1230 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Well, if "for the most part they worked " is the standard, all of Bio's games have passed.



I'm not aware of anything in DA's gameplay that's reported to be simplified. (Though I don't have a good sense of what the current console gameplay is like or the proposed changes) You sure you're not just repeating your beef with ME2 here?

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, if "for the most part they worked " is the standard, all of Bio's games have passed.

I'm not aware of anything in DA's gameplay that's reported to be simplified. (Though I don't have a good sense of what the current console gameplay is like or the proposed changes) You sure you're not just repeating your beef with ME2 here?

I'm not entirely sure beyond the dialogue being changed to ME style either, but there are already a lot less options for your character and the entire thing just sounds slimmed down compared to DAO.

If I'm repeating my beef with ME2 it's because I see all too familiar parallels between what happened to it and what appears to be happening to DA2. Along with the same weak reassurances from the devs. So forgive me when I've been down a path several times before with all the same landmarks and signs if I jump to the conclusion that I'm on the same path again.

[Steve236]

Im more worried about the "simplified" combat.(for PC that is)

[Hollingdale]

In Exile wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...
Sigh. The top right is the openminded willing to listing maybe I am wrong-good answer, the middle is the no I don't agree-neutral answer and the bottom is the you are wrong I am right narrowminded evil-answer. I don't see what youre getting at here, the options are perfectly fine when judged in their context and given how the dialogue wheel works with good, evil and neutral, just read between the lines man.

The problem is you can't actually agree with Wrex that it's not the same. Or think that it's not the same . You just think you get to decide how you say you think it is the same. As it turns out Shepard says the exact same thing with the same tone in either case, but they removed that for ME2, which is a dramatic improvement. Now each paraphrase relates to a unique statement Shepard can make.

Or would you rather they wrote long elaborative dialogues when Shephard is talking to a Krogan? That would be awfully unnatural and something to actually whine at.

I would rather they give me the option to agree with Wrex that it isn't. The whole conversation is designed to let Wrex get off a few lines. Mass Effect did this a lot where they foregrounded the NPCs line and background Shepard's to characterize the NPC. Foregrounding the PC is why I love the VO; background the PC is why I hate silent PCs. So when I see a game that allows me to drive the action, and then suddenly I'm being used as a set piece so whoever wrote Wrex can get a one-liner they really like in, it bothers me. A lot.

The problem with VO is rather that in order for the VO actor to sound believable the main character needs a fleshed out personality like that of Shephard. Of course people still want to roleplay so you get the good old good-evil-neutral system which doesn't really help but rather further limits the possibility of interesting choices, since regardless of whatever moral allignment you choose the main character retains the same personality. Shephard for example may indeed be good neutral or evil, but he/she still allways carries the same pragmatic marine like personality. With a non voiced PC this is usually not a problem as there are more dialogue options and the options themselves are also more varied, although any limited amount of dialogue does, in the end create something of a limited persona it's much less apparent than with a voiced PC who has no vacuum for me to fill with my own thoughts and motivations.

There isn't a need to explain this to me. I like. VO. I happen to think VO leads to better role-playing than non-VO. I happen to think that VO allows for a character to be a leader instead of just a set-piece.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with the implementation. And when there isn't actually a choice in what you say, that's a problem.

It is not even a matter in that case of Shepard being a pragmatic marine. It's a matter of him being allowed to only have one opinion? The only possible reason for that is for the writers to get off the line they want. They do this with the CSEC chief in ME1 too, and with the Council scenes. They  largely avoided this in ME2, but there were still a few odd times when Shepard had to have a fixed attitude to a binary thing, which is just silly. It can't possibly bankrupt the game to record an "I disagree" along with the "I agree" line.

Nonetheless I like VO Pc's to although they never feel quite as intimate as silent ones naturally.
I do think however, that this could at least partly be remedied by the replacing of the boring and predictable good and evil scale with a more complex philosophical one. Imagine playing either as rational logical analytic (Like Russel!) or a romantic emotional irrationalist (Like Nietzche or Rousseau)!

Actually, I think VOs are more intimiate than silent PCs. I can't relate to a set piece, like I said. But it is one thing to appreciate a design stance and quite another to point out poor implementation.

If you supposedly understand the system so well then you should understand that Shephards personality doesn't allow for an option to agree with Vex which is indeed a fine example of the very weakness of the VO system that I wrote about.

But the fact that you chose to point it out in the first place when it is a necessary consequence seems to indicate that you do actually not quite grasp the VO system.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I was mostly referring to consistency regarding the IP as far as its setting, lore, etc. went more than gameplay, but even then these games were what they were and for the most part they worked.

That's because Bioware hasn't made a direct sequel for almost a decade. The largest reason ME2 doesn't fit with ME1 is because the former is expanding on the universe, not staying in what already existed.

Terror_K wrote...


Seems to me now that BioWare's answer to gameplay problems is to just overly simplify everything to remove complexity and thus remove anything that can cause too many issues.

How can you simplify that which was already stupid?

Terror_K
wrote...

The problem is that doing this also removes depth, variation and choice.

People who prefer balance don't care that there are a million different fireballs you can cast if just one of those variations insta kills anything it hits with no drawbacks whatsoever. That's just poor game design.

AlanC9 wrote...

Way OT, but what would you replace the threat mechanism with?

Hm. I actually stated that pretty wrong. Threat as itself is an awesome mechanic: Attacking the person in cloth armor that's healing everybody and who will die in two freaking hits makes sense!! It's when the game revolves around bad guys hitting the guy who is dealing the least and taking the least damage (i.e. the tank) that really rustles my jimmies.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 juillet 2010 - 09:22 .

[Morroian]

Steve236 wrote...

Im more worried about the "simplified" combat.(for PC that is)

What simplified combat? They've said combat on the PC will remain largely unchanged. Its changing for consoles but not the PC version.

[Jimmy Fury]

Hollingdale wrote...
If you supposedly understand the system so well then you should understand that Shephards personality doesn't allow for an option to agree with Vex which is indeed a fine example of the very weakness of the VO system that I wrote about.

But the fact that you chose to point it out in the first place when it is a necessary consequence seems to indicate that you do actually not quite grasp the VO system.

Not to interrupt a good debate but from an outside perspective it sort of sounds like the two of you are making the same point:
The VO system, as it was done in ME, had problems which were based primarily on the fact that it was tied to a morality system and not a personality system.

[In Exile]

Hollingdale wrote...

If you supposedly understand the system so well then you should understand that Shephards personality doesn't allow for an option to agree with Vex which is indeed a fine example of the very weakness of the VO system that I wrote about.

That has nothing to do with the VO system; it has to do with the writer's narrow treatment of Shepard. Seriously, a broader range of options in this case would have involved recording an extra line of dialogue for Shepard. Often in DA:O NPCs gave you the same answer independent of the line you chose. There's nothing wrong with doing that in ME. It is frustrating to force you to pick the same line.

But the fact that you chose to point it out in the first place when it is a necessary consequence seems to indicate that you do actually not quite grasp the VO system.

But not having choice is not a fixed consequence of the system at all. Or do you think that?

Jimmy Fury wrote...


Not to interrupt a good debate but
from an outside perspective it sort of sounds like the two of you are
making the same point:
The VO system, as it was done in ME, had
problems which were based primarily on the fact that it was tied to a
morality system and not a personality system.

It's
not the morality that is the issue. It is
just that sometimes Shepard was pointlessly restricted as a charactef
for the sake for the writers to get off a good line. Is it really
crucial to the character of Shepard as a marine that he think that the
genophage is identical to the first contact war? I
appreciate saying Shepard should always be the same gruff marine
because that is how Shepard was envisioned; but what does that have to
do with one opinion?

[Jimmy Fury]

In Exile wrote...

It's not the morality that is the issue. It is just that sometimes Shepard was pointlessly restricted as a charactef
for the sake for the writers to get off a good line. Is it really crucial to the character of Shepard as a marine that he think that the genophage is identical to the first contact war? I appreciate saying Shepard should always be the same gruff marine because that is how Shepard was envisioned; but what does that have to do with one opinion?

Oh I agree.
What I was saying about the problem being linked to the morality system is that the morality system can occasionally limit personality options. With the wrex example those three options weren't being used to show Shep's personality just his/her morality. (although even then that example was a rather odd moment and one of the worst in ME...)

The morality system made some of the "choices" about why more than what. Instead of a choice between A, B, and C it was a choice between A, A, and A.
But, that's not a limitation that inherently exists in VO, it's a limitation to the morality system.
VO can just as easily give us the ability to pick the opinion instead of the reason behind it.
I'd also go so far as to say that the new tone indicators in DA2 might just give us the ability to pick both.

[AlanC9]

Pocketgb wrote...
Hm. I actually stated that pretty wrong. Threat as itself is an awesome mechanic: Attacking the person in cloth armor that's healing everybody and who will die in two freaking hits makes sense!! It's when the game revolves around bad guys hitting the guy who is dealing the least and taking the least damage (i.e. the tank) that really rustles my jimmies.

Well, yeah. But if enemies don't attack tanks, then tanks are worthless and we have to build everybody for DPS. Warriors aren't all that great now. (soteria showed me the analysis, but I don't have the link anymore). Imagine BG1 with an AI that went after the wizards at all costs. 

You could make it work, sure -- more wizard spells that increase defense, more warrior talents that increase damage output, so that all classes end up in more or less the same damage/defense area.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juillet 2010 - 04:31 .

[CarlSpackler]

AlanC9 wrote...

Could you clarify what you mean by "traditional narrative"?

More specifically a silent protagonist  with the written lines of dialog to choose and navigate using a dialog tree.  I really think the ME games are an interesting experiment and enjoyable in their own right, but as I've said elsewhere that model doesn't immerse me in a game equivalent to the more "traditional" model.  I tacked narrative on there as a reference to Dr Ray's (or maybe Dr Greg, I don't remember but the links are here in this thread) own distinction between how the DA PC was handled vs the ME PC.  

In an RPG I really don't like not knowing for certain what my character is going to say (I know some folks claim they knew exactly what Shep was going to say/do which I say kudos to them, but I wasn't one of them.)  In the case of VO I don't care much for Mark Meer's voice acting as a representative of how I would like the lines delivered.  Personal preference to be sure, but there it is nonetheless.  So its certainly possible Bioware will perfect the dialog wheel so I have a pretty darn good indication of whats going to come out of the PC's mouth, and perhaps the VA they hired will hit spot on for me.  In which case maybe I'll enjoy DA2 more than DAO.  But that certainly has never been my experience when dealing with voiced PC vs silent PC.  I do realize that this is the future of game development (at least continuing along its current course, perhaps it will change) but it seems unlikely to really hook me until the technology gets to a point where we really can customize how our character sounds.  We ain't really there yet though.

Having said all of that, it does make me sad that I probably won't live long enough to see real AI and real virtual reality where we play games fully connected, speak our minds and answer as we wish and the NPCs have sufficient AI to understand and respond. Of course at that point, skynet is right around the corner. 

[Therumancer]

Jallard wrote...

TheDarkHuntress wrote...

One thing puzzles me though, I have never understood why developers who had a real winner on their hands would change it when they do the sequel.

I don't understand, I just don't understand.

Its called creative license, I guess?!? Just maybe they are trying to target a different, more profitable market audience.  Or, perhaps RPG games are becoming obsolete? Still, it is anyone's guess?!?

 Well, I don't think RPG games are becoming obselete so much as they are more expensive to develop. Making a highly customizable stat system that works is not easy, in comparison an action type approach reliant on reflexs and "hit boxes" is simple. With a turn based, or pseudo-turn based system all of the numbers are there to be seen and watched as things play out, it's much easier to "fudge" things in an action-type game.

  The extra development time and resources of course costs money, which means that even if successful a good RPG will make less money than a successful action type game. What's more that extra money invested means more is lost proportionatly if it fails.

 It's also notable that right now action games are almost literally bashed out of kits. Using engines like "Unreal" or whatever means that game design is mostly about tweaking things and creating the graphics and artwork. The core of the mechanics and such is already there as opposed to someone needing to create them out of whole cloth. This is a big part of why so many games, especially shooters, play almost identically. It isn't just that they are copying each other, but that they are literally using the same basic engine despite differant developers. Two games using the same combination of engines like 'Unreal', 'GRAW', or 'Havoc Physix', or whatever are going to have a lot of code in common before any development even starts. I've read a bit about it, especially in connection to arguements about "who is monkeying who". 

 Right now the game reviews and the like are pretty much industry tools, any remaining doubts on the subject went out with Gerstmann <SP>. You keep hearing the gaming media acting like RPGs are obselete, and how bad turn based stuff is, which is in turn picked up by gamers (advertising exists because it works, and this is a form of advertising and market control), but in reality a lot of that has to do with the desires of the gaming industry who have a vested interest in people being conditioned to want the games that can be produced most profitably. 

 On the subject, the way how things look from what is being said here is that since "Dragon Age: Origins" was so successful (to an unexpected degree apparently) the producers want to turn out a sequel while the iron is hot. I mean the game is less than a year old and DA2  seems to be coming out slated pretty much for the anniversary of the original. Pulling a "Mass Effect 2" doesn't just give them a chance of appealing to a more mainstream twitch crowd, but it also allows for much faster development. To do things "right" as an RPG with as many or more options than Origins would probably take two or three times the development cycle, and see the game not appearing until 2012 or maybe even 2013 (two or three years for a quality sequel is not unexpected for things like this). 

 As relatively simple as it seems, testing all those spells and skills and such throughout an entire RPG probably took a LOT of time and testing. Not to mention creating player models for the various races, and of course all those origin stories, and the changes to some of the dialogue involving characters like Jowan based on how your character started....

 Truthfully it seems like Bioware is involved in both performing a quick cash-in, and is also becoming more corperate and trying to cater to what seems to be the most profitable group, rather than focusing on making the best RPGs it can. This bomb that is being dropped is disturbing, and it's even more disturbing that we're being told "don't talk about what you don't know" when they don't get the reaction that they were hoping for to the information.

 Right now Bioware has a lot of irons in the fire, and i think their attitude has been changing along with their newfound "big business" abillity to simultaneously develop *TWO* single player game franchises simultaneously, while also working on a big budget, big liscence MMORPG project. Rather than the loving focus and attention to craftsmanship that made them great, I think it's becoming more about focus groups, changing based on what the most people seem to want (as opposed to staying loyal to fans) and simply having too many cooks in the kitchen. The core talent probably being split up between all the projects as opposed to all working together to make something grand.

 Ah well, enough rambling. Not sure if anyone reads what  I am saying, but to be blunt I find this news quite disturbing. Apologies if the suppositions above upset anyone, but honestly that's how a lot of it looks from where I'm sitting. The Bioware of today does not seem to be the Bioware of a couple years ago that was first developing some of these properties. I fear we are seeing the company change, and falling into the pit that has wrecked a lot of formerly fan-favorite companies.  

[Therumancer]

Jallard wrote...

CarlSpackler wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The question is why DA:O was so succesful. For example, if pre-testing shows audiences loved isometric combat but said, man, VO would make it better, that means isometric combat is in and VO is in. As a hypothesis.

Look at it another way: if you are sure that it is the exclusive set of features that DA:O had that made it super succesful, and going away from them will make them less so, then DA2 will be nothing more than a failed experiment and DA3 will get you the copy you wanted.

As to your first point, it is a valid hypothesis but it would interesting to see the sample of pre-test audience in that particular example.

To your second, I think one of the fears for many of us is how fickle and unforgiving the AAA game industry is.  If DA2 were truly to fail, I would be surprised if a DA3 ever surfaced.  Given how well DAO sold though I think this an unlikely scenario, more than likely DA2 will sell better than DAO and EA/Bioware/whomever will take it as a sign that the changes were for the better.  Which would be a non-sequitur. Perhaps those changes were the cause for higher sales, or perhaps it was just trading on a successful brand and slick marketing campaign.  A lot of different circumstances can drive sales.  

Well, despite any misgivings I have about DA 2 I went ahead and pre-ordered it yesterday.  There is a lot to said about that marketing ploy too, I should think?!?

 Budgets don't mean what they used to. To put things into perspective buying computers and renting office space are expensive, but a tiny drop in the bucket compared to these massive multi-million dollar budgets. Once you get past the material expenses, all that is really left is human resources and the increasingly huge paydays that coders, graphic artists, etc... are demanding. A big budget does not mean that the money is being spent on the game directly as much as the people developing it are demanding a lot of money from the producers. There *IS* a differance. 

Look at say "Modern Warfare 2" that game allegedly cost half a billion dollars. Two hundred and fifty million for development, and two hundred and fifty million for advertising according to the reports. Looking at the game, while good, it's not all that. What's more if you've been following the entire "Infinity Ward" drama, you'll notice that one of the big points of contention is literally hundreds of millions of dollars promised to the employees in terms of bonuses, think carefully about this and what it means. I don't think some of these excessive paydays equate to any more effort being put into the game itself. "AAA title" doesn't mean what it used to, because there is no way to determine quality, just because a code monkey is getting paid more to bang his keyboard doesn't mean he's going to be any better at it than he was before. Despite what you might think the code monkey with the Ferrari is not nessicarly going to be any better than the code monkey with the beater, which is why in many cases people wind up being surprised by the relative quality of inxpensive projects, and how bad a lot of more expensive ones wind up failing. Basically "AAA" is an illusion. 

 No matter what they wind up spending on the new Dragon Age, consider that it's still a project that is being kicked out a year after the original. That means less time is being spent on it any way you slice it. From where I sit it's not terribly surprising that the game is being simplified and dumbed down (or so it seems by the comments) simply because of the time involved. Paying the better part of a hundred million dollars to a bunch of programmers doesn't change the fact that they are still developing the game in about a year's time after the first one. 

 Oh and one final note, people are always talking about Voice Actors and how expensive they are. While not as into it as I used to be, back when I was on a major Anime kick, I read a lot of interviews and such with people who did voice acting for animation, both in the US and abroad. They apparently don't get paid all that much, unless some major celebrity is being hired. Not too long ago I was reading something about one actress, I think it might have been Michelle Ruff, and what she wound up making for her work, and doing hours of dialogue for games. If it was her, she's the Voice Actress who does "Etna" (among other things) for various JRPGs, having done that voice in a pretty major role for games like the Disgaea titles (except the first one), Cross Edge, and Trinity Universe... especially when it comes to the latter these were not AAA titles, and from what I was reading she certainly doesn't seem like she's demanding millions or driving a Ferrari around.....

 The point about voice actors being that the full voicing of games is something frequently mentioned as substantially increasing the cost from paying all these expensive voice actors. Something that does not appear to be true, unless certain companies have done a very bad job in looking. The point both being related to earlier points about there being no excuse for not having multiple voice actors doing the script and being selectable as part of character selection, but also because, again it comes down to budget not being indicative of quality and the fact that the money doesn't seem to be going where a lot of people think it does... which is why you have guys like Kotick fighting with what was once Infinity Ward over the distribution of what seemed to be the majority of the budget to the general programmers and their supervisors and such (not to mention the big bosses who were calling the shots and most notably left).

 




 
 

[Terror_K]

It almost seems to me that most of the talent has gone to SWTOR or something. Seems to be the only BioWare game since DAO that has good things about it, is staying true to its source material and is being made for RPG nerds and BioWare fans (which was actually stated in an article specifically). I know Drew Karpyshyn is working on that for instance. Then again, it could also be because LucasArts is in charge and BioWare can't mess with things as much, but even the mechanics and gameplay sound far better and stronger than ME2's were and DA2's are sounding.

[AlanC9]

Therumancer wrote...
From where I sit it's not terribly surprising that the game is being simplified and dumbed down (or so it seems by the comments) 

Whose comments? I haven't seen anything that says "simplified and dumbed down" from anyone who actually knows anything.  You may not like a dialog wheel and voiced PC, but it isn't any easier to build one of those than to build a full-text dialog system. Console gameplay is changing, but console gameplay was already simplified and dumbed down in DAO. Removing origins simplifies stuff, but multiple plot breakpoints complicates other stuff.

[Davasar]

From MerlinTB....

Pulling from what I quoted before:

"give Dragon Age a shot of adrenaline (effectively) amping up everything that maybe was a little lacking" - Mark Darrah
"just as Commander Shepard provides a compelling anchor for the Mass Effect series, the Champion of Kirkwall will be..." - Joe Juba
"how hard it is to work initially on PC and then convert the game back to console ... (i)n the case of Dragon Age II ...we're definitely ensuring the features we put in work well on console ... because it is typically much easier to convert them back to PC." - Ray Muzyka.
GI: Has Bioware's success with the Mass Effect series affected the studio's approach to Dragon Age?
Greg Zeschuk: ... it's fair to say that Mass Effect has had an influence on Dragon Age.

The rest of the GI article is chock full of references to ME this and ME that, as well as repeatedly referring to "classic RPG elements" as being "dated" and "needing replacement" while constantly referring to ME.

You. Play. Connect. The. Dots.


Quoted from another poster.  The source article is around, I am too lazy to link

Modifié par Davasar, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:27 .

[Robust Nuts]

Davasar wrote...

From MerlinTB....

Pulling from what I quoted before:

"give Dragon Age a shot of adrenaline (effectively) amping up everything that maybe was a little lacking" - Mark Darrah
"just as Commander Shepard provides a compelling anchor for the Mass Effect series, the Champion of Kirkwall will be..." - Joe Juba
"how hard it is to work initially on PC and then convert the game back to console ... (i)n the case of Dragon Age II ...we're definitely ensuring the features we put in work well on console ... because it is typically much easier to convert them back to PC." - Ray Muzyka.
GI: Has Bioware's success with the Mass Effect series affected the studio's approach to Dragon Age?
Greg Zeschuk: ... it's fair to say that Mass Effect has had an influence on Dragon Age.

The rest of the GI article is chock full of references to ME this and ME that, as well as repeatedly referring to "classic RPG elements" as being "dated" and "needing replacement" while constantly referring to ME.

You. Play. Connect. The. Dots.


Quoted from another poster.  The source article is around, I am too lazy to link

http://www.eurogamer...iew?page=1      There's the link.

[AlanC9]

I've read that Eurogamer piece. Is there anything in there that says DA2 is simpler? Dumbed down? I can't find it. There's very little of substance about DA2 at all.



As for MerinTB's piece, I won't beat up on a poster's logic unless I know he's reading the thread.

[Jimmy Fury]

Terror_K wrote...

It almost seems to me that most of the talent has gone to SWTOR or something. Seems to be the only BioWare game since DAO that has good things about it, is staying true to its source material

Out of curiosity, how can DA2 not remain true to the source material?

David Gaider (and the rest of the writing team) is the source material. It's entirely their world. They're still writing it so I don't comprehend how it could possibly stray from their desire as the creators of the story...

[Vena_86]

Dragon Age was a classic Baldurs Gate like RPG which many people have been waiting for.

Now several things make DA2 look less appealing for what used to be the target audience.



voiced PC, very short development time (in comparison) = shorter game

focus on consoles = bad for PC players, ME2 shows how "easy" it is to convert to PC, by not changing anything at all and keeping the limitations

limited palyer customization = ....



I'm waiting for more info ofcourse but so far it looks like the DA franchise gets casualized just like the ME franchise and I wouldn't be surprized at all.

[AlanC9]

The development time isn't much shorter than BG2's was. It might not be any shorter depending on when they started work on it, since the DA release was delayed to allow for the platforms to sync up.

The voiced PC may shorten the game somewhat. It's difficult to tell how much at this stage. I suppose we could have a betting pool on gameplay hours.

And yes, you've got a defined protagonist. Just like Planescape, which nobody calls casualized. Actually, nothing you mention equals casualized. Shorter? Maybe, but that depends on other factors. BG2 had a short dev cycle and was longer than BG1.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:59 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Could someone define "casualized" for me?

[Riona45]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Could someone define "casualized" for me?

It seems to mean different things to different people. 

[17thknight]

AlanC9 wrote...

Therumancer wrote...
From where I sit it's not terribly surprising that the game is being simplified and dumbed down (or so it seems by the comments) 

Whose comments? I haven't seen anything that says "simplified and dumbed down" from anyone who actually knows anything.  You may not like a dialog wheel and voiced PC, but it isn't any easier to build one of those than to build a full-text dialog system. Console gameplay is changing, but console gameplay was already simplified and dumbed down in DAO. Removing origins simplifies stuff, but multiple plot breakpoints complicates other stuff.

You only read that one little sinppet of his entire post and then responded? Read the whole thing, he makes many many EXCELLENT points.

You focused like a laser on what is literally the most irrelevant remark in the whole post and ignored his numerous, excellent points.

[Khavos]

Morroian wrote...

What simplified combat? They've said combat on the PC will remain largely unchanged. Its changing for consoles but not the PC version.

No, they've said it will be basically the same.  That's entirely different, and I'm being serious.