mcpothead wrote...
attack>attack>attack watch over the top animation attack>attack>pointless **** dialogue > attack attack BORING
Go play devil may cry that whats this game is a poor copy off
kthxbai
If it isn't broke ..Don't fix it.
Débuté par
Zigzaggy
, févr. 23 2011 11:53
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
#26
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:20
Zkyire
-
- Members
- 3 449 messages
kthxbai
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:21
ZaroktheImmortal
-
- Members
- 901 messages
I didn't mind the combat so much though the dialogue wheel does feel a bit restricting in that I can only choose 3 options or more of the emotion I'm going to express what I'm going to say and how I'm going to say it rather than actually choosing what I say. I didn't mind the story so far. The changes have some good and some bad. Overall I'm not sure. I'll see how I really feel about it when the full game comes out.
#28
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:23
mcpothead
-
- Members
- 56 messages
IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
mcpothead wrote...
attack>attack>attack watch over the top animation attack>attack>pointless **** dialogue > attack attack BORING
Go play devil may cry that whats this game is a poor copy off
kthxbai
Are you 5 years old or just not been to school?
#29
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:25
Zigzaggy
-
- Members
- 191 messages
Tleining wrote...
well, i do agree that you didn't really need to apply any tactical thinking during the demo. But it was only normal difficulty. I fully expect nightmare to change that.
I don't think i have ever seen a demo that actually challenged the player.
as for the graphic: The demo is an early build, the devs already pointed out at least one improvement in the final build. And with only medium Texture Files, you can't expect too much.
Thankyou.
Yes nightmare setting would cause you to pause often and protect your mages.But IMO renders the tanking as a hack n slash boredom fest.
As DA2 uses sword...why are all the enemy exploding into bits.Really I mean really !
#30
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:26
DKJaigen
-
- Members
- 1 647 messages
mcpothead wrote...
attack>attack>attack watch over the top animation attack>attack>pointless **** dialogue > attack attack BORING
Go play devil may cry that whats this game is a poor copy off
if you say so mate. but people are entitled to their own opinions and despite that the OP and this guy are completely wrong (i believe they are playing the wrong game ) in my opinion, i can only say that is just that : an opinion and i cannot change it.
The combat so far is better then in DAO as it requires you to do more just auto attacking and use the occasional sweep or fireball. dialogue so far i liked . However i cannot judge the whole game on few tidbits of dialogue
#31
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:26
Bendok
-
- Members
- 554 messages
It's hard to judge the demo since it jumps you around a lot and obviously is skipping a lot of stuff. I am actually pretty shocked bioware did a demo for the game because I think a game like this is really hard to demo. While the OP's tone wasn't very helpful and makes any valid points he had completely lost, I do agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. I truly loved playing DA, and I hope once I get to play DA2 I love it just as much. I can't really judge anything based on the demo but I will say that archery felt a lot better and melee was a lot more visceral - these are good things as long as the main aspects of DA that made it so great weren't sacrificed on the altar of cool looking combat.
#32
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:27
Ryngard
-
- Members
- 444 messages
The ONLY difference in the combat mechanics is that instead of a boring auto-attack, you have to click for the basic attack. That's it. Everything else is identical.
The brief snippet of dialog, RPing, story, and setting is great in my opinion and I fail to see how it is any different than in DA:O.
I think some of you are stuck on the past game and are upset it isn't an exact carbon copy.
The brief snippet of dialog, RPing, story, and setting is great in my opinion and I fail to see how it is any different than in DA:O.
I think some of you are stuck on the past game and are upset it isn't an exact carbon copy.
#33
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:28
Zkyire
-
- Members
- 3 449 messages
mcpothead wrote...
IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
mcpothead wrote...
attack>attack>attack watch over the top animation attack>attack>pointless **** dialogue > attack attack BORING
Go play devil may cry that whats this game is a poor copy off
kthxbai
Are you 5 years old or just not been to school?
You're calling us "retards" and repeatedly insulting the game too.
Why should I address you with long thought-out posts when all you're doing is "LOL DRAGON AGE 2 SUCKS AND YOU'RE ALL RETARDS FOR LIKING IT LOL"?
#34
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:29
Pauravi
-
- Members
- 1 989 messages
Zigzaggy wrote...
Graphically inferior
Demonstrably false. Art style is one thing -- that is subjective. But graphically DA2 is far superior in polygon detail and sophistication in texture and lighting. It just is.
mcpothead wrote...
You bunch of retards how can you say thats it is more tactical than DA:O
Just run arround spaming 1 button, how the fudge is that an RPG.
?? Certainly not what I did. If you did that, then you suck at combat.
I basically conducted combat the same way I did in DAO. Pause, survey field, issue attack orders, let er rip. AI is smarter, so I didn't have to micromanage partners as much, but I still found myself making decisions about positioning, whether I should use power 'X' or wait for a better opportunity, when to use potions (this was never an issue in DAO since you could chug practically as many potions as you could ever need), or how best to synergize attacks with my group. All stuff I did in DAO.
Except this time it does it faster, more responsively, and with more visual appeal.
#35
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:32
Moondoggie
-
- Members
- 3 742 messages
mcpothead wrote...
attack>attack>attack watch over the top animation attack>attack>pointless **** dialogue > attack attack BORING
Go play devil may cry that whats this game is a poor copy off
I hear all your posts in this guys voice XD
#36
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:32
Celleye
-
- Members
- 6 messages
This has to be a joke. The combat is exactly the same as in Origins, but only flashier. If you played Origins for the combat then you seriously played it wrong. The story, how can you judge a story by playing the introduction? I find everything to be improved, be it artstyle or combat. I cannot judge the story because guess what. NONE OF US HAVE PLAYED THE GAME.
I guess all you naysayers are just buthurt that you didn't get a carbon copy as Ryngard said.
I am one of the biggest fans of Origins, I have played it so many times from start to finish and I only find this to be an improvement. It took out all the bad with Origins and made it better.
I guess all you naysayers are just buthurt that you didn't get a carbon copy as Ryngard said.
I am one of the biggest fans of Origins, I have played it so many times from start to finish and I only find this to be an improvement. It took out all the bad with Origins and made it better.
#37
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:33
Pauravi
-
- Members
- 1 989 messages
Zigzaggy wrote...
IMO renders the tanking as a hack n slash boredom fest.
Uh, but tanking was an even lamer autoattack boredom fest in DAO. Whatever points you might have afforded to put in Will would be quickly eaten up by the massive stamina cost of shield bashing while wearing heavy armor, not to mention that they did sh*t for damage. Tanking in DA2 is 110% better.
#38
Guest_Aotearas_*
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:34
Guest_Aotearas_*
Guest_Aotearas_*
-
- Guests
From here: invalidcast.com/2010/06/the-if-it-isnt-broken-dont-fix-it-mentality
The "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" Mentality
Today I realised that every time I hear the phrase if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it I feel kind of uncomfortable. I fully understand the notion: the process yields the results we want, so why bother?
As it is being said, I detect the whatever works attitude emanating from the person saying it. No concept of continuous improvement. No interest in reflecting. Not even 60 seconds invested to consider whether the process is efficient or could be improved. It most cases it’s almost a canned response to any comment referring to the efficiency of a process that is considered to be working.
Maybe the process breaks once per month, causing Fred to stop what he’s doing (see Gerald Weinberg’s rule of thumb) and fix it. But, who cares, it works, and Fred doesn’t mind. Paper-based filing systems, typewriters and horse and cart worked but this didn’t exclude them all from being significantly improved by someone with the right mindset.
Applying the if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it mentality to everything is naïve; you end up with lots of suboptimal processes. Based on the fact that you never get it right the first time, processes need to evolve, and for this to happen a culture of reflection and improvement must exist.
To consider something to be either working or broken is a simple model which doesn’t leave much room for improvement. Considering the degree to which something is working is a better model that puts your mind in the right place. How reliable is the process? Can it execute quicker? Can the execution cost be reduced? We need to think about quality, not just if by some vague definition the process can be considered to be working.
I recently finished reading The Toyota Way. In the book, Jeffrey Liker explains the management philosophy behind Toyota. Interestingly, one of the principles within Toyota is to “build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time”. Liker goes on to explain the apparent productivity paradox:
So from now on, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it is banned. Stop using it. It makes you sound like you don’t care even enough to look for improvement. Things are not broken or working; they are broken or working to a certain degree and may be exposing opportunities to be improved and have their business value increased. It’s also a mistake to assume that business value can’t be increased from existing work (or processes) rather than business value just coming from new work.
You can be the one who thoughtfully creates work to a high standard, always looking to improve yourself and increase the business value in suboptimal existing work. Alternatively, be the one who doesn’t care enough to even look for improvement opportunities and would rather just churn out first versions and move on – leaving a legacy of low quality behind you. It’s your choice.
If it isn’t broken, fix it anyway.
------------------------------------------
Something to think about this, I dare say idiotic motto.
The "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" Mentality
Today I realised that every time I hear the phrase if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it I feel kind of uncomfortable. I fully understand the notion: the process yields the results we want, so why bother?
As it is being said, I detect the whatever works attitude emanating from the person saying it. No concept of continuous improvement. No interest in reflecting. Not even 60 seconds invested to consider whether the process is efficient or could be improved. It most cases it’s almost a canned response to any comment referring to the efficiency of a process that is considered to be working.
Maybe the process breaks once per month, causing Fred to stop what he’s doing (see Gerald Weinberg’s rule of thumb) and fix it. But, who cares, it works, and Fred doesn’t mind. Paper-based filing systems, typewriters and horse and cart worked but this didn’t exclude them all from being significantly improved by someone with the right mindset.
Applying the if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it mentality to everything is naïve; you end up with lots of suboptimal processes. Based on the fact that you never get it right the first time, processes need to evolve, and for this to happen a culture of reflection and improvement must exist.
To consider something to be either working or broken is a simple model which doesn’t leave much room for improvement. Considering the degree to which something is working is a better model that puts your mind in the right place. How reliable is the process? Can it execute quicker? Can the execution cost be reduced? We need to think about quality, not just if by some vague definition the process can be considered to be working.
I recently finished reading The Toyota Way. In the book, Jeffrey Liker explains the management philosophy behind Toyota. Interestingly, one of the principles within Toyota is to “build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time”. Liker goes on to explain the apparent productivity paradox:
Investing time and effort into quality from the start sounds like the slower and more expensive method to most people. Let’s just get something working and improve it later. The problem is, too many people don’t improve it later. The If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it syndrome starts instead. Liker explains how Toyota does it:Toyota management say that it’s OK to run at less than 100% of the time, even when it’s possible to run full time, yet Toyota is regularly ranked amongst the most productive plants in the auto industry. Why?
The issue of letting quality problems accumulate isn’t exclusive to the auto industry. In the software industry it results in poorly written systems being built on top of other poorly written systems that, while completed sooner than a higher quality system might have been, require increasing amounts of human attention as the accumulation of quality problems becomes too big to ignore; too big to be considered working. Needless to say, the cost of running these systems starts to increase too.Because Toyota learned long ago that solving quality problems at the source saves time and money downstream. By continually surfacing problems and fixing them as they occur, you eliminate waste, your productivity soars and competitors who are running assembly lines flat-out and letting problems accumulate get left in the dust.
So from now on, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it is banned. Stop using it. It makes you sound like you don’t care even enough to look for improvement. Things are not broken or working; they are broken or working to a certain degree and may be exposing opportunities to be improved and have their business value increased. It’s also a mistake to assume that business value can’t be increased from existing work (or processes) rather than business value just coming from new work.
You can be the one who thoughtfully creates work to a high standard, always looking to improve yourself and increase the business value in suboptimal existing work. Alternatively, be the one who doesn’t care enough to even look for improvement opportunities and would rather just churn out first versions and move on – leaving a legacy of low quality behind you. It’s your choice.
If it isn’t broken, fix it anyway.
------------------------------------------
Something to think about this, I dare say idiotic motto.
#39
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:34
Purgatious
-
- Members
- 612 messages
Its different, and we're gamers, so therefore it's worse in every regard.
Yeah I've never seen this before.
From what I've seen in this demo, its everything DA:O was, but shiny and fast, and feels like you're acutally powerful unlike in origins, with its bad combat animations, slow clunky battles, broken classes (arcane warriors much? Rogues lol, anything with a bow being useless?), lets not forget how utterly lame you looked half the time, lame armor, same robe model 90% of the time, same staves, massive armor looking the same, leather armor was pathetic, roman tunics are dead yo.
Of course the storyline was perfect as well right? I mean now that we know Dragon age 2's story lin... oh wait we know nothing about it.
Clearly this is a downgrade and we should not buy it, 'cause ya know, its not like bioware have a history of making sequals better or anything.
Yeah I've never seen this before.
From what I've seen in this demo, its everything DA:O was, but shiny and fast, and feels like you're acutally powerful unlike in origins, with its bad combat animations, slow clunky battles, broken classes (arcane warriors much? Rogues lol, anything with a bow being useless?), lets not forget how utterly lame you looked half the time, lame armor, same robe model 90% of the time, same staves, massive armor looking the same, leather armor was pathetic, roman tunics are dead yo.
Of course the storyline was perfect as well right? I mean now that we know Dragon age 2's story lin... oh wait we know nothing about it.
Clearly this is a downgrade and we should not buy it, 'cause ya know, its not like bioware have a history of making sequals better or anything.
#40
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:35
Celleye
-
- Members
- 6 messages
I also approve the new AI. My god is it awesome to actually have an AI that does something more than auto-attack, and I am glad the tactic screen was kept. The demo is getting a lot of unwarranted hate because people seem to think it is cool to hate on something that is basically the same thing as Origins but improved.
#41
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:36
Purgatious
-
- Members
- 612 messages
TLDR for my post: If it ain't broke? DA:O was broken big time buds.
#42
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:36
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
@ Zigzaggy
uh, it's also about keeping an eye on the hostiles in the area. And that was the same in Origins. Take the Deep Roads or the Walking Corpses in Redcliffe. I don't really know what you see as tactical thinking. Could you give an example?
As for the exploding enemies: That was in NWN as well. If your character is strong enough and hits a character with enough force: splatter-festival
uh, it's also about keeping an eye on the hostiles in the area. And that was the same in Origins. Take the Deep Roads or the Walking Corpses in Redcliffe. I don't really know what you see as tactical thinking. Could you give an example?
As for the exploding enemies: That was in NWN as well. If your character is strong enough and hits a character with enough force: splatter-festival
#43
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:37
Moondoggie
-
- Members
- 3 742 messages
How anyone can say the combat is worse in DAII i don't know. All it was in DAO was click,attack,wait for it to die,click on next enemy watching a sigle slash animation or bow attack or mage pew pew/pokey stick attack. At least they improved that and made the battles exciting to watch.
I think some people cling to nostalgia so much that they fail to see sense. Would you really want to play the exact same game over and over with a new story? I'm sure these same people would be complaining that they are paying for the exact same game if everything was the same.
I think some people cling to nostalgia so much that they fail to see sense. Would you really want to play the exact same game over and over with a new story? I'm sure these same people would be complaining that they are paying for the exact same game if everything was the same.
#44
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:38
Zigzaggy
-
- Members
- 191 messages
Ryngard wrote...
The ONLY difference in the combat mechanics is that instead of a boring auto-attack, you have to click for the basic attack. That's it. Everything else is identical.
The brief snippet of dialog, RPing, story, and setting is great in my opinion and I fail to see how it is any different than in DA:O.
I think some of you are stuck on the past game and are upset it isn't an exact carbon copy.
I hear you.
Origins was a more mature game .The writing had depth and gave profound meaning to your choices(so much so that you would replay the level to get it right).A little more than "hey there's some darkspawn..running would be a good choice" "an Apostate grr let me kill" "These people helped us darling calm down" " My apologies Sir , you have my sword until we are out of danger, then more grrr "
That's just bad bad bad.
#45
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:39
Maconbar
-
- Members
- 1 821 messages
Koiruoho wrote...
Ugh, I could run around in Planescape: Torment using only my right mouse button, how is that an RPG?
Hehe. I am playing that right now and yes it is a total hack and slash.
#46
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:41
Celleye
-
- Members
- 6 messages
"I hear you.
Origins was a more mature game .The writing had depth and gave profound meaning to your choices(so much so that you would replay the level to get it right).A little more than "hey there's some darkspawn..running would be a good choice" "an Apostate grr let me kill" "These people helped us darling calm down" " My apologies Sir , you have my sword until we are out of danger, then more grrr "
That's just bad bad bad."
You have not PLAYED the game.
The origin stories could also be judged as awful if you judged a whole game by it.
Origins was a more mature game .The writing had depth and gave profound meaning to your choices(so much so that you would replay the level to get it right).A little more than "hey there's some darkspawn..running would be a good choice" "an Apostate grr let me kill" "These people helped us darling calm down" " My apologies Sir , you have my sword until we are out of danger, then more grrr "
That's just bad bad bad."
You have not PLAYED the game.
The origin stories could also be judged as awful if you judged a whole game by it.
#47
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:41
Metalunatic
-
- Members
- 1 056 messages
I agree with combat to the extent where enemies get chopped in tiny pieces or turn in to red goo when they die. Then the backflips and kicking bottles with the rogue... ugh.
But still, have to remember that DA:O was about the story as all BW RPG's have been so thats not enough for me to lose interest.
But still, have to remember that DA:O was about the story as all BW RPG's have been so thats not enough for me to lose interest.
#48
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:42
Velvetmeds
-
- Members
- 106 messages
They didn't fix it, they improved it.
#49
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:42
Ollys
-
- Members
- 136 messages
Gameplay>realism.combat intensity. (not the speed/animations, mind you. A big sword is
slow, like in DAO, not something you hack about with like a fly
swatter.)
2-handed warrior in DAO were useless. Because of slow attack speed that fail at dps, as they fail in all other roles. Now with Sonic speed they can be usefull party members and all enemies all enemies won't be dead by the mage aoe spells, while warrior only brings a sword for first blow.
#50
Posté 23 février 2011 - 12:42
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
Zigzaggy wrote...
Ryngard wrote...
The ONLY difference in the combat mechanics is that instead of a boring auto-attack, you have to click for the basic attack. That's it. Everything else is identical.
The brief snippet of dialog, RPing, story, and setting is great in my opinion and I fail to see how it is any different than in DA:O.
I think some of you are stuck on the past game and are upset it isn't an exact carbon copy.
I hear you.
Origins was a more mature game .The writing had depth and gave profound meaning to your choices(so much so that you would replay the level to get it right).A little more than "hey there's some darkspawn..running would be a good choice" "an Apostate grr let me kill" "These people helped us darling calm down" " My apologies Sir , you have my sword until we are out of danger, then more grrr "
That's just bad bad bad.
O_O you just agreed and then posted pretty much the exact opposite. Do you agree or disagree?
