I played it on the XBox because I was curious to see how the combat on it would go. I'm downloading it for the PC right now, and I imagine I'll prefer the gameplay, there. No to say that the gameplay was bad, but I noticed I stuck to one character more often and "paused" a lot less, usually feeling like one agent on the battlefield instead of someone controlling the team. That's not a fault of the game design, though. It's more a matter of how the different interface affected my playstyle. Speaking of interface, The new stat screen is a good step in the right direction. I think directly connecting the stats with what they modify was a good idea, but I question why some attributes were left on the bottom, separated. Also, I like the look and branching of the new skill trees, so far. I didn't get to play with them much, or course, but they gave me a good impression.
As a whole the demo gave me a good impression, actually. I like the dialogue system. I was able to predict what was going to be said by my Hawke on all occasions, so no worries there. The combat for the 360 was...interesting. I liked the kinetic feel of it, but I found myself wondering if there might not be a better solution than mashing A until skills finish recharging. That seems like something that's only be present at low-levels, though, as at the different points we got to play (exaggerated beginning, actual beginning, Isabela's [Isabela, Isabela, Isabela...*sigh*] quest) I could see a movement towards nearly always having different options open, as far as skills went. Also, combat just looked nice. It was great to see my rogue Hawke actually look roguish and spritely when she moved, attacked or even held still. I will complain that I couldn't really see or "feel" when I was getting hit very well. For the most part, I had to just keep an eye on my health bar to keep track of how often I was being damaged. (The Ogre was the exception to this)
One of the things that got me, though, was the overland movement. It was odd, because in going down those fixed paths with little variation and random darkspawn assaults interspersed with dialogue, it kind of felt like I was playing FFXIII. I should note here that I don't dislike FFXIII, but it's a clear difference from how area exploration in DA:O felt. I'd have to play more of it to figure out whether I have any preference. The "area transition" was pretty disappointing, though. I remember saying we had to head to The Wilds, then being told we were in The Wilds, and wondering, "Wait, we got to The Wilds? When? And why do The Wilds look like the ruins of Lotherling I was running from...and when did the trip get so short? I'll play closer attention when I replay it. Perhaps there ere visual cues I just missed.
With combat and movement feeling how it did, I felt I would sell my kingdom for a jump button, not that my kingdom is worth very much. Also, I was annoyed that I had to let go of the right analog stick to cast a spell, then push it down to get moving again. I don't see why putting in the command for the spell couldn't be done from movement considering we're going to hold still while we cast the spell anyway.
Finally, there was the story-telling. It felt very rushed. I'm not talking about the transition. I'm talking about, for example, the sequence with Flemeth or the introduction to your family. It felt like in an attempt for tight story-telling, the story wasn't given much room to breath. It also made it awkward when Carver was killed. I felt kind of bad, because I liked him from what little interaction there was, but I didn't really feel I "knew" him at all. I think it would have been a better idea to take the Origins route and started us off in Lotherling as a family, hearing the news of the coming blight and the fall of the army, having out brother suddenly return to us, and packing in a hurry to move. As it was, some parts felt streamlined to the point of being nearly stripped to the bone. It was a jarring change from Origins, and while it would be fine in other games, it was a disappointing to see in DA2. I hope that's only how the beginning will go.
The most significant offender in story-telling issues, though, was how very disappointed I felt with how Carver was killed. Random cut-scene deaths where you and your combat-ready part stand idly by is never,
never, a good idea. It is not good story-telling. It is not compelling or dramatic. It leads to me thinking, "Why the hell am I not being allowed to get in there and back him up? He's my brother. Aren't I supposed to care about him?" I also didn't like that I had no agency in the matter. I know in many games, including DA:O characters you can't save die all the time. There's a significant difference to, say, Duncan dying on a battlefield far from you to a horde or even Iona dying from a sudden volley of arrows while we naked and defenseless when compared to a member I have in my party dying to a single enemy in front of me which we then kill shortly thereafter. I hope there's a decent story explanation for why Carver was auto-picked for death based on my class too, but either way, come one, Bioware. You can do much better than that. In fact, you do so on a regular basis.
In closing, I did like it as a whole. I feel there were many improvements made over the original, but also a couple missteps. I'm pretty sure the final product will be quality, though I doubt it'll make the heavens sing.
Modifié par Mage One, 23 février 2011 - 09:23 .
Retour en haut
