, play evil once, and maybe a combo the third time. Then what? Game is done and I am bored. RPGs are suppose to be fun and multi-faceted, having just one hero to play sounds more like a FPS to me. Seems a waste to have a great game like DA:O with all the heroes and the decisions made through out the game to be null and void in DA:2. Guess we will see. I will not watch the trailer either, since they have a tendency to lie with them.

[RPGrogue]

Grommash94 wrote...

David Gaider said in a thread that the dialogue system would not be the one they used in Awakening. It will be a combination of both DA:O and DA:A, or some such.

Maybe BioWare wants to make these kind of games now. Maybe they are sick of making the same games, and just want to be innovative and have their games evolve. Whether you stick with them through this is up to you....but I myself will.

High five!

Really, you guys need to stop. You guys are whining for the sake of whining. The comabt for pc will be the same, and if you played xbox then bioware said they want to make it so you can import from pc to xbox or the other way around.