298 réponses à ce sujet

[OniRogue]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are missing the point. The problem is "instant gratification". Of course you use the low level armor. Until you find better armor. That's part of the fun. But these days even that needs to be dumbed down, so we have compagnion armor. That's less trouble for our beloved customers. I think I saw a weapon for DA2 that automatically levels up. It becomes better when you level up. Haha. That's how stupid BioWare thinks their customers are. Gameplay dev: "Maybe they don't want to search for a better sword". Marketing: "We'll give them a sword that auto levels up. Works fine as a game promototion. That'll convince them to buy the game. We need the money. Get to it. "

Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

[IRMcGhee]

Elsariel wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Question: If you put more points into Cunning, in DA2, you get to be more persuasive during conversations right? Instead of the Persuade skill. So if I need 22 Cunning to be able to max out my lockpicking skill, I am automatically forced to play a "charming" character. Kind of sucks if I don`t want my character to be charming at all, just good at picking locks.

Wait, what?  Don't you  have the option to turn on the charm or not via the dialogue wheel? As in [Persuade]?

It's more like you get a dominant personality based on your dialogue picks, the one you use the most is used to determine the tone used for scripted responses (there's several places in the demo you can see this). I don't know how many responses it takes to override your current personality. There's also supposed to be extra dialogue choices based on your dominant personality at times, pretty much the same idea as Persuade/Intimidate only I don't believe there's a skill/stat check involved (i.e. the option only appears if your personality choices allow it). No idea if they also have stat-based choices too as in DA:O.

I quite like that system, keeps you honest. No compromising your character's concept (you know, roleplaying.) just to get a "better" outcome. 

 

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 28 février 2011 - 06:21 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

OniRogue wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are missing the point. The problem is "instant gratification". Of course you use the low level armor. Until you find better armor. That's part of the fun. But these days even that needs to be dumbed down, so we have compagnion armor. That's less trouble for our beloved customers. I think I saw a weapon for DA2 that automatically levels up. It becomes better when you level up. Haha. That's how stupid BioWare thinks their customers are. Gameplay dev: "Maybe they don't want to search for a better sword". Marketing: "We'll give them a sword that auto levels up. Works fine as a game promototion. That'll convince them to buy the game. We need the money. Get to it. "

Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

I would beleieve that if all the other signs were not there. You can isolate each case and try to rationalzie them to make them invalid one by one. To me it doesn't change the overall picture, though. It stares me in the eyes.

The only thing people want these days is "to beat the game". And combat is the way to do it. So, BioWare needs to make that as attractive as they can with over the top combat animations and dumb down anything in between combat. Because, you know, RPGs are hard to swallow. Great cinematics during breaks for the lulz. And that's about it. ME2 followed a similar route.

[Blablabla79]

Aidunno wrote...
We cannot judge what the full game is going to be like from an out of date combat demo. Once we have our hands on the full game we can provide better judgement on what works and what doesn't to influence the next game....

It is Biowares fault for releasing an "out of date combat demo". ( What makes you sure it is "out of date"?) A demo is there to tell people what they get when they buy the game, the purpose of a demonstration is to allow people to JUDGE the game BEFORE THEY WASTE MONEY ON IT. So your whole reasoning is bull****.

If Bioware wants my money they need to convince me their game is worth the money. If they fail to do that with their demonstration, they can't argue (like you did) that the actual game will be much better and that the demo is not good at showing that and/or is outdated.

How can you defend Bioware deliberately choosing an "out of date" demonstration of the game?????
I am not going to buy a pig in a poke!
And anyone who tries to tell people it is fine if Bioware wants to sell a pig in a poke, is just ***********************************************.

[ManiacalEvil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

OniRogue wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are missing the point. The problem is "instant gratification". Of course you use the low level armor. Until you find better armor. That's part of the fun. But these days even that needs to be dumbed down, so we have compagnion armor. That's less trouble for our beloved customers. I think I saw a weapon for DA2 that automatically levels up. It becomes better when you level up. Haha. That's how stupid BioWare thinks their customers are. Gameplay dev: "Maybe they don't want to search for a better sword". Marketing: "We'll give them a sword that auto levels up. Works fine as a game promototion. That'll convince them to buy the game. We need the money. Get to it. "

Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

I would beleieve that if all the other signs were not there. You can isolate each case and try to rationalzie them to make them invalid one by one. To me it doesn't change the overall picture, though. It stares me in the eyes.

The only thing people want these days is "to beat the game". And combat is the way to do it. So, BioWare needs to make that as attractive as they can with over the top combat animations and dumb down anything in between combat. Because, you know, RPGs are hard to swallow. Great cinematics during breaks for the lulz. And that's about it. ME2 followed a similar route.

So they shouldn't be attractive? You shouldn't feel great at the beggining of the game, but rather be frustrated? There should be plain dialogue instead of cinematics»? 

[AngryFrozenWater]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

OniRogue wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are missing the point. The problem is "instant gratification". Of course you use the low level armor. Until you find better armor. That's part of the fun. But these days even that needs to be dumbed down, so we have compagnion armor. That's less trouble for our beloved customers. I think I saw a weapon for DA2 that automatically levels up. It becomes better when you level up. Haha. That's how stupid BioWare thinks their customers are. Gameplay dev: "Maybe they don't want to search for a better sword". Marketing: "We'll give them a sword that auto levels up. Works fine as a game promototion. That'll convince them to buy the game. We need the money. Get to it. "

Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

I would beleieve that if all the other signs were not there. You can isolate each case and try to rationalzie them to make them invalid one by one. To me it doesn't change the overall picture, though. It stares me in the eyes.

The only thing people want these days is "to beat the game". And combat is the way to do it. So, BioWare needs to make that as attractive as they can with over the top combat animations and dumb down anything in between combat. Because, you know, RPGs are hard to swallow. Great cinematics during breaks for the lulz. And that's about it. ME2 followed a similar route.

So they shouldn't be attractive? You shouldn't feel great at the beggining of the game, but rather be frustrated? There should be plain dialogue instead of cinematics»?

You know the answer to that, don't you?

[Sierra Crysis]

I agree with the OP.

Is there some diluting? Absolutely.

Is the overall project watered down? Nope.

The addition of rivalry/friendship companion dialogue and romances.
The different cinematics and story mechanics based on your class.
The improved gameplay mechanics.
The increased value of each stat.
The entire plot/story-telling device is a step in the right direction and away from their classic, gain followers, defeat the evil lines.
Helmet toggles.
The ability to move party on consoles within the pause feature.
Multi-phased "Raid-like" boss monsters that require complex placement of companions and proper talent use.
Less Heal-spam, more brain-function.
270 PC ability choices, 90 per class. 25-35 choices per game on a given class. Much replayability here.
Increased Specialization worth. 10 ability choices as opposed to only 4.
Beautiful overhall of Archer archtype.
Addition of viable 2H tank archtype.
Balancing of Mage and removal of ridiculous "Do everything-Wear everything" Arcane Warrior.
Imported choices from DA:O, DA:A, DA:Golems.

Finally, I would love for people to stop comparing DA2, a stand-alone game, to DA and all of its DLC/Expansion. Have some faith, and you will see some great returns.

Modifié par Sierra Crysis, 28 février 2011 - 06:30 .

[StowyMcStowstow]

Sierra Crysis wrote...

I agree with the OP.

Is there some diluting? Absolutely.

Is the overall project watered down? Nope.

The addition of rivalry/friendship companion dialogue and romances.
The different cinematics and story mechanics based on your class.
The improved gameplay mechanics.
The increased value of each stat.
The entire plot/story-telling device is a step in the right direction and away from their classic, gain followers, defeat the evil lines.
Helmet toggles.
The ability to move party on consoles within the pause feature.
Multi-phased "Raid-like" boss monsters that require complex placement of companions and proper talent use.
Less Heal-spam, more brain-function.
270 PC ability choices, 90 per class. 25-35 choices per game on a given class. Much replayability here.
Increased Specialization worth. 10 ability choices as opposed to only 4.
Beautiful overhall of Archer archtype.
Addition of viable 2H tank archtype.
Balancing of Mage and removal of ridiculous "Do everything-Wear everything" Arcane Warrior.

Pretty much this.

I hate slow combat and turn-based combat for the same reason: it just isn't practical. playing in reali time forces players to make decisions faster or they die. While I'm not really opposed to the combat-wheel-pause thing, I think that faster combat forces a player to act more strategically, like in real life, where there are no respawns or reverting to checkpoints. 

[ManiacalEvil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

ManiacalEvil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

OniRogue wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are missing the point. The problem is "instant gratification". Of course you use the low level armor. Until you find better armor. That's part of the fun. But these days even that needs to be dumbed down, so we have compagnion armor. That's less trouble for our beloved customers. I think I saw a weapon for DA2 that automatically levels up. It becomes better when you level up. Haha. That's how stupid BioWare thinks their customers are. Gameplay dev: "Maybe they don't want to search for a better sword". Marketing: "We'll give them a sword that auto levels up. Works fine as a game promototion. That'll convince them to buy the game. We need the money. Get to it. "

Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

I would beleieve that if all the other signs were not there. You can isolate each case and try to rationalzie them to make them invalid one by one. To me it doesn't change the overall picture, though. It stares me in the eyes.

The only thing people want these days is "to beat the game". And combat is the way to do it. So, BioWare needs to make that as attractive as they can with over the top combat animations and dumb down anything in between combat. Because, you know, RPGs are hard to swallow. Great cinematics during breaks for the lulz. And that's about it. ME2 followed a similar route.

So they shouldn't be attractive? You shouldn't feel great at the beggining of the game, but rather be frustrated? There should be plain dialogue instead of cinematics»?

You know the answer to that, don't you?

Not really. Not in my habits to ask questions to which I know the answer. Care to illuminate me?

[flagondotcom]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

I can't say the tactical factor is of the same strength as it was in Origins, and for a simple reason really - friendly fire. It's only present on Nightmare now, and based on the demo, I'm starting to think Nightmare might just be Hard with FF turned on.

I just don't think it was a good compromise to remove FF from lower difficulties in order to make the game easier. I admit, Nightmare in Origins doesn't seem that hard to me anymore (for several rather obvious reason), but I doubt I would have been able to survives some of the battles in the demo if FF had been turned on.

To me, this is far from ideal. Fireball, for example, was a feared and powerful spell - setting enemies on fire, knocking them down... Now it's lame and mundane, you shoot one in the middle of your party and only the enemy get fried. Not to mention Firestorm...

I think I would have rather taken Easy with FF turned than ANY other thing at all.

It's a shame, really, most things I've seen in the demo impressed me, especially the rogue (fast and nimble *finally*), and it seemed like there was much potential for even greater tactical combat... alas... I'll have to do without FF. At least for the first playthrough. Nightmare might not be fun the first time around, but I believe, based on previous experiences, that the game would be more boring without FF on subsequent playthroughs.

Oh, dear devs, oh, please have mercy on us PC gamers, please, oh, please find it in your schedules to release an upgrade for the ToolSet. Continue the legacy, leave no stone unturned, replace thy dead pet, re-oil thine engine, casteth thee shadow on thy... floor?

Wow...just...wow.  This is more or less what I would have written, given everything in this thread and multiple demo playthroughs.  I almost feel as though the sequence in the BW devs minds was:
  1.  Every time someone clicks a button, something AWESOME must happen!
  2.  Firestorm animations are AWESOME!
  3.  Firestorm is horribly OP, and even worse it will be a TPK.   Need to turn off FF.
  4.  Okay, so Firestorm remains AWESOME...but no FF unless you're on NM so that Firrestorm is still viable.
  5.  Profit???

[dirtsa90]

I thought firestorm looked awesome (all the shown spells in general ) but combat with a mage in the demo did feel less tactical and "easier" (at least to me) when I could just throw fireballs and firestorm around me without thinking of any consequences. Sadly I'm not going to experience FF since I don't think I'll be playing at nightmare, I would probably get butchered constantly. ^^'

Modifié par dirtsa90, 28 février 2011 - 07:24 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

[Aidunno]

Blablabla79 wrote...

Aidunno wrote...
We cannot judge what the full game is going to be like from an out of date combat demo. Once we have our hands on the full game we can provide better judgement on what works and what doesn't to influence the next game....

It is Biowares fault for releasing an "out of date combat demo". ( What makes you sure it is "out of date"?) A demo is there to tell people what they get when they buy the game, the purpose of a demonstration is to allow people to JUDGE the game BEFORE THEY WASTE MONEY ON IT. So your whole reasoning is bull****

....

How can you defend Bioware deliberately choosing an "out of date" demonstration of the game?????

1.. Please directly quote where I defended "...Bioware deliberately choosing an "out of date" demonstration of the game...". The quote you show doesn't. It is merely a statement of fact.

2) It has been stated multiple times by the developer the demo is an old build and I have no reason to doubt that from what I have seen in other places. There is nothing anywhere which states that this is a "full game demo" to be able to judge the full game. If it were, the inventory and character creation would not have been locked for a start. This appears to be a combat demo rather than anything else and as far as I am concerned it should be treated as such. Comments about how the game plays outside of the demo when nobody has played it is obviously pointless. We do have to wait before we know how enjoyable the full game experience is... or not.

[ManiacalEvil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

How about drowing in a city rendered in excruciating detail? DA2 is for you.

[AngryFrozenWater]

ManiacalEvil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

How about drowing in a city rendered in excruciating detail? DA2 is for you.

Don't worry. I'll buy it. Even if it's too small. Hehe. And the graphics don't impress me. If you are interested I can PM you an article which shows you a giant game world created with today's technology for both consoles and PCs. But I don't want to derail this thread any further, if you don't mind.

[AlanC9]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

Ok.... and what will you give up to get those things? The dev time has to come from somewhere.

[Morroian]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

Thats not Bioware's raison d'etre though, they're all about story, characterisation and character interaction and in these areas they are innovating in DA2.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AlanC9 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@ManiacalEvil: OK. I am bait. I'll keep it short. I want BioWare to innovate. Bring something new to the table. Integrate their story telling into the game world and finally get rid of the linear levels, small cities, forced random encounters, and static NPCs who live in them. Make the game world a stage in which the story plays. I want to drown in their world.

Ok.... and what will you give up to get those things? The dev time has to come from somewhere.

The company who implemented that technology (without the story telling) has been working on it for 5 years now.  So, the answer is time.

Edit: Please.  I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 28 février 2011 - 08:15 .

[Blablabla79]

Aidunno wrote...

Blablabla79 wrote...

Aidunno wrote...
We cannot judge what the full game is going to be like from an out of date combat demo. Once we have our hands on the full game we can provide better judgement on what works and what doesn't to influence the next game....

It is Biowares fault for releasing an "out of date combat demo". ( What makes you sure it is "out of date"?) A demo is there to tell people what they get when they buy the game, the purpose of a demonstration is to allow people to JUDGE the game BEFORE THEY WASTE MONEY ON IT. So your whole reasoning is bull****

....

How can you defend Bioware deliberately choosing an "out of date" demonstration of the game?????

1.. Please directly quote where I defended "...Bioware deliberately choosing an "out of date" demonstration of the game...". The quote you show doesn't. It is merely a statement of fact.

2) It has been stated multiple times by the developer the demo is an old build and I have no reason to doubt that from what I have seen in other places. There is nothing anywhere which states that this is a "full game demo" to be able to judge the full game. If it were, the inventory and character creation would not have been locked for a start. This appears to be a combat demo rather than anything else and as far as I am concerned it should be treated as such. Comments about how the game plays outside of the demo when nobody has played it is obviously pointless. We do have to wait before we know how enjoyable the full game experience is... or not.

By just mentioning it you express that you are fine with that decision. Don't you know that phrase? Qui tacet, consentire videtur.
You implicitly defend them by saying we should wait until we bought the full game before we judge it. Basically your "argument" above is this: 

"If you don't like the demo, buy the full game. All the critism of the demo is just because it is an old build and the points you critize will most likely be gone in the full game."

Which is the opposite of what people should do and it is the opposite of the purpose of a demo. 

==================

It is the ONLY demo they have released and it will most likely be the only demo they will release! So it has to show a sample of all we can expect in the game.
Why are you fine with Bioware releasing, as the only demo for their RPG, an outdated combat demo? Why aren't you questioning that decision?

To hammer the point home: If you go into a shop and a saleman demonstrates a product to you. Would you accept him saying that anything that doesn't work is faulty just because it is an outdated version of the product? Would you still buy it?
Or would you rather say: "I'll come back later when you can demonstrate the features of a current version of the product, you know, the one you actually sell."
Would you buy a new car after having driven the out of date and faulty predecessor of it?

How can any customer be fine with Bioware deliberately releasing an out of date demo??? Why isn't there a protest storm asking for a current version demo that shows more than just the combat in their "RPG"???

Amioran wrote...

....

In short: you roleplay a character. You choose dialogue options tied to his/her personality. The game keeps track of those choices to represent the personality of that character. You get tho choose persuade and/or intimidate options based upon the character personality (that you decided by roleplaying that character) and their strenght is decided, also, by the character approaches.

Actually you have much more weaknesses this time. In DAO if you had an high coercion skill you could persuade and/or intimidate everyone. In DA2 if your character has a persuading nature, an undirect approach, for example, s/he will not be good at intimidating and will not have options to do so.....

It is easy to play a character that can persuade guardsmen but not more educated people with a skill points based character system.I want to play a character that has no chance of persuading a noblemen etc., a character that will always fail at it, but who at the same time is able to convince average guardsmen.  How would that work in DA2?

If I understood you correctly if I choose the persuasion option all the time I will be able to persuade anyone, right?

OniRogue wrote...

...
Or the Devs were thinking that their customers are intelligent enough to decide if they want to use this weapon or not?

Just by putting in a weapon that removes even that tiny little bit of choice tells a lot about what Bioware thinks about some of their customers.

Modifié par Blablabla79, 01 mars 2011 - 07:09 .

[Blablabla79]

double post. Sorry.

Modifié par Blablabla79, 01 mars 2011 - 07:09 .

[Buffy-Summers]

Pauravi wrote...

I guess I don't see how any of that means that it has been "dumbed down".

-Conversation wheel
So the dialogue choices are in a wheel now instead of a list.  So what?
I understand maybe not liking paraphrasing, but the dialogue itself is no more simplistic, it is just spoken instead. The paraphrasing is there to reduce the redundancy of having to read and listen to the exact same lines, which just ends up in people skipping past the dialogue, and the icons are there to make the tone of the dialogue choices less ambiguous (which was an issue in DAO, too, whether you think so or not).

Well paraphrasing is one thing, saying something and it not being ANYTHING like what it was supposed to be, is not fine.  If i say "well he wont be alone in death" i mean ill kill people that killed him, not that he will be with all his dead relatives

Pauravi wrote...

- What happened to mages?
What are you talking about?  They still cast spells.  They just look cooler doing it.

The sustained cost of magic, the very long cool down on many spells,  the having to rely on the staff auto attack because you have used up all of your cool downs, its not tactical its dull

Pauravi wrote...

- Acrobatic flipping
So what?  What do animations have anything to do with "dumbing down" a game or turning it into an action game?  You still can pause the game and assign orders, and the powers have similar strategic uses, and they all still have cooldowns.  The only difference is that the character uses the power as soon as you press the button.

They wanted it faster so that they could get the action crowd, they arent going to then make the game in such a way that you will NEED to pause for any reason.

Pauravi wrote...

 Unchangeable companion armor[/b]
Once again, I don't see where the "dumbing down" is.  Planescape: Torment is often considered one of the best RPGs ever produced, and NONE of the characters can change armor, not even the PC.  Not only that, practically the entire game takes place in the city of Sigil.  Nobody in the right mind who played it would ever call it "dumbed down", though.  Companion armor amounts essentially to eye candy, it has nothing to do with how simplistic or not the game is.

I raise you Planescape Torment with Pools of radiance, the king of old school RPG, or bard's tales, or any 100s of RPG. Planescape came out during the RPG stream lining era

Pauravi wrote...

So as you rightly pointed out this is just your opinion, but saying that the game is "dumbed down" is an insult to people who enjoyed it.  Not only that, but your condescention has no basis in anything substantive, it is essentially a preference in visual style.  None of it has to do with making the game more simplistic, and certainly none of it makes it any close to an action game.

No skills, less spells, long cooldowns, more emphasize on action, healing nerf,  how can you remove things from something and make it more?

[Aidunno]

Blablabla79 wrote...

By just mentioning it you express that you are fine with that decision. Don't you know that phrase? Qui tacet, consentire videtur.
....
"If you don't like the demo, buy the full game. All the critism of the demo is just because it is an old build and the points you critize will most likely be gone in the full game."

Quoting latin does not make you correct. "silence gives consent" is hardly applicable in this context. I have never said buy the full game even if you don't like the demo and your inability to quote me shows this.

Blablabla79 wrote...

Why
are you fine with Bioware releasing, as the only demo for their RPG, an
outdated combat demo? Why aren't you questioning that decision?

This thread is not about the demo and the rights/wrongs of releasing it. Feel free to create a thread on that if you wish.

You can never take demo's which have core functionality disabled that have a direct impact on the play experience as being representative of a complete game. You also have to look at other sources of information. I would never buy a car based on a salesmans talk or even a test drive, especially a test drive where you couldn't change gears. I would also look at other sources of information. Even if a demo seems perfect I would still look to other sources.

The comments I have made in this thread are about some criticisms of the game (not the demo),  which have been made on assumptions, not fact. It may be some are justified but we do not know. Rather than saying "buy even if you don't like the game"  I would prefer to say "wait and see comments after the game is released and people know more". Common sense.

[Aidunno]

Buffy-Summers wrote...

The sustained cost of magic, the very long cool down on many spells,  the having to rely on the staff auto attack because you have used up all of your cool downs, its not tactical its dull

But you could also argue it potentially leads to more tactical thinking. Don't spam spells, use them when they are needed most.

Buffy-Summers wrote...
They wanted it faster so that they could get the action crowd, they arent going to then make the game in such a way that you will NEED to pause for any reason.

Beg to differ.. Have you seen the Gamespot video where the player was having to pause although on the 360. It's all relative to the difficulty you are playing at. I'm guessing that you played on PC where normal mode DAO required you to pause to be successful (I'm PC based as well). Normal mode in DAII is meant to be where you control a single character. Harder levels will mean you need to use all your party together, including pausing.

Buffy-Summers wrote...
No skills, less spells, long cooldowns, more emphasize on action, healing nerf,  how can you remove things from something and make it more?

Removing skills/spells sometimes means more tactics are required. Let's face it, with healing and mana clash you could defeat most enemies in DAO. Many of the spells were never used, you simply picked them up to get the spells you actually wanted. As for skills, herbalism was a skill you placed on Wynne and simply had her make any potions you wanted. My understanding is potion making exists in DA2, it simply means you don't need to drag flasks and materials around and click 99 times on the craft item button.

Quicker does not necessarily mean more "emphasize on action" although it can give that impression. I know I would prefer less jumping around and smaller weapons but that is a graphical issue, not streamlining. Less Healing nerf is good after all healing was overpowered in DAO. You could out heal most things (4 potion slots meant almost constant gulping with healing spells on top) but there is a separate thread for that.  These two elements aren't an indication of dumbing down, more that they do not match how you expect to play.

Modifié par Aidunno, 01 mars 2011 - 08:26 .

[Crunchyinmilk]

The sustained cost of magic, the very long cool down on many spells,  the having to rely on the staff auto attack because you have used up all of your cool downs, its not tactical its dull

Right, because the careful application of limited resources in battle has nothing to do with tactics, oh wait its like the definition of it...