298 réponses à ce sujet

[Aidunno]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Which is why you improve upon what you had rather than throw it all away for a streamlining crowd pleaser. I have no idea how many people played races other than human. I know I played all the Origin stories but I don't know what anyone else did.

Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. Bioware are after selling games to as many people as possible. The majority rules. Why spend time developing things which few people use? How many complaints were there that the main char in DAO wasn't voiced? I remember a load. Only by trying new things can things be improved. We cannot judge what the full game is going to be like from an out of date combat demo.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 may be that some of us do not like it, others will love it. I have reservations about some of the directions taken in DA2 but not from the demo. I can see the complexity behind the scenes and appreciate that even the streamlining we have seen doesn't necessarily equate to "dumbing down". Like everything I've seen, no, but I still expect to enjoy the game as a whole.

Modifié par Aidunno, 28 février 2011 - 02:21 .

[rob_k]

The point is, Arttis, is that you don't have options clearly labeled as persuade/intimidate anymore. There are no stats tracking as well when it comes to dialog (outside of tracking your dominant personality in terms of what dialog tone you've picked most 'and perhaps' a check when it comes to deciding what choices you've previously made with an NPC. The last one is not a definite, just an assumption.)

So, when you're in a conversation, you're going to have to look at your dialog choices. From there, you're going to have to then think about what character you're conversing with and then make a judgement call as to what the correct option is for how you want them to respond.

In DA: O, I could just look at the intimidate and persuade options and know I'll automatically succeed because I've invested in the relevant skills/attributes.

I much prefer this system.

Modifié par rob_k, 28 février 2011 - 02:20 .

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...

I ahve yet to see a presuasion going on in DA2....

Because you have played the game and you didn't find any? Oh, wait... you didn't play DA2, isn't it?

Arttis wrote...
I thought its only realistic if you can fail/suceed.Instead of it being set in stone.

Actually it is set in stone with coercion skills (as in DAO) because if you have an high skill check you will always succeed, no matter who you face. Instead with the system on DA2 if you have a direct approach with someone that doesn't like that approach you will fail.

Arttis wrote...
It should also let me know when I am trying to presuade and not going about things normally.

You will. There will appear an option depending on your approaches. If are persuading then you will have a persuasion dialogue path that a direct approaching PC will not have.

[SandyWB]

Short answer: Yes, I believe DA2 proves that you can streamline a game without dumbing it down. We'll have to wait and see for the final game, but I have a good feeling about it. I also think that Mass Effect 2 managed to prove this, but I know others will disagree with me on that.

[Darji]

Aldandil wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Amioran wrote...
Having a race only to play doesn't meant at all that the game is being "dumbed" down, actually it can be all the contrary.

If you have a game that let you chose 4 paths but all those paths are linear and without depth, and you have another game that have only 1 path but this last has many non linear branches and depth, what will you prefer for complexity? Let me guess.

It does if it previously had more. It means less options which is the very definition of streamlining. Or dumbing down as it's called around here.

See all my earlier posts I've already answered it.

Are you asking if I like JRPGs ? Would I prefer Hawke had a set personality for better development, sure. Would I try to argue that was not dumbing down from DA ? I would not.

You can point at any number of examples and say well X had this, but we already know what Dragon Age had and what is left, so those examples are fairly pointless.

So as soon as there are fewer options within a particular field, the game is dumbed down? That's an oversimplification, since you have to take into account the removed options had. As I've said before, there are hundreds of thousands more ways you can customize character appearance in DA2 compared with BG. Is DA2 therefore a more sophisticated game than BG?

Yeah like a Hawke with or without beard. This is not an important feature and perosnally i  wouldnt even mind if you couldnt change the look at all as long i get a deep RPG experience.

[Tleining]

@ Arttis
in Origins, with 4 Skill-Points in Deft Hands, and 22 (i think) Points in Cunning, you could open every lock. Now you actually have to dump 40 Points into Cunning to do that. You have to specialize your Party. In Origins, both Leli and Zevran were able to pick locks (i set that up). In DA2, I'm probably only going to make one Rogue my Thief.
Talents: yeah, i'm not quite sure about that. I think we received additional Talent Points in every game so far, it would make sense to get some here as well. The Question is: Do we have any official confirmation on it one way or another? Worrying about their existence is okay, but saying that DA2 took Talent Points away, even though we don't know for sure is just asking for trouble.

[Zigzaggy]

@ Aldandil

Stop trying to confine your argument ..it's disingenious .It isn't streamlined within a particular field.The whole game is streamlined...so dumbed down is an adaquate description.

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...

I ahve yet to see a presuasion going on in DA2....

Because you have played the game and you didn't find any? Oh, wait... you didn't play DA2, isn't it?

Arttis wrote...
I thought its only realistic if you can fail/suceed.Instead of it being set in stone.

Actually it is set in stone with coercion skills (as in DAO) because if you have an high skill check you will always succeed, no matter who you face. Instead with the system on DA2 if you have a direct approach with someone that doesn't like that approach you will fail.

Arttis wrote...
It should also let me know when I am trying to presuade and not going about things normally.

You will. There will appear an option depending on your approaches. If are persuading then you will have a persuasion dialogue path that a direct approaching PC will not have.

With corecion you can fail and you could succeeed if your skill was not high enough.
Having presuasion come entirely from personality is dumb.
Anyone can have self control.Or does our hawke work entirely off emotion.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
I liked the skill checks.

This is another thing. You can like more one system in respect to another, but it's totally a different thing saying that there are no persuading options. They are simply approached in another manner, with a more "realistic" approach.

Can I play an evil SOB with a silver tongue ? Not in Dragon Age II.

There are plenty of examples of charismatic evil figures, so I don't see how you can invoke "realism" here.

This is one of those areas where I feel a hit that echos back to my PnP roleplaying days when I was a child. On character creation, everything starts at the ground level and is built up fairly equally for everyone. You put attributes points here and there, same for skill points, ect. The player has an idea of how they want to play their character, their character's personality and guiding ethos. I like the idea of a persuade skill because a player has to put effort in selecting that skill as they level up. Without such a skill, any character can be persuasive without much effort. Hopefully attributes still add something to it but the old-school roleplayer in me wants characters to have a skill availible and to be able to use it throughout the game. It adds something to a character to build them up as persuasive and to put ranks in the skill. To allow everyone the option of persuasion, even the min/maxing strength based barbarians out there, would suck. Hopefully the game hasn't tossed out Cunning points for modifying success rates.

[rob_k]

Arttis wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...

I ahve yet to see a presuasion going on in DA2....

Because you have played the game and you didn't find any? Oh, wait... you didn't play DA2, isn't it?

Arttis wrote...
I thought its only realistic if you can fail/suceed.Instead of it being set in stone.

Actually it is set in stone with coercion skills (as in DAO) because if you have an high skill check you will always succeed, no matter who you face. Instead with the system on DA2 if you have a direct approach with someone that doesn't like that approach you will fail.

Arttis wrote...
It should also let me know when I am trying to presuade and not going about things normally.

You will. There will appear an option depending on your approaches. If are persuading then you will have a persuasion dialogue path that a direct approaching PC will not have.

With corecion you can fail and you could succeeed if your skill was not high enough.
Having presuasion come entirely from personality is dumb.
Anyone can have self control.Or does our hawke work entirely off emotion.

Arttis,

I've never had one persuasion or intimidate check fail yet, I believe... but that is because I always buy all coercion skills.

Also, see my above post.

Edit: I've only ever played a warrior really, so that could be one reason why the intimidate always works due to boosting strength. But I really don't remember persuade failing either, as I buy the skills and only invest the minimum amount of cunning. If some did fail, it wouldn't be many at all. (It was quite a while ago since I played through tot he end. Only level 9 on my current playthrough.)

Modifié par rob_k, 28 février 2011 - 02:27 .

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...
With corecion you can fail and you could succeeed if your skill was not high enough.

In fact. High skill = always succeed, no matter the characteristics of who you are talking with. Realistic, isn't it?

Arttis wrote...
Having presuasion come entirely from personality is dumb.

Really? So real life approaches are dumb, I get it. You must be one that hates life.

Arttis wrote...
Anyone can have self control.Or does our hawke work entirely off emotion.

When you talk you don't think. Talk comes from emotion, or do you think a case that yogi considers the logos the exteriorization of the ego? You can have self control, but persuasion or intimidation comes from your nature. If you are a direct guy you will be much better at intimadating than persuading. You can naturally try, but you will fail in most of cases.

[Arttis]

Tleining wrote...

@ Arttis
in Origins, with 4 Skill-Points in Deft Hands, and 22 (i think) Points in Cunning, you could open every lock. Now you actually have to dump 40 Points into Cunning to do that. You have to specialize your Party. In Origins, both Leli and Zevran were able to pick locks (i set that up). In DA2, I'm probably only going to make one Rogue my Thief.
Talents: yeah, i'm not quite sure about that. I think we received additional Talent Points in every game so far, it would make sense to get some here as well. The Question is: Do we have any official confirmation on it one way or another? Worrying about their existence is okay, but saying that DA2 took Talent Points away, even though we don't know for sure is just asking for trouble.

more cunning to unlock i believe and fix.
cunning inscreases crit chance/crit damage/defense...much more important this time.Since it adds damage and defense it can be turned into a dump stat that does even more with less....dumbed down?
With the old rogue you could do that with dex but heavily armed opponents would take much longer to kill and would take far less time with cunning.
I havent even heard of armor penetration this time around....

[Zigzaggy]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I see the loss of choices as a failing and not streamlining. I don't like that I can't change my companions appearances, their specializations, etc. I also don't like that we can only play this one person(Hawke). I like choice and DAII has much less than Origins.

Just wait till release...in the meantime take note of all the resident kisasses who troll the boards.

Come release they will be gone from the forum or complaining vehemently

[Arttis]

Amioran wrote...

Arttis wrote...
With corecion you can fail and you could succeeed if your skill was not high enough.

In fact. High skill = always succeed, no matter the characteristics of who you are talking with. Realistic, isn't it?

Arttis wrote...
Having presuasion come entirely from personality is dumb.

Really? So real life approaches are dumb, I get it. You must be one that hates life.

Arttis wrote...
Anyone can have self control.Or does our hawke work entirely off emotion.

When you talk you don't think. Talk comes from emotion, or do you think a case that yogi considers the logos the exteriorization of the ego? You can have self control, but persuasion or intimidation comes from your nature. If you are a direct guy you will be much better at intimadating than persuading. You can naturally try, but you will fail in most of cases.

I hear things can be taught and learned.Sometimes through experience.
Also some skill checks require a high cunning in adition to the full skills.

Modifié par Arttis, 28 février 2011 - 02:28 .

[Amioran]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
This is one of those areas where I feel a hit that echos back to my PnP roleplaying days when I was a child. On character creation, everything starts at the ground level and is built up fairly equally for everyone. You put attributes points here and there, same for skill points, ect. The player has an idea of how they want to play their character, their character's personality and guiding ethos. I like the idea of a persuade skill because a player has to put effort in selecting that skill as they level up. Without such a skill, any character can be persuasive without much effort. Hopefully attributes still add something to it but the old-school roleplayer in me wants characters to have a skill availible and to be able to use it throughout the game. It adds something to a character to build them up as persuasive and to put ranks in the skill. To allow everyone the option of persuasion, even the min/maxing strength based barbarians out there, would suck. Hopefully the game hasn't tossed out Cunning points for modifying success rates.

As I said, both approaches have pros and cons. A drawback of skills is that they are mechanical, because a real conversation is not a matematic approach. While it can be a simbolic representation of what happens, it still lacks momentum and naturality.

It naturally has also many pros, as for example, the fact that you can have more shades to apply to a character, depending on the system and if it is done well.

[keginkc]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Like many I was worried Dragon Age 2 would be a hack n' slash videogame based on the early developer comments about streamlining, accessibility and "something awesome happens."  The demo has come out though and I for one think the tactical gameplay shines as much as before, if not more so, and the changes are for the better (other than the lack of "isometric" camera distance).

The speed of animations and positioning does a lot to make combat more fun while not at all watering down tactics.  The menu system's clear and simple layout offers all the same options as before but in a more concise manner.  The focus on fun, while still being a tactical RPG, is felt with every powerful backstab or twirl of a wizard's staff.  The unique art style remings me of Team Fortress 2 in how it allows for instant recognition and clean lines, distinctive and unique in a crowded (for 20+ years now) genre of medievil fantasy.

For years I have been seeing "accessible" and "streamlining" as horrible buzzwords that actually mean simplification and dumber.  One could argue Bioware's last game, Mass Effect 2, lost a little too much of the RPG aspects in order to streamline and become more accessible.  Dragon Age 2 though?  It seems to me that it is the model to follow for making RPGs more accessible and fun without losing what they are.  Fun combat, easy to understand but challenging to master.  Fast and exciting animations, yet a deep tactical base.  It's more broad in appeal yet still the same core game, and it loses very little complexity.

Thoughts?

Agree completely.  And I personally thought Mass Effect 2 didn't really lose much from ME1.  Maybe they could have rebuilt Mass Effect's inventory system from the ground up instead of scrapping it, but either way, it was awful in the first game, and I frankly enjoyed the game more without it.  Leveling up and everything else was fine.

Part of the magic of the first Mass Effect was discovery.  Discovering the universe, discovering the characters.  Mass Effect 2 could never match that, because the (game) world was established.  Sequel syndrome.  But, as it turns out, in my opinion, the gameplay of ME2 was so much better
than the first game's, that it balanced out that loss.  Even when the story was a bit of a letdown (again IMO...), the game as a whole was better, and set up what I expect to be a phenomenal final chapter.

That's what I expect may happen in Dragon Age 2 (well, not the setup part...).  The world is no longer new.  The people and creatures who inhabit it are no longer new.   Now the focus will be, entirely, on Hawke's story, on one hand, and the gameplay, on the other.  And if the demo is any indication - once again in my opinion - it's going to be a much better game. I thought it maintained all of the tactical aspects of the first game, but looked better, moved faster, had a far better skill system, and  I believe that, if playing the main game is anything like playing the demo, it's going to be a lot more fun.

[Amioran]

Arttis wrote...
I hear things can be taught and learned.Sometimes through experience.

And you heard badly. Nature doesn't change just from experience. Your real "self" is immovable and will not change. What changes is only the externalization of it, the ego, that, however, still comes from the self.

You can learn, certainly, but there will be always some things that are more close to your nature than others, and either things that aren't at all in your nature, and you will never be good at, no matter how much you try.

Arttis wrote...
Also some skill checks require a high cunning in adition to the full skills.

Still is matematic, and dialogue is not a mathematical operation.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 février 2011 - 02:36 .

[Mad-Max90]

Wow... I'm Shepard and this is my favourit thread on the forums, I agree with everything op has said, that being said, o realize there are a lot of members going to try and come up with a lot of reasons why they feel they're being "cheated" but alas I do hate the term being "dumbed down" especially because those who say it are eleitist with a mindset of " they want to broaden their fanbase, well now that it's popular with a new demographic I must insult the new audience as well as the game" and it's dissapointing. So I enjoyed bulletstorm for what it was, that does not mean I am a dumb twelve year old who plays fps with big hulking giants, I enjoy all games, I even happen to prefer bioware games, and I hate it when my intelligence is questioned because of the fact I play games lke call of duty and gears of war, they're great gamea and I'll stick by them as much as I would DA2

[AngryFrozenWater]

Aldandil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BioWare have removed all skills, reduced the number of talents/spells in the lower levels which reduced the overall number at higher levels by about 8, there seems to be only one type of healing potion that fits in the quick heal slot (I assume all other types are gone), the same goes for lyrium potions, no signs of stamina potions, the over the top combat animations seem to be designed for an age group which is not supposed to play the game, because that same age group wants action they have increased to cooldown times of healing spells and potions, the dialogue wheel was designed for people who are not willing to read text (they now can click on icons instead). So, no. I don't think they have succeeded at all. The word streamlined doesn't seem to come close. It is just dumbed down.

I'd say that most of your argument are mostly based in what you like or dislike, rather than in what is more or less complicated which must be the definition for what is or isn't "dumbed down".  Furthermore, "dumbed down" is clearly a comparison, in this case to DA:O, so it's not really an issue of whether something is complicated or not, it's an issue of whether it's complicated in comparison to DA:O.

Here are some responses to your arguments in order of appearance:
1: The removal of skills: The lack of skills certainly gives you one less type choice in the game, no arguing about that. I would
like to question the impact the skills had on DA:O, though. It could be
argued that skills didn't really impact the game much, except for
possibly when you had to make a trade off between coercion and combat
skills for the main character. Apart from that, there were no tactical
ramifications to what skills you picked, considering the very low need
to use them. Saying that something is "dumbed down", less complex, just
because you have fewer choices isn't wrong, exactly, but that point
isn't really as good when those choices don't make much of a difference.
That's like saying that DA2 is infinitely more complicated than
Baldur's Gate, since there are thousands of different faces that you can
make for your character, where there are only about twenty different
portraits in BG.

2: Fewer talents on lower levels: This argument is pretty much pointless considering that we for one don't know what the leveling speed is. We gained two levels in the first two fights, basically, so even though you only start with one spell compared to DA:O's three, we quickly catch up. This could very well be a way of easing us into the game considering that the opening isn't as "cushioned" as several of the Origins openings were.

3: Only one type of health pot: That's true, that means less options. What level of impact does that have on combat in DA2 compared to DA:O? Practically none. There were always plenty of different health pots of different types. But I'll grant you that it's a bit less comlicated with one compared to several.

4: Over the top animations: That
doesn't effect game play one bit. That's like saying that chess is the
most complicated game in the world just because there are no animations
at all when you conquer a piece. It could be considered more complicated than DA2 or DA:O for other reasons, but not because of the animations.

5: Longer cooldown on pots and heals. That's nonsense. Less healing doesn't make things easier, it makes combat harder. The different levels of health pots in DA:O were on effectually made them independent of cooldowns, which certainly didn't give cause for any brain activity when trying to decide what time would be optimal for using a health pot - you could do that anytime.

6: Icons on the dialogue wheel: Here we have a yes and no. It's easier to gauge the tone of each answer now, that much is true. However, simply reading the tone of an answer is not enough to decide what that answer will be. To do that, you still need to be literate. Some would argue that it's very difficult (and therefore also complicated, requiring sincere afterthought) to pick an answer now that we only have paraphrases as a foundation when making a decision. I personally don't find it easier than before.

Aldandil,

You claim that my argument is based on what I like or dislike and it gives the impression that it somehow should invalidate my opinion. Hmm. In your reply you do the same. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't use that in an opening sentence. That's a trick commonly used, but wasted on me.

About what you wrote:

1) The "lack" of skills: Hehe. What skills? They have been removed.

I've read that some made their way to attributes. But most are gone. Removing options from the game that were previously there feels to me like dumbing down. Too bad you didn't like them. I had to make choices. Who's going to be the thief, who the herbalist, does this character need the bonus stats of survival, etc.

2) Less talents on lower levels: That causes less talents on higher levels of course. About 8 less. That's removal of stuff whenever you level up. That's less choice. To me that's part of the dumbing down.

3) Only one type of health pot: Of course that has impact. Each type had its own cool down. If you just dumb it down to one then there is only one cool down counter and if you increase the cool down, you'll further reduce its usage. Again meaning less options and forcing you into running around until your health automagically is up for action again. How is that not dumbing down? It's mind numbing even.

4) Over the top animations: It does effect the game play. I have to look at that crap. A lot has been said about this already. I won't repeat it.

5) Longer cool down on pots and heals: The intention of the longer cool down time is to encourage more offensive game play. More action. What? Why? A mage who wants to be an herbalist or an healer is suddenly left out. No. But running around to avoid damage and to heal is cooler? Huh? Or using that healing aura which disables your offensive spells. Is that punishment to enforce action? There are limits to what I can stomach.

6) Icons on the dialogue wheel: Did you look at those icons and try to find out what they are supposed to mean? The diamond icon was a good example. Money or being rich had nothing to do with it. Hehe. Let's just assume that BioWare does not want to use the wheel to dumb down dialogue options, but actually wants to contribute to the immersion of the game. Wouldn't you think that they might have at least play tested the icons and paraphrases and interviewed the testers? I have the feeling they never did. The wheel is a crap feature and its advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages. I am certainly not enjoying the game more. A perfect example of dumbing down that failed.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 28 février 2011 - 02:35 .

[Lumikki]

BobSmith101 wrote... "dumbed down"

Yes, but what your argument is that something what you consider important as needed is missing, so you consider it's dumbed down. How ever, what you don't argue is that something what you don't consider important, maybe there is more of it, so it's not dumbed down in that perspective.

Point is you only look what is lost in you perspective, you don't look what was gained from others perspective. Just because something is different as changed, doesn't make it less. It's like looking big picture, look it as hole.

Example to make you understand. There is two race to play, then it's changed one race to play, but game has two time more hair styles. Now you may not consider hair styles important, but it's just changed as how it is. 

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 février 2011 - 02:44 .

[BoneDealer]

I don't think the OP's question can truely be answered as each person can only answer with their opinion. As one will judge if DA2 is "dumbed down" based on their personal tastes and views. I think it is just human nature when an issue or question is raised you typically find opposing sides forming up. Which isn't surprising, if I like something; naturally there is someone who doesn't for those very reasons.

I don't think you can really change anyone's opinion or views on the subject, especially if they go through the trouble of expressing them on a forum, cause if they really didn't care that much they probably wouldn't bother. All you can really do is agree to disagree and move on or attempt to embark in dialog to understand why someone has views different from your own.

From what I have seen and heard of DA2 I am looking forward to it. If this tends to lump me into a group where someone may view me as immature or mental challenged for me expressing said views on the matter so be it. All I can say are some of the reasons why I feel the way I do, which is probably the reason others don't share my same view on the changes/state of the new game.

I like the new Friendship/Rivalry aspect as it allows me to better roleplay my character in the game. I no longer have to worry about playing some two-faced PC so I can improve a bar to get perks and open up additional quests with NPCs. I can just play my PC how I honestly want to and see how the NPCs react. I like the whole "I disagree with you, but I respect you" thing DA2 seems to have going on in it. You can even romance a rival! DAO should of had this, especially with someone like Morrigan. Anyways...

I love the dialog wheel. Not sure why gets so much hate, its just one of those personal taste things. Also being a fan of the voiced dialog (I wish the DAO landsmeet or the final battle pep talk had been similar to the ME1 Normandy pep talk, but again that's just me). For me DAO dialog's system was kinda annoying, but then again prior to DAO I had already been exposed to ME1's dialog wheel. So I got annoyed when the NPC had their dialog and then I'd read through all the choices which put this pause in the flow of the conversation. Then they would carry on with my mute PC who really couldn't offer any visable emotion or audible weight to the conversation taking place.

In ME you could check out the wheel while the PC was chatting and could make a decision and then your PC would chime in on cue without the pause. In the DA2 demo this dialog model seems to have been greatly improved upon as the Hawke family's conversations in my play throughs flowed naturally, just like custom-crafted cutscenes (I hope the DA2 guys are sharing their notes on this with the ME3 guys).

Fixed NPC apearence. I actually like this one too oddly enough. One of the reasons is really stupid, as because if they had went with a system like this in DAO we'd have probably had a horned qunari Sten instead of the hornless uninspiring "large braided hair"-human qunari Sten (as well as all the other bland qunari npcs found in DAO). Because Sten was a NPC and he had to be able to use all the armor models he couldn't deviate too far from the base model. With the fixed appearance method we can have truely unique NPCs. And unlike in ME2 you can still modify them through optional means and they will change their appearence over the course of the game (None of this "why is Jack wearing he street close in space enviorment? Guess it must be the biotics??"). Actually DAO did have fixed NPC appearence with Dog and Shale.

I like the combat seen in DA2; as it seems more lively and full of action. But that is just my personal taste. Some people prefer for example the Jedi fighting reminiscent of the SW:New Hope Obiwan vs. Darth Vader over the SW:Revenge of the Sith Obiwan vs. Anikan Skywalker saber duels. Since we only have 3 classes to choose from I like they are distinctively different from one another.

Anyways those are some of the reasons why I don't think DA2 is "dumbed down"/"inferior-to" DAO. In my opinion the answer would be yes. You can streamline (improve-upon) a game and not make it "dumbed down"/less-than it's predessor.

[Tleining]

@ Arttis
no, it's 22 Cunning, Level 12. Also, in DA2, cunning increases Crit/Damage, Dexterity Crit/Chance. High Cunning would be good for Archers, but for someone who fights at close range, slightly more Strength would be useful as well.
Also, this is pretty much the same as in Origins. For a strong Archer, i would dump everything into Dex and Cunning, in Awakening i would respec them and dump everthing above 22 from Cunning to Strength.

[rob_k]

If you're referring to talent points given per level-up to spend on talents, that's simply incorrect. I'll state again you got 1 per level up.

Then you had the tomes and the occasional one awarded for completing quests/main campaign progression.

For all we know, you can still gain bonus talent points in DA 2 in addition to levelling.

And this'll be the last time I state it.

[Gabriel S.]

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?