8659 réponses à ce sujet

[Dlokir]

Notker_Biloba wrote...
...

There seems to be a problem with the "hold position" v. "move freely" modes. Or maybe there was a setting I didn't see? In DA:O the "hold position" meant "don't do anything unless I specifically tell you",
which does not seem to be the case in DA2. In DA:O I almost never allowed my minions to roam freely or think for themselves, because they would use their Talents unintelligently. I would always toggle on the "hold position" mode and either issue individual commands or select the entire party to attack an individual baddie. Sometimes I would toggle
to "move freely" in times of peace, usually to allow them to follow me from point A to point B, because if I left them at point A, the system seemed to bog down as I put more and more distance between myself and them.

I'm not catching the point of the bold text.  Are you saying that DA:O doesn't work like I descibed?  Because it does, on the PC anyway.  The point of my question was to find out if there was a way to make it work that way in DA2, or if I'm hosed into switching in to "move freely" mode, which blows.

In DAO hold position means only don't move. And if you disable entirely the tactics, only then they won't do anything at all.

In DA2 demo use "don't move" AND disable tatics for each member and you get the same result I just tested, they don't move and are passive. Well I didn't only disabled tactics for each but also for each used the behavior "passive" at top of tactics screen.

EDIT: This only work in the normal fights of DA2, the first fights that are fake legend fights don't allow this. But once the real fights start it is working.

Modifié par Dlokir, 03 mars 2011 - 09:35 .

[FabMan_UK]

Bit concerned for DA 2 (Diablo Age 2), it's very much: attack, attack, attack with no strategy or planning required. Played as Male Warrior 2H and as Female Mage. I thought all Darkspawn were supposed to be dangerous and scary not just a Troll. When the big rush came after the Troll and before being saved by the WotW, I thought my rag tag band could handle them.

I hope the game play after the initial section improves and isn't just a game that re-spawns enemies in vast numbers, like the demo does.

[Feanor_II]

Oh, I forgot to say that I didn't like that a mage could survive a melee combat......

[Tommy6860]

yesikareyes wrote...

I'm a fan who follows the Mass Effect series and is totally in love with the simple yet versatile gameplay. I tried out Origins and Awakening and I didn't like how the combat gameplay worked out and vowed never to spend my money on any Dragon Age again. I'm not saying it's ugly, just not my cup of tea.

My cousin, an avid DA fan, told me to pre-order DA2 and I did because he was older than me so family hierarchy applies.I downloaded the demo to see if the game was worth my cash and I was surprised, the gameplay has improved in simpler terms yet it still keeps it's unique touch. Good job! Certainly looking forward to DA 2!

I find your taste somewhat contradictory here. On one hand, you stated you didn't like Origins or Awakenings, though you say you "only" tried them, because they're not your cup of tea, which is fine. Then say that you like ME, which is fine too, but this appeal seems to point to certain aspects to the differences between the games. One appealing to you being a shooter type futuristc action oriented RPG, to one that isn't appealing that is medeival in lore and romance with magic and swords. Yet, DA2 is magic and swords (the rest yet to be determined), but you are sold on it??

Does this not state you are not maybe really into true RPGs, but rather action oriented games. On a side note, do you play console versions of the games? If so, that says a lot right there. I loved DA:O, I also loved Mass Effect since it has an incredible story and deep character interactions, something that is a must for me in RPGs, even though ME had the shooter element, it worked well IMO.

[wobble55]

Here's another reason why console and PC players might find the demo combat so different:

As I understand it, the console version does not have auto-attack in the demo, while only auto-attack is available on the PC.  Unless my PC is screwed up, or I've completely missed something (please enlighten me if I have),  auto-attack is broken when it comes to using abilities.

I've played the demo over and over in an attempt to figure out what's going on, but I'm still a bit baffled.  For example, here is what happened in my last two fights with the first Ogre, in both cases without pausing:

First fight:  Every time I selected "Mortal Blow" (about a dozen times) it fired and my toon executed the ability.

Second fight:  At NO time did the ability fire.  Instead, the ability cursor was presented and I had to left click on the Ogre to use the ability.

In other fights with the first Ogre, I believe I 've seen a mix of both results, and I should add that this is not unique to this particular fight.  I've seen it sporadically in other fights as well.

What happens when I pause to activate an ability?  I seem to get three random results:

1)  No ability cursor is presented but the ability is shown beside my toon's icon, and, when I unpause, the ability fires.
2)  Ability cursor is displayed and, after left clicking on the target and unpausing, the ability fires.
3)  No ability cursor is shown and no ability is indicated beside the toon icon.  If I unpause at that point the ability does not fire.  (A workaround for this that seems to work much of the time is to select another target or right click on the ground, select the ability and left click the ability cursor (if you get it) back on the original target, then unpause.)

I suspect these are not problems when playing with auto-attack off, but these problems make combat with auto-attack on frustrating and slow.

[HULK96]

The only thing I thought shouldn't have been changed was the design for the hurlocks. They kinda look like skeletons wearing tights. Just sayin. : ]

[Tommy6860]

Kide wrote...

Graunt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Graunt wrote...
Apparently it's working to draw in the action fans, yet it's failing as well simply because it's also fooling the "die hard Origin fans" into believing the gameplay has changed at all.  It hasn't, and you're too easily fooled by optical illusions.

Really, it comes down to you simply not liking the pace of the game, and desiring a much slower and plodding experience, even though you're going through the same motions.  If only there were a way to pause the game and issue commands...

The combat system and player experience of combat in the two games, and how they compare between the two games, doesn't come down to simply whether or not it's possible to pause and issue commands.  And the pace of combat and the animations is part of the system, not just an illusion. 

Yes, it is just an illusion when people keep complaining that it's just turned into a generic action game.  They are playing the same game sped up, and most of the speed is in the animation alone.  Do you really need eight seconds between each creature to have enough time to issue commands?  And typically you never have to issue a command to every single person in your party for every creature.  It's the same game, same gameplay without the hike up the mountain to reach the next target.

If dragging out fights much longer than they should be is something you derived great joy from, well then I'm sorry for your loss.  To me, that was one of the most unbearable aspects of Origins and it made repeated playthroughs difficult.

For the record, I'm not the only one who thinks the gameplay has changed.  Brent Knowles, one of the lead designers of DA:O QUIT at the beginning of DA2 development, because he no longer felt comfortable with the direction the DA franchise, and Bioware as a whole under EA were headed:

"Discussion
on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I
wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party
control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a
role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing
my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards
more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type
of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a
title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a
set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a
shooter...."

"...I can’t/won’t go into any other details other
than to point to an old entry I made about this and reiterate: “I’m not
the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same
company. ” "

He says absolutely nothing about the gameplay, only to compare it to Mass Effect.  Yet the only viable comparison is in the dialogue change.   That has nothing to do with combat, and while the demo may end up being "drastically" different than the gold version, it felt absolutely nothing at all like the changes between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.  It didn't actually feel anything at all like Mass Effect other than again, it's faster.

Some of you just seem like traditionalist dinosaurs who insist that if something isn't using the exact same recycled formula down to every last tee,  it's not a "true" INSERT_FAVORITE_GENRE/SERIES.  Bioware combat has been pretty awful ever since the BG games, but they were acceptable for the time.  The problem is, they kept using the same pace and technically the same mechanics for every "traditional" RPG since then.  I'm sick to death of this turned based, but not, real time strategy, but not gameplay that's not fun to sit through for 40+ hours.  What we end up with is the same gameplay that's been around, yet at a much faster speed; but of course it's awful because it's not slower than growing grass.

I really have to say that I just can't understand you Graunt... I have to say there is a very big and noticable change in the battle gameplay at least on the PC, which is the fact that it is now missing the overhead view. Of course you can say that you still can see everything after you turn the camera around like a million times, but you know there IS a reason why pretty much any good strategy game has an overhead view. If that would be taken out like from the dungeon keeper games, or Age of empires games, or like world in conflict, I certanly would not play any of those games.........

It is just mindblowing how you can say so, but I just have to think that you really have never really cared of any strategy games, go play the world in conflict as a multiplayer without a big overhead view, it has great graphics so why not...? Because then the gameplay would totally suck in any game that hopes to really be a strategy game where you can control more than one unit.

Maybe it does not feel different to you, but it certanly feels different to many others, and I just can't but help to comment on that as that just sound so damn ridicilious to me. But nevertheless I can agree to disagree with you on that, I just would rather not read your agruments on that thing here constantly.

I have not enjoyed Mass effect or the second from that series, and you can see that it has changed a lot towards it, because I can now say I would not enjoy this second dragon age either. Dragon age 1 was a good game, even when you could not even die in the game if even one survives the battle and that took a lot of immersion away from me on that game, but it was a good game nevertheless. Not as good as some older games which are already nostalsic for me as well, but a very good game still. And now I could not even think of byuing this new dragon age... I could say there are a lot of changes to it then. But Dragonage 1 was one of the very rare good RPG in these days in my opinion. Oblivion was not a good game for example not at least for me, and nether was fallout3, the las vegas one was certanly able to capture the right feeling a lot better. There are no games in the RPG genre that would really be made for me at this point. I am not because of that reason even so dissapointment with Dragon Age 2, I just won't buy it, rather I will be over the moon if there happens to come out a good RPG that I would want to buy, but I rather play the old good games than buy new games that I won't enjoy. Let's see what Skyryum will give us, if it is more like Morrowing than Oblivion it might be an okay RPG in that game series and I might get a new RPG game this year.

I have to diagree with you on Fallout 3 big time. I agree with most of you stated in regards to your follow-up to Graunt, but you contradicted yourself with Fallout 3. No, it isn't the deep story telling that makes most RPGs great, but the story it had wasn't supposed to be like considering the barren landascapes and solitude lifestyles that are the the themes of most characters or groups. It has shooter elements, but rightfullty so considering the time-line. The dark humor in the gme was great and all questing was releavant to the main theme. It worked really well and it has decent RPG elements to it since you build your character in a theme you desire with the choices you make when creating what the person excels in best.

I love Fallouts 1&2, but Vegas was a disaster, and I don't get how you like it that while disliking 3. I will tell you why. Vegas is a near 80% clone of Fallout 3; exact same combat system, exact dialogue system, exact weapons types with different names, and it carried over all of the perks from Fallout 3. It was a reskinned Fallout 3, period. Fallout 3 took the series to a different direction and it worked really well. Now, how you like Vegas when it was a near clone of 3 is telling, outside of a few of the factions they brought back to Vegas from 1&2.

[TEWR]

FabMan_UK wrote...

Bit concerned for DA 2 (Diablo Age 2), it's very much: attack, attack, attack with no strategy or planning required. Played as Male Warrior 2H and as Female Mage. I thought all Darkspawn were supposed to be dangerous and scary not just a Troll. When the big rush came after the Troll and before being saved by the WotW, I thought my rag tag band could handle them.

I hope the game play after the initial section improves and isn't just a game that re-spawns enemies in vast numbers, like the demo does.

you do remember that you pretty much only had like 2-3 abilities which severely limited you to being only able to attack? Origins had the same thing in the origin stories (which is primarily what the demo was here. Hawke's origin story), where you had barely any combat abilities and pretty much did attack, attack attack, ability, attack attack.

[FabMan_UK]

Tommy6860, in that post no claim was my by yesikareyes that they are a fan of RPG's. Just that they like the improved game play in DA:2 over DA:O. I personally dislike the changes.

I prefer the streamlining in Mass Effect 2 over ME as it seemed more fitting for a shooter, however the streamlining shown in the demo of DA:2 makes me feel I've pre-ordered a hack-n-slash with cutscenes in between battles.

[FearMonkey]

I played the demo on PC.

The main impression I got from it was that it was way too easy. As a rogue I felt I could (if I had let everybody else in my party die) solo the 2nd Ogre by spamming Evade and Backstab. <_<

In fact it was easy despite the fact that the camera was not allowed to pull back into DA:O's full isometric camera mode. I can only imagine the game would be even easier were I allowed to do that. <_<

Question for Mike Laidlaw: So, I watched the live demo of you playing the game. Was the fight with Hayder in the build you were playing harder than the one that was in the demo build? Because that fight was pretty easy for me and you had to stop talking so you could focus on tactics. I had to do no such thing. I am not bragging. There are parts of Dragon Age: Origins that had me ripping my hair out in frustration on normal mode. I am saying Normal Mode in this game/demo is WAY TOO EASY!

Overall, the demo was fine. I would have liked to have had the option to change the difficulty and be given access to the inventory and be allowed to build Hawke the way I wanted to in the fight against Hayder. I was allowed to level up Bethany and Aveline, but not Hawke? Why?

However, despite my misgivings after playing the demo, I've decided not to cancel my pre-order. I hope you guys don't let me down. I've been playing your games since Baldur's Gate 1 in 1998, which is obviously why I was looking forward to Dragon Age: Origins in the first place. Dragon Age 2, in my mind, looks like a very definite step back from the Badlur's Gate legacy. I hope I am wrong.

Modifié par FearMonkey, 03 mars 2011 - 10:39 .

[TEWR]

HULK96 wrote...

The only thing I thought shouldn't have been changed was the design for the hurlocks. They kinda look like skeletons wearing tights. Just sayin. : ]

I expect the Hurlocks to just randomly start doing this in DA2





SIDE NOTE: How do people insert the link in their comments but make it say a word or two? Like "look at this" with "this" being the link?

[FabMan_UK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

FabMan_UK wrote...

Bit concerned for DA 2 (Diablo Age 2), it's very much: attack, attack, attack with no strategy or planning required. Played as Male Warrior 2H and as Female Mage. I thought all Darkspawn were supposed to be dangerous and scary not just a Troll. When the big rush came after the Troll and before being saved by the WotW, I thought my rag tag band could handle them.

I hope the game play after the initial section improves and isn't just a game that re-spawns enemies in vast numbers, like the demo does.

you do remember that you pretty much only had like 2-3 abilities which severely limited you to being only able to attack? Origins had the same thing in the origin stories (which is primarily what the demo was here. Hawke's origin story), where you had barely any combat abilities and pretty much did attack, attack attack, ability, attack attack.

Yes its true, but remember the Origins section for each Origin? It wasn't attack, attack, attack. There was story, there was build up and pace. When you a first thrown in the woods as a would be Warden your party is very scared of meeting any kind of Darkspawn and each group you meet you used tactics to defeat. In the DA:2 demo wave after wave run at you and all you have to do is click attack.

I know it's a demo, but when you look forward to something and the first taste is bitter, well I spit it out. Here's hoping the actual game is better pace, or even if it's just the intro that is like that then I can also be happy.

[Nazcom]

I enjoyed the demo quite a bit, learned that I despise Carver but still cringed at his death. I never understood the "tactical" side that everyone claims is lost, IRL you can't pause a fight to choose exactly what you want, nobody waits their turn to fight. Part of the fun of playing this demo was quickly flicking from character to character and choosing what want done as quickly as possible. VA's were quite good, especially FemHawke, I'm not sold on the story because, well, we don't know the story at all. Graphics were MUCH better this time around, I'm a bit disappointed by the fact you don't get leave Kirkwall much, but I'll live. As long as story and characterisations are half decent and deep, graphics and gameplay take a backseat.

[wobble55]

FearMonkey wrote...

Question for Mike Laidlaw: So, I watched the live demo of you playing the game. Was the fight with Hayder in the build you were playing harder than the one that was in the demo build?

If I remember right, Laidlaw said he liked to play on "hard".

I suspect in the game you'll find "hard" or "nightmare" difficult enough for you to enjoy.

[FearMonkey]

wobble55 wrote...

FearMonkey wrote...

Question for Mike Laidlaw: So, I watched the live demo of you playing the game. Was the fight with Hayder in the build you were playing harder than the one that was in the demo build?

If I remember right, Laidlaw said he liked to play on "hard".

I suspect in the game you'll find "hard" or "nightmare" difficult enough for you to enjoy.

Yeah, I'll probably start DA2 on Hard or Nightmare, haven't decided which yet. My question is because he said he had to stop talking so he could concentrate on his tactics. If the Normal Mode he was playing with was the same as the Normal Mode that was in our demo, I'm not sure why he had to concentrate so hard because I had no problem at all with the Hayder fight. *shrug*

[FabMan_UK]

Nazcom wrote...

I enjoyed the demo quite a bit, learned that I despise Carver but still cringed at his death. I never understood the "tactical" side that everyone claims is lost, IRL you can't pause a fight to choose exactly what you want, nobody waits their turn to fight. Part of the fun of playing this demo was quickly flicking from character to character and choosing what want done as quickly as possible. VA's were quite good, especially FemHawke, I'm not sold on the story because, well, we don't know the story at all. Graphics were MUCH better this time around, I'm a bit disappointed by the fact you don't get leave Kirkwall much, but I'll live. As long as story and characterisations are half decent and deep, graphics and gameplay take a backseat.

Making references to reality or real-life is pointless as it's a fantasy game, however immersion is a key factor for games. It's true that in real-life combat you can't pause time to make a decision, but in real-life you can discuss with people tactics to be used in certain situations before they happen.

Now in DA:2 it has a tactics Window, but on the PC demo I played I didn't touch it and didn't pause the game and I only focused on my main character... and I completed the demo withOUT any serious problems. Just one party member went down against the Emmissary.

Modifié par FabMan_UK, 03 mars 2011 - 11:16 .

[Tommy6860]

Alexus_VG wrote...


The dialog changes thought they are one of my bigest issues with the sequel are not the only viable comparison to ME. The overall feel of the story progression is a lot more rushed and imperosnal. Taking the role of a predetermined individual with a lot of the backstory already fact is also a direct link to ME. The approach to the story seems too cinematic for a start, much like it was in ME. I know a lot of people like this but after all that's why there are two separate franchises. The artstyle also resembles the aformentioned series which the exeption of(thankfully) the ME body models which I personaly found revolting.

Again, I agree with your stance on DA2, but lets put some of these comparisons to rest if you're going to keep going this way (and no I am not being personal about this, just pointing this out). Yes, the dialogue system is like ME's, and the art directionand color palette only are similar to ME and I don't like that at all. But,outside of that, is where this stops. I also did not like that it followed ME's style in those areas, it takes away the originality that was Origins. Cinematics: DA:O is as, if not more cinematic than ME, but I liked it, it added to the feeling to the greatness of story. ME did the same thing with the story, and it added its story. If you didn't like ME's character movements/models, well DA:O models are the same. if you don't believe, watch videos of the running or walking gaits between the two, and they are exactly the same, just under different scales. I don't like how they move in DA2 though, it is totally different from both ME and Origins with the exaggerated shoulder movements looking like it was dislocated.

Much as I can get over most of my discomfort with the new combat changes, if the demo is any indication I don't think Im going to be happy with the new direction of the RP element as a whole. I do believe I noticed a few others commenting on the imersion failure as well so Im not alone in that complaint. I know this is just a demo and can't hold the same appeal as the overall game but none the less it is very lacking.

Agreed, but if you are already resigned to not getting DA2 because of the demo experience, then you've already made any more complaints a moot point. Again, I agree with you on most things and I was about to not get it; the demo was just a bad example of what seems to be coming in the end. But, after reading some of the dev posts, I will give it a chance, and let them keep me or lose me as a Bioware fan.

Keep in mind mate and Im not trying to start an argument here that thought you are within you right to feel fed up with some of the more classical elements of RPGs some of us are just as much in our right to like them. And as DA:O was more along those lines we are obviously disappointed that the sequel isn't.

Being realistic in your stance towards calassical RPGs made need a little refreshing, if you really think about it. I remember (and I am paraphrasing here, not verbatim) you said to me that any RPGs with an FPS element is not for you and you stay as far away from them, and that's is fine. But, you cannot lay hint that RPGs should only be magic/swords and, etc to be a RPG (alluding to your "classical" RPG thinking). Considering you stated your dislike for the ME series for those reasons, I can take it that you didn't bother playing at all, and if you did, not comprehensively.

IMO, ME had a much richer and deeper storyline that Origins, it is just that Origins overall feel with its story, characters and game progression was awesome for the lore it is. ME did the same thing and the characters were rich, deep and the story was just incredible, for what it is. But its flavor was futuristic and RPGs don't have to fit a timeline from centuries past, to a far off adavnced tech society of a millenium from now. RPGs only have to do what the genre is supposed to do, drive deep storylines, character developments and interactions with great gameplay, not all resigned being to one type of enemy battle, but that to the basis of the story and timelines..

If they kept going the way with your "classical" preferences (which by the way I lvoe very much), the games would stop selling and all but kill the genre. I am open to RPGss being RPGs no matter the setting, as long as they are RPGs, which is my favorite genre to play. Now I do feel that taking an RPG, in any stroyline and making near complete action, no longer denotes anything being an RPG. But, since we only tasted the demo, we won't know until March 8, what genre, or hybrid tag can really be applied to to DA2, outside of going by this demo.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 03 mars 2011 - 11:48 .

[Kide]

Tommy6860 wrote...


I have to diagree with you on Fallout 3 big time. I agree with most of you stated in regards to your follow-up to Graunt, but you contradicted yourself with Fallout 3. No, it isn't the deep story telling that makes most RPGs great, but the story it had wasn't supposed to be like considering the barren landascapes and solitude lifestyles that are the the themes of most characters or groups. It has shooter elements, but rightfullty so considering the time-line. The dark humor in the gme was great and all questing was releavant to the main theme. It worked really well and it has decent RPG elements to it since you build your character in a theme you desire with the choices you make when creating what the person excels in best.

I love Fallouts 1&2, but Vegas was a disaster, and I don't get how you like it that while disliking 3. I will tell you why. Vegas is a near 80% clone of Fallout 3; exact same combat system, exact dialogue system, exact weapons types with different names, and it carried over all of the perks from Fallout 3. It was a reskinned Fallout 3, period. Fallout 3 took the series to a different direction and it worked really well. Now, how you like Vegas when it was a near clone of 3 is telling, outside of a few of the factions they brought back to Vegas from 1&2.

I did not say Fallout 3 was a bad game at all, but in the end I liked it less than I liked the Las Vegas, as I think it was still able to capture the spirit of the fallout series a bit better. I still do not like that style of game as much as I would like the old fallout game play style though, but this was to be expected after all the team that now did these new fallout games is the same that does Oblivion/elder scroll series.

I absolutly liked fallout 3 more as what it was than i could hope to like the Dragonage 2. Thought I still will always like the battle stly that is present in Baldurs gate more than I will ever like these more shooter styled games, the VATS system was a great idea by them though in my opinion. So you understood me wrong, I do not dislike fallout 3, but I just felt more while playing the las vegas part. Possibly because I really did not like the base story in fallout 3, as I really felt that there could have been so much more etc. But still I certanly think that it is a better game as such than Dragon age 2. The fact stays still that there are no new RPG games that I like as much as I like the old ones. And I certanly could never be as  "dissapointed" with the fallout 3 as it basicly WAS a new game as the older version really were made by a different company and a long time ago, but dragon age 2 is continuing a very recent game and is very very dissapointing as it changes so many good things to me to appeal to a more action game crowd.

[wobble55]

FearMonkey wrote...

 If the Normal Mode he was playing with was the same as the Normal Mode that was in our demo, I'm not sure why he had to concentrate so hard because I had no problem at all with the Hayder fight. *shrug*

Probably because, as I said, he WASN"T playing on "normal".

[FearMonkey]

wobble55 wrote...

FearMonkey wrote...

 If the Normal Mode he was playing with was the same as the Normal Mode that was in our demo, I'm not sure why he had to concentrate so hard because I had no problem at all with the Hayder fight. *shrug*

Probably because, as I said, he WASN"T playing on "normal".

He was playing on Normal. It shows it in the video. I can't give you an accurate timestamp right now cuz I'm at work and those videos are blocked here, but at one point he goes to the options and it shows that he's playing on Normal.

[RelentlessEcho]

Love the demo.

The controls were great and better than the clunky combat of the original. It is more responsive and feels a bit more realistic, whenever you issued a command in DAO it felt just like you were giving a command. No immersion at all. And so far the story seems to be somewhat generic but then again it's a video game. But I like the way it is being told, it feels more fluid and not all over the place. The leveling system is also better than the last game, most skills were pointless and not diverse. Yet this system is a tad bit more simplified but it works. The graphics is a improvement, can't comment as much since this is an early build. The music is just great though, I always loved DAO's soundtrack this one sounds better too.

Though I have one little gripe... The length. I've been hearing that it is shorter than the original but still very good. I honestly don't mind the length if the overall quality of the game is great. So far it is on par with DAO. I think it will be better. If not I will still buy the game regardless.

Thanks for the demo

Modifié par RelentlessEcho, 03 mars 2011 - 11:30 .

[Askia32]

I think the demo was pretty solid. I loved the faster paced action, so I expect faster paced strategy when I play the full version and the game gets more difficult. The rogue and Mage class were an absolute blast to play. I loved utilizing the rogues abilities to solo the ogre when my other party member died. It adds more creativeness to how you can play the rogue instead of just getting behind the enemy and spam back stab.

The mage class was also really fun to play. Utilizing the powerful mage skills really makes you have that OP(over powered) sensation, making it easy to understand why mages are so feared in the lore. In the beginning of the game, I loved the fact that as a mage, my character wasn't in a ugly robe. Sadly, this ended in Kirkwall when my character was in a huge Catholic Priest robe.

My cons with the game; I'm still really disappointed in some of the environmental graphics and textures. It still looks a bit old gen. Sometimes it looks good, and sometimes it looks terrible. Also Flemeth in dragon form was really underwhelming for the same reasons. It's like a PS2 quality dragon in a PS3 game.  Hope that makes sense.

I really don't like that the game is told in a narrative form, although I will hold judgment on this till the full version of the game to see how it plays out. I just really hope the game will be difficult even w/o having to raise the difficulty. I also hope I will get my wish of being able to fight two full sized dragons at the same time, or if there is a war, fight in the front lines.

Modifié par Askia32, 03 mars 2011 - 11:46 .

[Tommy6860]

Kide wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...


I have to diagree with you on Fallout 3 big time. I agree with most of you stated in regards to your follow-up to Graunt, but you contradicted yourself with Fallout 3. No, it isn't the deep story telling that makes most RPGs great, but the story it had wasn't supposed to be like considering the barren landascapes and solitude lifestyles that are the the themes of most characters or groups. It has shooter elements, but rightfullty so considering the time-line. The dark humor in the gme was great and all questing was releavant to the main theme. It worked really well and it has decent RPG elements to it since you build your character in a theme you desire with the choices you make when creating what the person excels in best.

I love Fallouts 1&2, but Vegas was a disaster, and I don't get how you like it that while disliking 3. I will tell you why. Vegas is a near 80% clone of Fallout 3; exact same combat system, exact dialogue system, exact weapons types with different names, and it carried over all of the perks from Fallout 3. It was a reskinned Fallout 3, period. Fallout 3 took the series to a different direction and it worked really well. Now, how you like Vegas when it was a near clone of 3 is telling, outside of a few of the factions they brought back to Vegas from 1&2.

I did not say Fallout 3 was a bad game at all, but in the end I liked it less than I liked the Las Vegas, as I think it was still able to capture the spirit of the fallout series a bit better. I still do not like that style of game as much as I would like the old fallout game play style though, but this was to be expected after all the team that now did these new fallout games is the same that does Oblivion/elder scroll series.

I absolutly liked fallout 3 more as what it was than i could hope to like the Dragonage 2. Thought I still will always like the battle stly that is present in Baldurs gate more than I will ever like these more shooter styled games, the VATS system was a great idea by them though in my opinion. So you understood me wrong, I do not dislike fallout 3, but I just felt more while playing the las vegas part. Possibly because I really did not like the base story in fallout 3, as I really felt that there could have been so much more etc. But still I certanly think that it is a better game as such than Dragon age 2. The fact stays still that there are no new RPG games that I like as much as I like the old ones. And I certanly could never be as  "dissapointed" with the fallout 3 as it basicly WAS a new game as the older version really were made by a different company and a long time ago, but dragon age 2 is continuing a very recent game and is very very dissapointing as it changes so many good things to me to appeal to a more action game crowd.

I see what you mean, but keep in mind, Fallout 3 wasn't about having a rich story, it was more a parody on the stereoypes of "God Bless America" patriots, throwing in much dark humor with characters in the game, and it worked and made it an RPG. It was funny, seeing all of those food and drink type that make up common Americana thinking and the sadness of Cold Wars.

This John Henry Eden, signing off.