1216 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Mezinger wrote...
Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

They will be linked to your personaility. Diplomatic characters will get the most. No more being able to play an evil but charming character. Guess we all have to be tools like Renegade Shepard now..

[Grunk]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mezinger wrote...
Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

They will be linked to your personaility. Diplomatic characters will get the most. No more being able to play an evil but charming character. Guess we all have to be tools like Renegade Shepard now..

No, they said different NPCs respond differently to different things. Some might like diplomacy, some might go for charm and humor, some might be cowed by threats. And diplomacy doens't necessarily mean good. Would you be diplomatic with the demonic thing trying to possess you, or just stab it?

I am curious/anxious about how the persuasion will play out, though.

[AlanC9]

hakwea wrote...

Its f unny you come to a conclusion that wasn't even hinted at. Because anyone should be able to learn a skill that anyone in an actual "world" could learn means that there should be no classes? So the only thing making a rogue a rogue is the ability to lockpick? What a bland class and a design that falls short on so many levels.

A warrior isn't the only one able to weild a sword by virtue of them being a warrior. Allowing other classes to have skill with weapons and armor doesn't remove the warrior from being a class. Because it is so much more then just that. So why can't anyone open a lock with rogues getting bonuses?

But then what makes a class in the first place? Anyone can learn any skill, so what can't a warrior do that a rogue can do, and why can't he do it?

[Yamsandjams]

hakwea wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I'm not seeing why you want a system with classes in the first place. Or do you?

Its f unny you come to a conclusion that wasn't even hinted at. Because anyone should be able to learn a skill that anyone in an actual "world" could learn means that there should be no classes? So the only thing making a rogue a rogue is the ability to lockpick? What a bland class and a design that falls short on so many levels.

There's something about classless systems that just irk me... Kind of like what they do with Elder Scrolls games. I guess it does present some interesting opportunities for character customization though. But keeping it nice and simple isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not only can games be developed more easily and quickly, you don't get bogged down with so many choices you just stop caring.

For anyone that has tried to level up a character using the D&D 4th Edition character builder from WotC, it gets tiring quick. The last thing you need is being present with literally 100s of options upon levelling up... I mean yeah, it's pretty awesome on one level, but it really sucks on another level. How many of those options will end up being used a significant amount of times anyways? It's like crossbows in DA:O... I never found any use for them, other than perhaps that mission in Awakening where your gear gets temporarily stolen, but probably not even then. Or in games like NWN2, theres some feats which pretty much go unused (i.e. expert tactitian or most of the skill focuses). Why even bother putting them in unless they get their fair share of use? It's just a waste of space that every player ends up paying for. Besides, if your a new gamer (yeah, people aren't born gamers out of the womb) you don't want to get hit with something like that Dragon Strike boardgame on your first foray into RPGs. I find alienating hardcore gamers in that respect tragic as well, but I think it's an understandable position. I've always got D&D to fall back on anyways.

Seriously though... it's probably best to treat DA2 (or any game) for what it is. Kinda like FFXIII, it was a good game in it's own right, but probably not the most notable in the FF series. Still logged some good time on it though, and had fun.

Modifié par Yamsandjams, 05 mars 2011 - 10:00 .

[Yamsandjams]

Grunk wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mezinger wrote...
Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

They will be linked to your personaility. Diplomatic characters will get the most. No more being able to play an evil but charming character. Guess we all have to be tools like Renegade Shepard now..

No, they said different NPCs respond differently to different things. Some might like diplomacy, some might go for charm and humor, some might be cowed by threats. And diplomacy doens't necessarily mean good. Would you be diplomatic with the demonic thing trying to possess you, or just stab it?

I am curious/anxious about how the persuasion will play out, though.

I like that taking the "middle" response in the conversation isn't going to be a throwaway response. In ME1 & ME2, most of the conversations could've removed the "neutral" response since there was typically no point to saying it over the "paragon" or "renegade" options. The only times I can think of you'd use the neutral response in ME was if the renegade response declined acceptance of a quest, or you wanted to be sure you didn't romance a companion without being mean or whatnot.

EDIT: Also, if you noticed in the demo, you acquired 15 friendship points for Bethany if you picked the aggressive response towards Wesley, whereas the other responses only earned you 10. So it kind of flipped around, an agressive response earned you more friednship points with a companion.

Modifié par Yamsandjams, 05 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[AkiKishi]

Baelyn wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

True of PST and KOTOR, with hindsight. Not true of the others.

Easy way to test. You know I'll play Hawke in DA2, you know I would play TNO in PST. You know post twist I will be playing Revan in KOTOR. But you have no idea who my character in DA or BG would be.

It's you who is factually wrong here.

The Warden is the Warden and the Bhaalspawn is the Bhaalspawn. You have some control over the Warden with the Origins, but the Origins themselves are pre-set characters, and there's no player input at all over the character's background in Baldur's Gate.

You're wrong, the character as it relates to his personality, the way he says things, the way he thinks, etc are not actually spelled out for you in bg2 or any other bioware game outside of the new **** like ME1/2 and now DA2. VO'd protag removes any room for the player to decide who his character really is fundamentally. Which is fine i guess but if i wanted to read a book or watch a movie i would do those things instead. Also the articles analysis of the wheel as it relates to DA2 was spot on. Any iteration of the wheel with a morality or intent pigeon holes the player in to specific choices if they wish to retain any sense of immersion. Not that i expect anyone to be immersed at any point during gameplay anyway, but if they somehow do become immersed it would be broken immediately after choosing an intent which isn't representative of your previous choices. So basically you can RP Hawke ABC style, if you even bother to rp at all.

What you are failing to see is that it is the SAME system that was in DA:O. Whether you hear the voice or not...no matter what selection you picked in DA:O...how YOU intended it to sound and with what inflection...ended with you. Because the fact of the matter is that when you actually clicked that button your character triggered what the DEVELOPERS intended that statement to imply and sound like. It is only the ILLUSION that you are saying exactly what you want with exactly the same tone. How many times in DA:O did I pick one statement thinking I was implying one thing, to have the character react in a totally different manner, leaving me thinking..."wait...that is not at all what I meant by that."

In DA2 the only difference is there is not the mask there that allows your imagination to think you said something one way. Either way at the end of the day the game is only as smart as the people that program it and will only react to what they have pre-planned.

So in DA:O having an unvoiced character is exactly the same as DA2's voiced protag only you are given more of a directive it what the implication of the statements you choose....a well needed addition in my opinion.

The backgrounds in DA were only a part of the character. You can make choices for Hawke but you can't roleplay him. You don't need to roleplay him because any of the choices fit, since they are all written for that character anyway.

[AkiKishi]

Grunk wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mezinger wrote...
Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

They will be linked to your personaility. Diplomatic characters will get the most. No more being able to play an evil but charming character. Guess we all have to be tools like Renegade Shepard now..

No, they said different NPCs respond differently to different things. Some might like diplomacy, some might go for charm and humor, some might be cowed by threats. And diplomacy doens't necessarily mean good. Would you be diplomatic with the demonic thing trying to possess you, or just stab it?

I am curious/anxious about how the persuasion will play out, though.

He was asking about what was in bold ? Dave said on one of my threads that those options are now linked to the dominant personality and that diplomatic characters will get more pursuades and presumably aggressive characters will get more intimidates.

It's not too far off what happens in ME only the mechanics will be hidden not two obvious coloured bars on your screen.

[Grunk]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Grunk wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mezinger wrote...
Interesting, thanks for that... do we know yet if there will be persuade / intimidate type options available in DA2? Even if there is no paragon / renegade meter? or stats to put points into?

Also I'm wondering about this "preferred tone" mechanic that has come up a couple of times... is it smart enough to differentiate your tone when talking to comrades and your tone when talking to enemies? Aka to my party members / family I'm diplomatic, to templars I'm aggressive? 

They will be linked to your personaility. Diplomatic characters will get the most. No more being able to play an evil but charming character. Guess we all have to be tools like Renegade Shepard now..

No, they said different NPCs respond differently to different things. Some might like diplomacy, some might go for charm and humor, some might be cowed by threats. And diplomacy doens't necessarily mean good. Would you be diplomatic with the demonic thing trying to possess you, or just stab it?

I am curious/anxious about how the persuasion will play out, though.

He was asking about what was in bold ? Dave said on one of my threads that those options are now linked to the dominant personality and that diplomatic characters will get more pursuades and presumably aggressive characters will get more intimidates.

It's not too far off what happens in ME only the mechanics will be hidden not two obvious coloured bars on your screen.

Oh, I misread a little. I was just thinking of sort of "charisma" moments or whatever. Like, I wasn't thinking of diplomatic characters getting an option called "Persuade", know what I'm saying? So I was thinking, if I'm continually aggressive, I may get a particularly aggressive response that could elicit a favorable response, like how Bethany likes when you're rough on the templar in the demo.

But I see what you're saying better now. I think the main thing that I find different is just that it seems a lot more situational. In ME, I'm either constantly Renegade or Paragon (excluding a few moments), but in this, if I wanna get Isabella on my good side, I might need to start throwing out some humor, and so on, vs. just always being aggressive. I dunno, I haven't eaten enough today. I feel like I'm babbling.

[AkiKishi]

AlanC9 wrote...

But pausing in any game doesn't bring you closer to a resolution. Again, what's the difference?

The difference is the speed at which combat happens. Faster the combat plays out the more you get hit for no return. If you have 6 seconds between each attack , then you have more time to pause without being hit.

Look at some of the PC gameplay videos.

It's like pause-attack-pause-attack sometimes they will miss time and you can see them get clobbered.

[Marhkus]

In my opinion, critics or journalists or reviewers...need to grow up. Just like the gamers and the games themselves. It's hard to accept change when it isn't what you want ((exactly)) but that goes for everything.

If you'd ask me 20 years ago what was the best cartoon ever, I would of answered 'TRANSFORMERS' in a heart beat. Now, having watched the old Transformer cartoons again, I can tell you: They suck! Stuff needs to evolve, move around, change. Instead of calling the article 'A Decline', why not try to be positive and focus on the future. Pisses me off when people are being all negative and nostalgic about things 'evolving' into something they aren't comfortable with. ((uh, i'm ranting, sorry)).

In any case, an artivle should be written called 'The Rise of the New RPG-Genre'. All I'm saying. There's a lot of good that should also be mentioned.

[Jean de Valette]

Solo80 wrote...

What the "This is just a natural evolution"-crowd both in this and the demo feedback thread seems to be missing is that we "haters" (a ludicrous concept, concidering the subject matter) fully understand and accept that Baldur's Gate II isn't coming back. The old-school, 2D, isometric, 200 hour RPG is probably too cost prohibitive and has a too narrow fanbase to make commercially successful today. This is not the issue.

I saw an interview the other day with the Obsidian boss, Feargus Urquhart I believe, the other day. He said that the BG games actually sold quite well.

Bioware wasn't making another BG (or IWD) because it didn't made money. According to him Bioware went for consoles and Interplay lost the D&D license.

If that's true (and why not) that's an even greater tradigy then BG type games not selling. We could have great RPG experiences, not just catered for button-mashing 13-years olds with attention spans of a goldfish, But we're not getting them because everyone refuses to make them.

Bioware is mistaken if they think that making a GoW type game, they'll generate the same loyal fanbase as they did with BG. For one, there is already a GoW. Just like trying to emulate WoW succes, it's gonna be hard displacing the market leader, let alone trying to become a classic in the genre.

I would prefer that Bioware exploits the market niche between GoW and BG. One that caters for more thoughtful gameplay and a good story. But I suppose some EA CFO dazzled Bio with accelerated growth projection models and convinced them challanging GoW and WoW (with KotOR) was a good idea.

[Graunt]

hakwea wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I'm not seeing why you want a system with classes in the first place. Or do you?

Its f unny you come to a conclusion that wasn't even hinted at. Because anyone should be able to learn a skill that anyone in an actual "world" could learn means that there should be no classes? So the only thing making a rogue a rogue is the ability to lockpick? What a bland class and a design that falls short on so many levels.


A warrior isn't the only one able to weild a sword by virtue of them being a warrior. Allowing other classes to have skill with weapons and armor doesn't remove the warrior from being a class. Because it is so much more then just that. So why can't anyone open a lock with rogues getting bonuses?

Ok, how about we replace "Warrior" with "Cook" and "Rogue" with "Locksmith".

Are you going to call a Cook up when you get locked out of your house or car, or simply want to install new locks?  Are you going to go to a fine restaurant and expect a Locksmith to make you something as good as a dedicated chef could?  All a "class" is, is a profession.  What exactly are you wanting, a game where no one excels at anything and anyone can be brought along just because everyone is mediocre at everything?

Bioware is mistaken if they think that making a GoW type game, they'll generate the same loyal fanbase as they did with BG. For one, there is already a GoW. Just like trying to emulate WoW succes, it's gonna be hard displacing the market leader, let alone trying to become a classic in the genre.

Except that it plays NOTHING like God of War.  People that keep saying this have either not even played God of War, or they haven't actually played the demo yet.  For one thing, as shallow as it was, for a "pure action game" the combat was INFINITELY better than anything in DA2.  They aren't even comparable because DA2 wasn't even meant to play like that. 

Modifié par Graunt, 05 mars 2011 - 10:29 .

[Eludajae]

This is right up there with the people that claim Golden Eye is the best first person shooter ever made. I have played Golden Eye when it was new, awesome, then I loaded it up 5 years later and went this thing is horrible! They make this demagogue statements when change happens. They remember something nostalgically. I remember Baldur's Gate it was amazing, revolutionary in point of fact. But it's not better than DA:O or ME/ME2 not by a long shot. Games have evolved, unfortunately many players haven't.

[AkiKishi]

Jean de Valette wrote...

Solo80 wrote...

What the "This is just a natural evolution"-crowd both in this and the demo feedback thread seems to be missing is that we "haters" (a ludicrous concept, concidering the subject matter) fully understand and accept that Baldur's Gate II isn't coming back. The old-school, 2D, isometric, 200 hour RPG is probably too cost prohibitive and has a too narrow fanbase to make commercially successful today. This is not the issue.

I saw an interview the other day with the Obsidian boss, Feargus Urquhart I believe, the other day. He said that the BG games actually sold quite well.

Bioware wasn't making another BG (or IWD) because it didn't made money. According to him Bioware went for consoles and Interplay lost the D&D license.

If that's true (and why not) that's an even greater tradigy then BG type games not selling. We could have great RPG experiences, not just catered for button-mashing 13-years olds with attention spans of a goldfish, But we're not getting them because everyone refuses to make them.

Bioware is mistaken if they think that making a GoW type game, they'll generate the same loyal fanbase as they did with BG. For one, there is already a GoW. Just like trying to emulate WoW succes, it's gonna be hard displacing the market leader, let alone trying to become a classic in the genre.

I would prefer that Bioware exploits the market niche between GoW and BG. One that caters for more thoughtful gameplay and a good story. But I suppose some EA CFO dazzled Bio with accelerated growth projection models and convinced them challanging GoW and WoW (with KotOR) was a good idea.

DA sold VERY well. That's what makes the whole change even stranger. If DA had bombed then clearly they would have had to re-think the design. But DA sold really really well. In the millions.

DA is an 18 rated game, so either they have a very low opinion of 18 year olds, or they are aiming the game at people they should not.

Saying it plays like God of War is an insult to God of War. It played like Baldurs Gate:Dark Alliance, or Champions of Norath. Only without a block or dodge button independent of skills.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 05 mars 2011 - 10:29 .

[Zigzaggy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You say decline, I say evolution. Let's call the whole thing off.

Regression or simplification...

In the words of DG....let them eat cake !

[Graunt]

BobSmith101 wrote...
DA is an 18 rated game, so either they have a very low opinion of 18 year olds, or they are aiming the game at people they should not.

Have you actually taken a look at the average gamer between the age of 15 - 22 in the last five years?  Age anymore has very little relevance in maturity.  Before anyone comes back with "GARRRR I R TEH MATURE FOR A 16 YRS OLD!" not everyone is the same obviously.  I do know however that more people are staying "younger" maturity wise for much longer periods.

[Yamsandjams]

Jean de Valette wrote...

Solo80 wrote...

What the "This is just a natural evolution"-crowd both in this and the demo feedback thread seems to be missing is that we "haters" (a ludicrous concept, concidering the subject matter) fully understand and accept that Baldur's Gate II isn't coming back. The old-school, 2D, isometric, 200 hour RPG is probably too cost prohibitive and has a too narrow fanbase to make commercially successful today. This is not the issue.

I saw an interview the other day with the Obsidian boss, Feargus Urquhart I believe, the other day. He said that the BG games actually sold quite well.

Bioware wasn't making another BG (or IWD) because it didn't made money. According to him Bioware went for consoles and Interplay lost the D&D license.

If that's true (and why not) that's an even greater tradigy then BG type games not selling. We could have great RPG experiences, not just catered for button-mashing 13-years olds with attention spans of a goldfish, But we're not getting them because everyone refuses to make them.

Bioware is mistaken if they think that making a GoW type game, they'll generate the same loyal fanbase as they did with BG. For one, there is already a GoW. Just like trying to emulate WoW succes, it's gonna be hard displacing the market leader, let alone trying to become a classic in the genre.

I would prefer that Bioware exploits the market niche between GoW and BG. One that caters for more thoughtful gameplay and a good story. But I suppose some EA CFO dazzled Bio with accelerated growth projection models and convinced them challanging GoW and WoW (with KotOR) was a good idea.

As a business, you have to go where the money is. There's no advantage to investing in some sort of public-favour proejct, at least from a financial standpoint. And how is it possible to hold hypothetical games like a BG3 in high esteem? They don't even exist. In fact, I'm pretty sure it'd get the same treatment DA2 is right now if there did happen to be one.

Maybe they're being overly cautious with their choices, I dunno. The fact of the matter is that only about 5% of ALL video games made are considered a financial success. So you need to pick and choose carefully. You don't want Bioware to go belly up at the expense of possibly obtaining some hypothetical "true RPG", do you?

[Yamsandjams]

Eludajae wrote...

This is right up there with the people that claim Golden Eye is the best first person shooter ever made. I have played Golden Eye when it was new, awesome, then I loaded it up 5 years later and went this thing is horrible! They make this demagogue statements when change happens. They remember something nostalgically. I remember Baldur's Gate it was amazing, revolutionary in point of fact. But it's not better than DA:O or ME/ME2 not by a long shot. Games have evolved, unfortunately many players haven't.

I can relate to this sentiment. The same is true with the original Super Smash Bros. for N64. It was the freakin' bomb in it's day, but I actually played it again some months back. I still had fun with it, but it's more due to the fact that I was playing with a group of people rather than what the game was. The only thing it really has compared to it's descendants is some nostalgia factor.

I think it's probably because those other games were played when most people were younger. They didn't think about all this stuff and just played the games. It might have been some of the first ones that they played as well, so they have a special place in their heart and they use that as a baseline measurement. It's kind of how I used to watch Seasame Street everyday, but nowadays I definitely have other things I'd rather be doing.

Modifié par Yamsandjams, 05 mars 2011 - 10:45 .

[AkiKishi]

Yamsandjams wrote...
As a business, you have to go where the money is. There's no advantage to investing in some sort of public-favour proejct, at least from a financial standpoint. And how is it possible to hold hypothetical games like a BG3 in high esteem? They don't even exist. In fact, I'm pretty sure it'd get the same treatment DA2 is right now if there did happen to be one.

Maybe they're being overly cautious with their choices, I dunno. The fact of the matter is that only about 5% of ALL video games made are considered a financial success. So you need to pick and choose carefully. You don't want Bioware to go belly up at the expense of possibly obtaining some hypothetical "true RPG", do you?

You could probably claim they had a fairly solid user base of between 2-5 million. By trying to compete for the CoD crowd, it's a gamble between how many of that user base will look elsewhere compared to how many will stick around.
In BIowares favour, no one makes games with the high production values they do unless you go to SquareEnix and thats a different design model.
On the other hand , even if you look at DA2 as an action game, it's really not a great one. It has nothing that people who like action games expect or want. Yes the combat system is faster, but it's still pretty bland compared to the OT combo's you can pull off in a real action game.
They made DA2 simpler mechanically, but they still expect people who they acknowledge as needing action to be interested, sit through tons of dialogue to get to the next thing they can kill. Its a very contadictory view.

[AkiKishi]

[quote]Yamsandjams wrote...

[quote]Eludajae wrote...

This is right up there with the people that claim Golden Eye is the best first person shooter ever made. I have played Golden Eye when it was new, awesome, then I loaded it up 5 years later and went this thing is horrible! [/quote]

That seems to be less true for RPGs because they were never really graphical giants even in their day. As long as the mechanics remain intact they are still playable. They have a bit of a resurgance on handhelds, at least as far as the early Japanese RPGs go.

Ogre Tactics,FF:Tactics etc. Still very good today on the PSP.

[Oasis_JS]

I think.. people are not..really understanding the post..i feel its not talking about the whole idea of pausing and stop..but the over all interaction..one game..that does that is elder scroll. never play it but i know that its interaction just goes beyond what da touch graph wise and so on . or look at arma 2. i

mean i read on kotaoku. how this guy didnt even really beat elder srcoll. but clock so many hour more into exploring..hunting animals the change of the weahter ,,day and night..being able to set up camp when ever. that to him what the RPG of pc is.

but over all da and da 2. over all bio ware is its own RPG ELEMENT AS the creators of elder srcoll are. also. i dont think its dieing or anything

everything has it own set up. bioware is aiming for what they think is the best rpg and elder scrol people are aiming for what they think is the best rpg.

at the end they both make profit and make new changes to the gaming world but also at the end it falls on the fan.. you know what type u feel like playing // thats it pretty much. ..

[DragonRageGT]

AlanC9 wrote...

RageGT wrote...
Well, I agree with what is pasted in OP. And I say that 10 years from now, I will still be playing Gothic 1 and 2, Risen, DA:Origins, The Witcher and very likely TW2 and Risen 2, while DA2 will not even be in the shelf or backup drive of almost any gamer!

There are bands, games, movies, books, etc. that will live forever or way past their era while there are others that will grab a quick cash and disappear in the dust of history!

Yep, and you're the absolute authority about what other gamers are going to want to play in the future.

Well, Experience brings Knowledge, what can I say? Anyway, stick around and a couple of years from now we'll have a pretty good idea. My money is on DA:O, The Witcher 2 and Risen 2 plus whatever great RPG we're given in the meantime. DA2 will be like Dead Space, to me. A very cool game but it makes me sick (I mean real stomach sick) if I try to replay it after Round 4. DS2 I couldn't even finish round 4 but it's also a cool game.

Been playing everyday, every major title for the PC, since Diablo pre-release Demo late in 1996. Don't dismiss my opinion because you don't like it but rather, give it the benefit of the doubt and consider that I know deeply what I am talking about!

That and we'll know for sure in 10 years, if the western world is not overrun by the Islam and we're forbidden to access the internet like in some teocratic states. (makes me wonder where's Adriano, cool DA:O player from Iran)

[Rixxencaxx]

Party based RPG without party customization is an abomination.

LOCKED!!!

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 05 mars 2011 - 11:18 .

[Zigzaggy]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Party based RPG without party customization is an abomination.

LOCKED!!!

Streamlined !

end of the line

[Graunt]

RageGT wrote...
Well, Experience brings Knowledge, what can I say? Anyway, stick around and a couple of years from now we'll have a pretty good idea. My money is on DA:O, The Witcher 2 and Risen 2 plus whatever great RPG we're given in the meantime. DA2 will be like Dead Space, to me. A very cool game but it makes me sick (I mean real stomach sick) if I try to replay it after Round 4. DS2 I couldn't even finish round 4 but it's also a cool game.

Cool, because that's exactly how I felt about Origins.  It was fun once and an utter chore the next three playthroughs.  It took me forever to get through Awakenings just because of how boring the gameplay was.

Been playing everyday, every major title for the PC, since Diablo pre-release Demo late in 1996. Don't dismiss my opinion because you don't like it but rather, give it the benefit of the doubt and consider that I know deeply what I am talking about!

Yeah well, some people don't mind eating the same thing every day, while others prefer variety.