1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Yamsandjams]

Yeah, I'm predicting DA2 won't have the same replayability factor as DA:O as well. That's not necessarily bad for me personally though, there's still lots of other games to enjoy, don't need to be endless stuck in DA2 replays.

Speaking of the Diablo series... THOSE are good examples of action-oriented RPGs. Action is the primary focus, other RPG elements are secondary (and yes, there is detailed lore for the Diablo world). DA2 will relate much closer to DA:O than anything in the Diablo line. I dunno why everyone hates on action so much anyways... it's central to just about every RPG out there. Just because it seems to be given more of a focus doesn't mean you're now playing a D2 clone. Well, hopefully not, anyways. Guess we'll see on the eighth.

All this stuff just reminds me of those doomsday theories... I'm pretty sure the world's been destroyed like 50 times over already.

[Oasis_JS]

anyway DA 2 will be great, they have something that a lot of rpg dont.. thats a really story element..something i enjoy..a lot.. from other bioware games. they do amazing story telling. XD

yeah action rpg is fun if they can make it work. and bioware does it XD

[AlanC9]

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.

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!

Experience counts, eh? Well, I've got about ten years on you in computer games, and another seven or so in PnP RPGs. Can I dismiss your opinion now?

Yeah, I remember Diablo's demo; mostly because it convinced me to avoid the full game. Man, that was the original dumbed-down RPG.

[Graunt]

Yamsandjams wrote...
All this stuff just reminds me of those doomsday theories... I'm pretty sure the world's been destroyed like 50 times over already.

Don't be silly, everyone knows that's 2012.

Yeah, I remember Diablo's demo; mostly because it convinced me to avoid the full game. Man, that was the original dumbed-down RPG.

Despite the fact that it had "RPG" anywhere attatched to it's genre, I've never consisdered those games an RPG in any possible way other than oh boy, stat allocation!  Doesn't mean I didn't greatly enjoy them however.

Modifié par Graunt, 05 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[AlanC9]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

I figured that was incompetent play, and that those guys would have been clobbered even worse without pausing. I mean, how long can it take to hit pause?

[AlanC9]

BobSmith101 wrote...
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. 

Itals mine. From what I've seen in interviews,  I don't think they've conceived of them that way. Liking fast action in combat doesn't necessarily correlate with disliking dialogue and plot, unless you think that the existing genres correspond to something deep in the psyches of gamers. Didn't ME2 show that there is overlap there?

[Yamsandjams]

AlanC9 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
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. 

Itals mine. From what I've seen in interviews,  I don't think they've conceived of them that way. Liking fast action in combat doesn't necessarily correlate with disliking dialogue and plot, unless you think that the existing genres correspond to something deep in the psyches of gamers. Didn't ME2 show that there is overlap there?

Action is very central to a large portion of RPGs. Neglecting it is not a good idea, and I don't know why it's seems to be pitted against storyline elements either. The two go well with eachother, they don't oppose or cancel eachother out. The last thing anyone needs is an RPG that's 90% story/dialog and 10% action. Actually, I remeber someone telling me at work that they didn't even get that far into Dragon Age because all the conversation in the human noble origin story lost their interest and the rat fight wasn't that exciting. Guess he didn't really care much for flirting with some nondescript NPC that wasn't even going to show up for the rest of the game.

I remember my NWN RP/PvP PW way back in the day literally had people going into the forest for picnics... for hours at a time. We called them "tea drinking sissies". They'd be pretty vocal if you interrupted them too, even thought they were our sworn enemies we were at war with. Oh well, guess people play the same game for different reasons.

[Solo80]

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?

This line of thinking would make perfect sense if DA:O had been a financial failure, but the whole point is that it was not - it was more successful than Bioware had even dared hope for. Origins was, in fact, in those 5% of games that are considered financial successes, so a reboot like this makes little sense financially with the added risk of alienating the core DA:O fan group.

And yes, as a business you have to go where the money is, unless, you know, you actually have something to say, take pride in your work, and are more interested in quality instead of what the flavour of the month is.

[Graunt]

AlanC9 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
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. 

Itals mine. From what I've seen in interviews,  I don't think they've conceived of them that way. Liking fast action in combat doesn't necessarily correlate with disliking dialogue and plot, unless you think that the existing genres correspond to something deep in the psyches of gamers. Didn't ME2 show that there is overlap there?

If they do, then there must be something horribly wrong with mine.  I grew up on PnP RPGs, choose your own adventure books, and arcade platformers.  Later I moved on to games like Golden Axe, Final Fight and Bad Dudes, Year of Kung Fu, Karate Champ until finally Street Fighter 2 arrived.  

I've played just about every fighting game there has been at the arcades and home consoles, and I've also played pretty much every console RPG that's been [released in the US] out from the NES days up until now.  Games like Ninja Gaiden (2004), Devil May Cry and yes, God of War excite me...yet I can't stand to play 99% of the TPS/FPS games out there.  I also used to play MUDS on the PC and then later EQ for four years and then WoW for six.  Demon's Souls was hands down one of the best console games of this generation to me.

Sorry, it's not just ADD kiddies that enjoy fast paced action games, nor do you have to be 50+ years old to enjoy anything "deep" or plot driven.  Times change and you either learn to appreciate a good game for what it is when it comes along, or you simply lament about what you're not getting instead and have a miserable time until your next best thing arrives.

Modifié par Graunt, 05 mars 2011 - 12:33 .

[Yamsandjams]

Solo80 wrote...

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?

This line of thinking would make perfect sense if DA:O had been a financial failure, but the whole point is that it was not - it was more successful than Bioware had even dared hope for. Origins was, in fact, in those 5% of games that are considered financial successes, so a reboot like this makes little sense financially with the added risk of alienating the core DA:O fan group.

And yes, as a business you have to go where the money is, unless, you know, you actually have something to say, take pride in your work, and are more interested in quality instead of what the flavour of the month is.

Yes, I know DA:O was in the 5% of financial successes. That's why they're making DA2, because DA:O did good. If DA:O didn't do well, they wouldn't bother with DA2. I believe the poster I had quoted expressed a desire for there to be something like BG3, automatically assuming it'd be an amazing game. How can they assume this? There's no evidence to suggest a BG3 would even be of comparable quality to any of the older games.

There's a lot of other factors influencing project decisions, such as political factors or developer choice. Maybe the developer just doesn't feel like cranking out a DA2 that is just a clone of DA:O with a new story, they might want to expand their creativity a little more, create a title that is memorable in it's own right rather than living solely on the success of it's predecessors. Maybe there's issues with licenses or publishers... it's a lot more complex than simply building stuff people will like/buy.

Regardless, if they don't think they can make money on it, then they shouldn't invest in that project. I'm fairly confident that Bioware takes a lot of pride in all their work. I'm pretty sure most of the changes weren't made for financial decisions, but rather to have a game that's unique in it's own right. But there's no point in making a quality product if you can't get a reasonable return on the investment, at least not from a financial standpoint. Developers in the games industry have been sunk by a single failed title. If they have to make changes to their game format in order to keep it at reasonable levels of profitability, by all means do so. If people are truly dissatisfied by a company's product, the most effective way to express that is to not purchase it or it's related accessories. That's the most effective way to influence their decisions as a consumer, aside from submitting any customer feedback (FFXIV is a good example of this).

[DragonRageGT]

AlanC9 wrote...

Experience counts, eh? Well, I've got about ten years on you in computer games, and another seven or so in PnP RPGs. Can I dismiss your opinion now?

Yeah, I remember Diablo's demo; mostly because it convinced me to avoid the full game. Man, that was the original dumbed-down RPG.

Not really. I also played a lot of Test Drive, Battle Chess and Falcon F16 plus Maiden NFL back in 1988. Oh, and Tetris, among many other little stuff like the Ultimas and hey, I loved even Ultima 9 despite the major EA screw up with the rushed release of an unfinished game with game breaking bugs! =) I just count it from Diablo because that was the milestone in the PC Gaming World, IMHO.  Baldur's Gate was only conceived as a child of D1. Even the plot. They thank Blizzard and Diablo somewhere in the credits.

Dumbed down RPG, perhaps, but no other game was that much fun to play online, particularly within a Legit/Purist guild, and so many people played everyday until Starcraft and Diablo 2 came out. Some still play. I proudly keep my legit/purist level 48 stored for some hack & slash fun in Hell difficulty.

Other than Diablo, I think only NWN was as much played online and still there are PW where we can have some real RP fun these days. Unfortunately, NWN2 mplayer took over 1 year to be functional and that killed the game for me. (Plus the frakking SecuROM which phisically broke 2 nice DVD-Play/CD-RW and DVD-RW ROMS of mine. I could still play CD games but they simply stopped reckognizing any movies DVDs! Talk about crazy stuff!)

And honestly, I never played Table RPG and have no interest in them. cRPG are way different even those using D&D rules and stuff.

I also love variety in any areas. Like I love any music that sounds good, whichever style, but Led Zeppelin is always playing every now and then here. That is what classic masterpiece means to me. I'll always find the time to revisit them. The only other games I have nearly as many gameplay hours as DA:O (around 2,000 hrs) are the Gothics, Oblivion, The Witcher and Risen - not counting 4 years of dedicated Diablo play and 5 years with my epic elven archer in some NWN LotR based PW but those are multiplayer games and while I love those, I really hate any MMOs metagame and OOCs!

Still, it's just noticeable for me the EA hands on Dragon Age and well, nothing can convince me of the contrary or that is a good thing. (even if I still play some amazing games published by EA, they all, 100%, had some serious issues because well, EA is EA)

[Graunt]

RageGT wrote...
And honestly, I never played Table RPG and have no interest in them. cRPG are way different even those using D&D rules and stuff.

It's quite telling when someone comes off as the last word on Role-playing games, yet scoffs at the idea of playing the very foundation for all of them.  Your pedigree is laughing at you.

I also love variety in any areas. Like I love any music that sounds good, whichever style, but Led Zeppelin is always playing every now and then here. That is what classic masterpiece means to me. I'll always find the time to revisit them. The only other games I have nearly as many gameplay hours as DA:O (around 2,000 hrs) are the Gothics, Oblivion, The Witcher and Risen - not counting 4 years of dedicated Diablo play and 5 years with my epic elven archer in some NWN LotR based PW but those are multiplayer games and while I love those, I really hate any MMOs metagame and OOCs!

At least you have somewhat of a decent taste in music.  Can't really claim the same on your top picks for cRPGs though.  But hey, three out of seven isn't that bad.

Still, it's just noticeable for me the EA hands on Dragon Age and well, nothing can convince me of the contrary or that is a good thing. (even if I still play some amazing games published by EA, they all, 100%, had some serious issues because well, EA is EA)

Believe it or not, some companies actually do have enough clout to keep the devil off their backs.  Blizzard is one of the primary examples of this, and while an exception and not the standard, they aren't the only one able to do this.  Even if I don't particularly care for specific changes to a series I end up enjoying, they usually still have something redeeming about them.  Bioware is a games developer in it to make money.  If they can keep making "mass appeal" games that I find enjoyable, then more power to them, and to me -- because it means I can count on at least one other company to be around for a while making fun games that usually have a high production value.

Modifié par Graunt, 05 mars 2011 - 01:06 .

[Yamsandjams]

Graunt wrote...

RageGT wrote...
And honestly, I never played Table RPG and have no interest in them. cRPG are way different even those using D&D rules and stuff.

It's quite telling when someone comes off as the last word on Role-playing games, yet scoffs at the idea of playing the very foundation for all of them.  Your pedigree is laughing at you.

Heh. Actually, I can understand such sentiments about no desire to play tabletop games... but you should give 'em a try. You can't say you're a serious RPG player until you've played PnP D&D... at least in my books.

[In Exile]

Solo80 wrote...

This line of thinking would make perfect sense if DA:O had been a financial failure, but the whole point is that it was not - it was more successful than Bioware had even dared hope for. Origins was, in fact, in those 5% of games that are considered financial successes, so a reboot like this makes little sense financially with the added risk of alienating the core DA:O fan group.

This is always the thing I find confusing about the arguments over DA2. On the one hand, we have data that suggests that DA:O was financially more succesful (at least in terms of sales) than ME2. Some people want to use this as proof of the vitality of "traditional" RPGs. On the other hand, we have the very obvious fact that DA2 is not a remake of DA:O.

So the idea that Bioware is chasing the almighty dollar always seemed very confusing, since there are good reasons to believe a rehash of DA:O would sell quite well.

[AkiKishi]

AlanC9 wrote...
I figured that was incompetent play, and that those guys would have been clobbered even worse without pausing. I mean, how long can it take to hit pause?

Could be.. varies from individual to individual. But it does not change that the guy who wrote the review was making a valid point.

AlanC9 wrote...
Itals mine. From what I've seen in interviews,  I don't think they've conceived of them that way. Liking fast action in combat doesn't necessarily correlate with disliking dialogue and plot, unless you think that the existing genres correspond to something deep in the psyches of gamers. Didn't ME2 show that there is overlap there?

That was the reason behind "Legend" mode. Allow people to jump into action right away even before creating a character.

ME is a shooter, I can see how it would make sense for ME to capture the CoD crowd as they share a lot of elements. Dragon Age.. Not so much.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 05 mars 2011 - 01:59 .

[John Zrnich]

Icinix wrote...

 I don't agree with MOST of what they say...BUT..this caught my eye as something I agree with...

"When you get into the game you will notice that player conversations have become much less significant as well. As far as the dialogue scenes are concerned, this is not role playing; this is interactive playing. The dialogue is so simple that it could be replaced by a choice that you make at the beginning of the game: "Do you want to be a compassionate, humorous, or obnoxious character?" After that choice, you would only have to watch the dialogue scenes play through with no player-input at all."

If you chop and change your decisions, your character looks like he has the worst case of Bi-Polar I've ever seen.  It was a similar problem with Mass Effect as well.  The conversation choice just doesn't work that well...and hasn't since they re-invented the wheel --- see what I did there...

Apart from that though..DA2 is going to turn me into 18 shades of happy goo. So I can live with that minor transgression.

Your tag line is awesome!  : )

[Yamsandjams]

In Exile wrote...

Solo80 wrote...

This line of thinking would make perfect sense if DA:O had been a financial failure, but the whole point is that it was not - it was more successful than Bioware had even dared hope for. Origins was, in fact, in those 5% of games that are considered financial successes, so a reboot like this makes little sense financially with the added risk of alienating the core DA:O fan group.

This is always the thing I find confusing about the arguments over DA2. On the one hand, we have data that suggests that DA:O was financially more succesful (at least in terms of sales) than ME2. Some people want to use this as proof of the vitality of "traditional" RPGs. On the other hand, we have the very obvious fact that DA2 is not a remake of DA:O.

So the idea that Bioware is chasing the almighty dollar always seemed very confusing, since there are good reasons to believe a rehash of DA:O would sell quite well.

Heh, that's a good point to make. It further lends credence to the idea that Bioware wants DA2 to be memorable in it's own right and not simply be rememberd as "the other DA:O". In fact, it's actually probably riskier to go with the new format since you might not have as predictable a reception. I guess they do just have forays into the world of fun on their agenda after all.

Or maybe they're trying to pull a Coca-Cola classic... get this guy out the door, and quickly unload the secretly developed DA:O clone known as DA3, making billions. Conspiracy, oOoOoOooo...

But yeah, I think the former is probably the case.

[AkiKishi]

Yamsandjams wrote...
 Actually, I remeber someone telling me at work that they didn't even get that far into Dragon Age because all the conversation in the human noble origin story lost their interest and the rat fight wasn't that exciting. Guess he didn't really care much for flirting with some nondescript NPC that wasn't even going to show up for the rest of the game.

I occupy the middle ground. I have friends who I play Killzone with and friends who are into RPGs. I showed one of the Killzone friends FFXIII , and for a while he loved it. Getting 5 stars made him feel good, then it got to the point where getting 5 starts meant having to match elemental weaknesses. Once he started to get 2 or 3 stars he started to hate the game. Add to that, he skipped by every story scene as well. I felt true horror watching that.

[Dlokir]

In Exile wrote...
...
This is always the thing I find confusing about the arguments over DA2. On the one hand, we have data that suggests that DA:O was financially more succesful (at least in terms of sales) than ME2. Some people want to use this as proof of the vitality of "traditional" RPGs. On the other hand, we have the very obvious fact that DA2 is not a remake of DA:O.

So the idea that Bioware is chasing the almighty dollar always seemed very confusing, since there are good reasons to believe a rehash of DA:O would sell quite well.
...

Lol, myself I agree that people are quick in thinking the designers that lead the most important directions and choices of DA series make it for more money.

But it's quite probable that they are somehow "jealous" of series like COD. I mean let say DAO sold 5M, this would be huge selling but when compared to 20M for COD suddenly the 5M seems like a failure.

It's only guess but my feeling is it's a mixed bag. Bioware main designers never enjoyed repeat a sucessful formula only trying improve it a bit. Well they did but only once for BG2 and in my option they lost too many design orientation like more freedom and other important points not translated well from BG1 to BG2.

So they always tend build something rather new, NWN1 well ok stop let someone else continue, KOTOR the same, Jade Empire just a one shot attempt, ME2 after a long pause and a strong change in the design orientation, and now sort of the same from DAO to DA2.

So DA2 design is a merge with, DAO base because it's a follow up in a series,  lead designers that want work on something fresh, and designers that are targeting a day reach mass success as series like COD so they attempt grab the interest of more players.

More or less Civilization IV had probably similar wishes including to increase the number of players, and well it's not what killed the game, it's one of the best of the Civilization series.

[AkiKishi]

Yamsandjams wrote...

Heh, that's a good point to make. It further lends credence to the idea that Bioware wants DA2 to be memorable in it's own right and not simply be rememberd as "the other DA:O". In fact, it's actually probably riskier to go with the new format since you might not have as predictable a reception. I guess they do just have forays into the world of fun on their agenda after all.

Or maybe they're trying to pull a Coca-Cola classic... get this guy out the door, and quickly unload the secretly developed DA:O clone known as DA3, making billions. Conspiracy, oOoOoOooo...

But yeah, I think the former is probably the case.

We have many interviews from Bioware employees about why DA2 is the way it is. It's got nothing to do with being memorable in it's own right and everything to do with trying to increase the user base.

Silverman,Laidlaw, Melo they all say the same thing.

I think what spooked them are the stats "X number of players never completed DA" that being the case, if only say 20% completed it would that mean only 20% would buy DA2 without radical "streamlining"..
Everything about DA2's "Mass Effecting" screams "safe option".

If the EA spybot is going to be the new guide on how games should be made, we should all be very concerned.
What happens if EA spybot says 50% of new players skipped conversations ? Does that mean next time the conversations get trimmed to keep the CoD crowd on board? 

Modifié par BobSmith101, 05 mars 2011 - 02:16 .

[Yamsandjams]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yamsandjams wrote...
 Actually, I remeber someone telling me at work that they didn't even get that far into Dragon Age because all the conversation in the human noble origin story lost their interest and the rat fight wasn't that exciting. Guess he didn't really care much for flirting with some nondescript NPC that wasn't even going to show up for the rest of the game.

I occupy the middle ground. I have friends who I play Killzone with and friends who are into RPGs. I showed one of the Killzone friends FFXIII , and for a while he loved it. Getting 5 stars made him feel good, then it got to the point where getting 5 starts meant having to match elemental weaknesses. Once he started to get 2 or 3 stars he started to hate the game. Add to that, he skipped by every story scene as well. I felt true horror watching that.

I share your pain... One of my big pet peeves is when someone cuts off a voice clip because they just read through the textual conversation and ignore the audio. But yeah, sometimes you just wanna kill ****, you know?

[Graunt]

In Exile wrote...

Solo80 wrote...

This line of thinking would make perfect sense if DA:O had been a financial failure, but the whole point is that it was not - it was more successful than Bioware had even dared hope for. Origins was, in fact, in those 5% of games that are considered financial successes, so a reboot like this makes little sense financially with the added risk of alienating the core DA:O fan group.

This is always the thing I find confusing about the arguments over DA2. On the one hand, we have data that suggests that DA:O was financially more succesful (at least in terms of sales) than ME2. Some people want to use this as proof of the vitality of "traditional" RPGs. On the other hand, we have the very obvious fact that DA2 is not a remake of DA:O.

So the idea that Bioware is chasing the almighty dollar always seemed very confusing, since there are good reasons to believe a rehash of DA:O would sell quite well.

The fact that the game sold very well doesn't mean that everyone was entirely satisfied with everything either.  I know it's heresy around these parts to talk about how dated the combat was, but the fact is, it was a relic and it was also the single biggest gripe among those who purchased the game.  There are also now more console gamers (gamers in general) than there ever have been, most of which are of the younger persuasion and simply did not like the combat at all.  

If the change to the combat ends up pleasing those who did not like it in Origins, then Bioware made the smart move, because believe it or not, it doesn't matter how a few disgruntled has beens feel when keeping the newer generation happy is what matters the most.

Modifié par Graunt, 05 mars 2011 - 02:20 .

[DragonRageGT]

Dlokir wrote...

Lol, myself I agree that people are quick in thinking the designers that lead the most important directions and choices of DA series make it for more money.

But it's quite probable that they are somehow "jealous" of series like COD. I mean let say DAO sold 5M, this would be huge selling but when compared to 20M for COD suddenly the 5M seems like a failure.

Actually, I think one of the Lead Designers who had the most important directions and choices in Origins have left the company! And yours second sentence makes a lot of sense... ffor some crazy suits...

[In Exile]

Dlokir wrote...
Lol, myself I agree that people are quick in thinking the designers that lead the most important directions and choices of DA series make it for more money.

But it's quite probable that they are somehow "jealous" of series like COD. I mean let say DAO sold 5M, this would be huge selling but when compared to 20M for COD suddenly the 5M seems like a failure.

I think anyone wants to sell more. It just seems to be the case that anyone that argues how DA2 is departing fromt the traditional RPG formula is not at all aware of what the attitude of the majority of the COD crowd is like.

That's not a cinematic, singleplayer game. That's (firstly) largely multiplayer. Right now, one other common criticisms of DA2 is that it is much more like watching a movie than playing a game. Putting aside how right this is, that isn't a feature that will attract COD fans.

Talking? Romance? Stat-based combat? No real-time dodging?

This game is nothing like COD.

It's only guess but my feeling is it's a mixed bag. Bioware main designers never enjoyed repeat a sucessful formula only trying improve it a bit. Well they did but only once for BG2 and in my option they lost too many design orientation like more freedom and other important points not translated well from BG1 to BG2.

If you look at what Bioware has keep consistent across all their games, you find that what they seem to consider their central features to develop are not what some of their user base seems to think are central feature Biowar wants to develop.

BG2 was critically hailed, and many consider it better than BG. That's good enough for them. The same with ME2.

So DA2 design is a merge with, DAO base because it's a follow up in a series,  lead designers that want work on something fresh, and designers that are targeting a day reach mass success as series like COD so they attempt grab the interest of more players.

Grabbing the interest of more players =! COD.

[Graunt]

In Exile wrote...
Talking? Romance? Stat-based combat? No real-time dodging?

There is real-time dodging in the demo at least, although it would get pretty tiresome to play the entire game like that.