1216 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

whatever the social aspect of it means, people shouldn't be making 50 threads where the OP bashes the game and links to a review made by one person from a magazine. "Look at this man's opinion on the game and how ****ty it is!"

[Ginggis Khan]

ibortolis wrote...

worth reading it

http://www.hookedgam...lassic_rpg.html

a small summary,thanks to gamebanshee:

"None of this would be so much of an issue if BioWare lived up to their
promises and actually provided two viable styles of playing the game.
Everyone can sympathise with their decision to add real-time combat to
the game and make it easier for new players to get into the game, in
fact we support it. The more people you can get to play your game the
better; cRPGs are notoriously hard to start off with so making things a
bit easier for beginners is great. However, the issue arises when you
change the very core of the game. The real time combat should in fact be
harder to play. At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall,
players were asked if they would like high or low player reflexes
enabled, the slower being easier because players could adopt “a more
cautious and thoughtful playstyle”. This is the kind of option that
should be given in Dragon Age 2. Instead the game only truly caters to
the fast, button-mashing style.

Playing with these kinds of
settings just isn’t right for the traditional pause-play style. People
have argued that if you want that traditional experience then you can
simply play on a harder game mode, but this does not solve it. The
difficulty simply makes the game harder with modifiers such as friendly
fire (in nightmare mode) tougher enemies and so on, but it is still
played as an Action-RPG. While playing the demo, pausing the game to
issue an attack on an enemy just felt completely ridiculous, as they
would have already landed 3 attacks on you by the time you have done
one. The only possible way to do it is to pause and unpause the game
every half a second, therefore forcing players to simply mash buttons
until the enemy is dead. Dragon Age 2 is a real-time Action-RPG, and so
having the pause-play (that only really works with the slower pace of
turn-based RPG’s) is just an unnecessary feature rather than another way
to play through the game.

Like many other developers, BioWare
have made their three main cRPG series into Action-RPGs with Mass Effect
2, Dragon Age 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. There is no doubt that
these will be great games, but the problem is that they have been
sculpted to what will sell, rather than making the gaming experience
that a number of players are struggling to find nowadays. The market has
always been driven by sales, but nowadays the publishers and producers
are sacrificing genres in order to make more money. As said previously,
Dragon Age: Origins was a commercial success so there was no real need
to change the game so dramatically. This declination is inextricably
tied in to the popularity of consoles over PCs amongst today’s gamers.
As gaming spreads to mass audiences, producers and publishers are lured
by the money that comes along with it. In this case it seems that EA
have encouraged BioWare to open up the game to a bigger audience, and in
doing so have lost many aspects of the genre it once was.


Worse still, there are signs that the game has been rushed out to meet
publisher demands. The graphics are not going to mesmerise anyone, in
fact they don’t look any better compared to Origins, environments are
fairly dull looking but worst of all is weak level design. The review in
PC Games has said that the majority of Dragon Age 2 plays out very much
like the demo, meaning a lot of copy-pasted and narrow paths - ugly.
Narrow paths in an RPG is actually an oxymoron as the genre requires
freedom and an open world and should not be bottle-necking its players.
What this effect does however, is focus the game more towards combat as
is the nature of an action-RPG. It’s quite understandable that all of
these shortcomings have occurred as BioWare are making an effort to
bring out all three of their big RPGs in one year. Given that Dragon Age
2 has only had a maximum of two years in development, many of us
suspected that the game would fall short in some areas. This lack of an
open world, combined with the simple combat means that the game slides
even further from its origins. "

This article is based on Demo. They have no idea how gorgeous game will look with DX11 AND TESSELATION... WOW!

[moilami]

Ginggis Khan wrote...

ibortolis wrote...

worth reading it

http://www.hookedgam...lassic_rpg.html

a small summary,thanks to gamebanshee:

"None of this would be so much of an issue if BioWare lived up to their
promises and actually provided two viable styles of playing the game.
Everyone can sympathise with their decision to add real-time combat to
the game and make it easier for new players to get into the game, in
fact we support it. The more people you can get to play your game the
better; cRPGs are notoriously hard to start off with so making things a
bit easier for beginners is great. However, the issue arises when you
change the very core of the game. The real time combat should in fact be
harder to play. At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall,
players were asked if they would like high or low player reflexes
enabled, the slower being easier because players could adopt “a more
cautious and thoughtful playstyle”. This is the kind of option that
should be given in Dragon Age 2. Instead the game only truly caters to
the fast, button-mashing style.

Playing with these kinds of
settings just isn’t right for the traditional pause-play style. People
have argued that if you want that traditional experience then you can
simply play on a harder game mode, but this does not solve it. The
difficulty simply makes the game harder with modifiers such as friendly
fire (in nightmare mode) tougher enemies and so on, but it is still
played as an Action-RPG. While playing the demo, pausing the game to
issue an attack on an enemy just felt completely ridiculous, as they
would have already landed 3 attacks on you by the time you have done
one. The only possible way to do it is to pause and unpause the game
every half a second, therefore forcing players to simply mash buttons
until the enemy is dead. Dragon Age 2 is a real-time Action-RPG, and so
having the pause-play (that only really works with the slower pace of
turn-based RPG’s) is just an unnecessary feature rather than another way
to play through the game.

Like many other developers, BioWare
have made their three main cRPG series into Action-RPGs with Mass Effect
2, Dragon Age 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. There is no doubt that
these will be great games, but the problem is that they have been
sculpted to what will sell, rather than making the gaming experience
that a number of players are struggling to find nowadays. The market has
always been driven by sales, but nowadays the publishers and producers
are sacrificing genres in order to make more money. As said previously,
Dragon Age: Origins was a commercial success so there was no real need
to change the game so dramatically. This declination is inextricably
tied in to the popularity of consoles over PCs amongst today’s gamers.
As gaming spreads to mass audiences, producers and publishers are lured
by the money that comes along with it. In this case it seems that EA
have encouraged BioWare to open up the game to a bigger audience, and in
doing so have lost many aspects of the genre it once was.


Worse still, there are signs that the game has been rushed out to meet
publisher demands. The graphics are not going to mesmerise anyone, in
fact they don’t look any better compared to Origins, environments are
fairly dull looking but worst of all is weak level design. The review in
PC Games has said that the majority of Dragon Age 2 plays out very much
like the demo, meaning a lot of copy-pasted and narrow paths - ugly.
Narrow paths in an RPG is actually an oxymoron as the genre requires
freedom and an open world and should not be bottle-necking its players.
What this effect does however, is focus the game more towards combat as
is the nature of an action-RPG. It’s quite understandable that all of
these shortcomings have occurred as BioWare are making an effort to
bring out all three of their big RPGs in one year. Given that Dragon Age
2 has only had a maximum of two years in development, many of us
suspected that the game would fall short in some areas. This lack of an
open world, combined with the simple combat means that the game slides
even further from its origins. "

This article is based on Demo. They have no idea how gorgeous game will look with DX11 AND TESSELATION... WOW!

But but...can i get non immortal non blue shielded NPCs? Pls? I am willing to trade Dx11 and tesselation for it.

[Rasputin]

Gold Box ftw.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Dlokir wrote...

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
...
Both though though I would argue that mechanics and design are more important than pnp rules. Pool of Radiance 2 was a good translation of D&D rules (for what thats worth) but the game stunk.

Dragon Age has a terrible ruleset. The  damage, hp and the balance of its classes along with the ability requirements should be tossed and rewritten. 
...

Well some explanation would be welcome. Clearly DAO was a first version and its failure was to not have enough talents per class allowing too few different build, with the exception of the mage class. For other classes build are mainly restricted to the choices of specializations.

There's about 320 spells in BG2 but there are many... 'but'. There are many duplicates about 20, a handful of non combat spells ie about 10, there's many spells that are rather double of other like 7 different spells only for hold. And if I count well, there's 17 spells just for summoning various stuff but in no way it really means 17 different tactical possibilites. There are also many totally pointless spells even if that is more subjective. And there are many spells that tend be pointless at higher level because their effect are static.

But how many fighter/Rogue/Archer special attacks? Well very very few and with very few effects.

Also a key not working that well in BG2 is about ballance, BG2 SoA had plenty fights that are solved during the first seconds, a matter or dominating or be dominated totally breaking balance during the first seconds. I think BG2 ToB shown a lot of improvements in fights. BG1 had a big problems with long range a lot overpowerful and magic low level far to offer so many possibilities. But yes the party of 6 is a huge plus in both game to increase tactic depth, and fights was matching well a high rate of auto pauses providing a depth that don't have fights not fully designed for fights like those of NWN series or of DAO.

One of the main reasons I’m so hard on Dragon Age is I feel it had potential.

When I talk about how terrible DA’s roleplaying system I should preface it that it’s not all bad. Some of it has D&D beat… at least 3rd edition. DA features the one thing 4th edition has
over 3rd ed D&D and that’s class combat skills.

 

Its ok to have one class that is better as long as the other classes are fun and bring something to the table. That’s another casualty of the four player party. Four player parties almost always have the same optimal setups. Usually it’s just one setup unless the non-active party members gain xp and you spend whatever realism and immersion justifying it.

The unbalanced classes could enter the discussion only after you question why it matters if one class is much better than another and why. To answer that you have to look more at the core rules and that is where DA:O diarrheaed the sheets. The inflated hp, the small areas, the small parties, the scaling and the silly attribute restrictions makes ranged weapons obsolete so all those archer skills are a waste and not only that ranged weapons which in a good RPG system makes up enough of combat equation to add their own strategy doesn’t add anything in Dragon Age. You might as well not even have bows.

 
 Again when you look to the core rules the inflated hp almost forces you to scale else anything five or six levels below would seem incredibly worthless. Even with the inflated hp in D&D a low level encounter can be dangerous if you aren’t at your best but with DA’s auto healing those encounters are even more worthless. Of course this isn’t corrected with an unforgiving damage system. Even such attacks like Killing Blow or Massacre don’t do much damage against enemies of equal level which is most of them with scaling and Massacre does normal damage against a boss. Even if these attacks didn’t require so much and did so little it wouldn’t address how basic
attacks do such little damage and land too frequently.

I wish Bioware created a system more like White Wolf’s or Age of Decadence’s. Hitpoints would have cost skill points and stayed low. Even at lower levels skills would have become more specialized. I would love a system
like AoD’s with large parties. With something like that they wouldn’t need half the spells BG has. 

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 08 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[Handsome Hank]

OP: Nice post. I'm sorry about all of the RPG kiddies giving you crap for it but the fanboys are abundant on the Bioware forum (go figure).

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. But whether those things are worth having is subjective.

Of the five things you mention, one strikes me as outright bad, one as not worth the zots, and three as irrelevant.

Their presense isnt subjective. Neither was their removal replaced or upgraded. 250 spells could have been replaced with spell creation and “infinite combos”.

I, um, agreed that their presence was an objective fact, you know.

6 person parties could have been upgraded with the ability to raise an army and turn later portions of the game when you are high in level into a RTS.

Day and night could have been bolstered with nocturnal AI, creatures and classes that are more powerful at night, and real weather simulations could have been added that affect combat.

Baldur’s Gate’s civilian killing system could have been tweaked so the penalty is greater and accidents are managed with the ability to yield or use nonlethal force.

The added features could balloon the manual to 300 pages.

So what you have is less of something. It doesn’t matter if you like it. That’s the point. The developers didn’t seem to care as much about demographics because they wanted something that was over your head…
at least that was the feeling you get with a 260 page manual that quotes its inspiration from the Wizardry games, Ultima, and the Gold Box games.  

So the argument is that they could engage in untrammelled feature bloat without regard for whether this would make the game more enjoyable?

OK, sure. At least up to the point they bankrupt the company.

However, I'm going to be selfish here and say that whether or not I like a feature is very important to me when discussing whether or not that feature should be in a game.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 mars 2011 - 06:51 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

AlanC9 wrote...


So the argument is that they could engage in untrammelled feature bloat without regard for whether this would make the game more enjoyable?

OK, sure. At least up to the point they bankrupt the company.

However, I'm going to be selfish here and say that whether or not I like a feature is very important to me when discussing whether or not that feature should be in a game.

It doesnt matter what you think or what I think because everyone has different opinions. The bottom line is they had stuff that was in the game. They could have improved it instead they took it out so now at least in those areas the game has less depth. And its not like anything I suggested would have bankrupted the company when they had 10 years to make these improvements. Its not just those things I named too. They removed base stuff like death, custom portraits, and doors that worked. I look at BG and I ask what could I cut from it to make it better? How could streamlining work? My answer Load times, multiplayer. Their answer...

Ok you can attack anyone and bystandards can get hurt by freindly fire. Scarp that. People want to fight bad guys not accidently kill ladies on their way to the market. Accidnetly turning the town crier to stone would be silly, people dont want that. 

Those 5 NPC and 6 person parties. Too big. Deeze console gamers now. They dont get that with Japan. Only the strategic JRPGs not the popular stuff. 6 people are too many. Pull that.

EXPLORATION!!
take it out. Who needs it? There is nothing to see anyway. They will spend too much time fighting endless waves of darkspawn to worrry about their inner Lewis and Clark.

Lets pull night cycles out too. Why should we waste time rendering the sun moving, and shadows and stuff. nobody wants that crap. Oooh and now that expensive manual is only 80 pages. Ooooh great now its cheaper to manufacture...

Thats Eaoware right now. 

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 08 mars 2011 - 10:45 .

[Yrkoon]

moilami wrote...

I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

I could too.  And it's not difficult to do.  For all its 'cool' D&D mechanics, its  huge spell list, it's different classes, and infinetely wider variety of weapons, Bg's combat was deceptively straight forward and simple-ly one-dimensional. 

-Could you stagger, knock back and knock down  people  with special melee attacks?  No.  
-Could your warrior and your mage work together on a cross class combo?  No. 
-Did  stuff like positioning, and aggro  really matter in melee?  No.
-Did you have to worry about stuff like cool-down timers on talents?  No
-Did your Warriors have a dozen different special attacks?  No.
-Was there a really big difference in combat styles between a sword and shield  fighter, and a 2-hander?  No.
-Were things like increased critical chance percentages, and increased critical damage percentages in the game?  No.
-Were  stamina and  fatigue factors implemented?  No.

Note:  I'm merely pointing all this out to  illustrate  how  grotesquely idiotic  the  "dumbed down"  claim about DA2 really is.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 mars 2011 - 12:07 .

[Lord_Darkmoon]

No more customization of companions, fixed skill-tree, no real party-banter, no exploration, visiting the same areas over and over again, no real conversation system = dumbed down.

[Rawgrim]

Yrkoon wrote...

moilami wrote...

I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

I could too.  And it's not difficult to do.  For all its 'cool' D&D mechanics, its  huge spell list, it's different classes, and infinetely wider variety of weapons, Bg's combat was deceptively straight forward and simple-ly one-dimensional. 

-Could you stagger, knock back and knock down  people  with special melee attacks?  No.  
-Could your warrior and your mage work together on a cross class combo?  No. 
-Did  stuff like positioning, and aggro  really matter in melee?  No.
-Did you have to worry about stuff like cool-down timers on talents?  No
-Did your Warriors have a dozen different special attacks?  No.
-Was there a really big difference in combat styles between a sword and shield  fighter, and a 2-hander?  No.
-Were things like increased critical chance percentages, and increased critical damage percentages in the game?  No.
-Were  stamina and  fatigue factors implemented?  No.

Note:  I'm merely pointing all this out to  illustrate  how  grotesquely idiotic  the  "dumbed down"  claim about DA2 really is.

You could knock back opponents when you got the epic level abilities. And some weapons had "stun" effects.

Sure your warrior and mage could work together. Hold Person spell + send in the warrior. Helpless opponents were automatically hit by attacks in BG2.

positioning mattered alot. Keeping your mages nicely tucked into the middle of your party was a smart move. Tanks up front.

No cool-down for talents. But spells did have casting time, however.

Warriors did have a few special abilities, depending on what type of warriors, of course. Some had spells as well. Spell-like abilities too.

The were differences between sword and shield + two handers, sure. Two handers had slower attack rates, and alot lower armour class. Even lower vs ranged attacks.

Increased chance of scoring a critical hit was also in the game.

Stamina was also a factor. Using Haste spells, or the rage ability made your character fatigued. Traveling around for days without rest also made them fatigued. If i remember correctly, they could get fatigued during very long fights as well, depending on their CON stat.

What kind of a version of BG2 did you play exactly?

[ChaosVC]

Would it really be better if we have option to do either? I think so, sometimes you want to participate in the actions but other times, you just want to sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

[Dawnhorn]

I play RPGs for the story.

[VeoLu]

I find it amusing how quick and "thorough" the article was, considering it was based on a demo. More amusing is how hard some 'old school' fans are trying to bash a video game.  

90% of Reviews = nonsense; aka, "why I think [subject] blows/wins and you should all agree." It's like waiting to see what the popular kids are wearing.

Should the quality of a game not be based on actually playing it for yourself? I was under the impression folks had the right to form their own opinions.  I guess right and ability are vastly different.

Modifié par VeoLu, 08 mars 2011 - 12:35 .

[TEWR]

Lord_Darkmoon wrote...

No more customization of companions, fixed skill-tree, no real party-banter, no exploration, visiting the same areas over and over again, no real conversation system = dumbed down.

1:If by customization you mean armor and weapons and such, I too don't like the lack of companion customization, but given this is a narrative story it does make some sense, SOME, for the companions to gain their own armor instead of them keeping some leather armor when they should have some metal armor. Do I miss the cusomization? Yes. But I'm not going to get all bent out of shape just because this is the first Dragon Age game they've made without it. IF it happens again in DA3, then I'll be pissed.

2: yea Origins had that too. Your abilities were literally:

Rogue-
Skill 1 -> Skill 2-> Skill 3 -> Skill 4
Skill 1 -> Skill 2-> Skill 3 -> Skill 4
Skill 1 -> Skill 2-> Skill 3 -> Skill 4

sure you could choose which ones you wanted, but half were useless. And you can still choose which abilities you want in DA2 with all being useful. So yea, your number 2 point is wrong.

3: Not sure where you live or if you have the game yet, but if you're basing that off the demo that's not a fair assumption to make. I'm pretty sure there is party banter, because the developers said that they made Dog a summon like thingy BECAUSE the addition of Dog as a party member cut back on banter (which it both did and didn't, if that makes sense to you)

4: Origins did that too. You have to visit places over and over again in regards to the story and side quests.

5: Again, if that's a demo assumption, not a fair assumption to make until later today or March 11.

[TEWR]

VeoLu wrote...

I find it amusing how quick and "thorough" the article was, considering it was based on a demo. More amusing is how hard some 'old school' fans are trying to bash a video game.  

90% of Reviews = nonsense; aka, "why I think [subject] blows/wins and you should all agree." It's like waiting to see what the popular kids are wearing.

Should the quality of a game not be based on actually playing it for yourself? I was under the impression folks had the right to form their own opinions.  I guess right and ability are vastly different.

they're trying to assimilate us into their hive mind.

And I won't submit. I'm no follower, nor am I a leader. I am only me.

[VeoLu]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

VeoLu wrote...
snipped for length

they're trying to assimilate us into their hive mind.

And I won't submit. I'm no follower, nor am I a leader. I am only me.

Assuming control.

Modifié par VeoLu, 08 mars 2011 - 12:58 .

[Naltharial]

I don't know, I just find the statements "they're just making it for money" and "they're making what sells, not a good game" to be astoundingly ridiculous.

If the game isn't good, who the hell is buying it and giving them money? I'll take BioWare's word over the word of some pretentious "reviewer" who likes to think himself "oldschool" and "hardcore".

[TEWR]

VeoLu wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

VeoLu wrote...
snipped for length

they're trying to assimilate us into their hive mind.

And I won't submit. I'm no follower, nor am I a leader. I am only me.

Assuming control.

I shall quote Mewtwo from the Pokemon special Mewtwo Returns..... ahem....

Mewtwo: "I will NOT submit!!"

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Naltharial wrote...

I don't know, I just find the statements "they're just making it for money" and "they're making what sells, not a good game" to be astoundingly ridiculous.

If the game isn't good, who the hell is buying it and giving them money? I'll take BioWare's word over the word of some pretentious "reviewer" who likes to think himself "oldschool" and "hardcore".

This is EA. They been selling bad games for decades. Bad games sell all of the time. Enter the Matrix was horrible and it doubled DA:O in sells.  I do agree that Bioware isnt making what sells. They are making what they think sells. I dont expect DA 2 to outsell DA:O.  I think they are heading in the direction of Fable 3. 

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Rawgrim wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

moilami wrote...

I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

I could too.  And it's not difficult to do.  For all its 'cool' D&D mechanics, its  huge spell list, it's different classes, and infinetely wider variety of weapons, Bg's combat was deceptively straight forward and simple-ly one-dimensional. 

-Could you stagger, knock back and knock down  people  with special melee attacks?  No.  
-Could your warrior and your mage work together on a cross class combo?  No. 
-Did  stuff like positioning, and aggro  really matter in melee?  No.
-Did you have to worry about stuff like cool-down timers on talents?  No
-Did your Warriors have a dozen different special attacks?  No.
-Was there a really big difference in combat styles between a sword and shield  fighter, and a 2-hander?  No.
-Were things like increased critical chance percentages, and increased critical damage percentages in the game?  No.
-Were  stamina and  fatigue factors implemented?  No.

Note:  I'm merely pointing all this out to  illustrate  how  grotesquely idiotic  the  "dumbed down"  claim about DA2 really is.

You could knock back opponents when you got the epic level abilities. And some weapons had "stun" effects.

Sure your warrior and mage could work together. Hold Person spell + send in the warrior. Helpless opponents were automatically hit by attacks in BG2.

positioning mattered alot. Keeping your mages nicely tucked into the middle of your party was a smart move. Tanks up front.

No cool-down for talents. But spells did have casting time, however.

Warriors did have a few special abilities, depending on what type of warriors, of course. Some had spells as well. Spell-like abilities too.

The were differences between sword and shield + two handers, sure. Two handers had slower attack rates, and alot lower armour class. Even lower vs ranged attacks.

Increased chance of scoring a critical hit was also in the game.

Stamina was also a factor. Using Haste spells, or the rage ability made your character fatigued. Traveling around for days without rest also made them fatigued. If i remember correctly, they could get fatigued during very long fights as well, depending on their CON stat.

What kind of a version of BG2 did you play exactly?

also ranged weapons mattered. It was almost as if one game had ranged weapons and the other didnt. There was just no reason to use an archer in DA:O. 

[SamimaS]

The review scores support this decline!

Gamespot - DAO - 9.5
Gamespot - DA2 - 8
IGN - DAO - 9.2
IGN - DA2 - 8.5

And remember EA have been going mad on marketing for this game, unlike the first, which includes advertising on both of these sites!

[Warlock Angel22]

I guess it all depends on what people find most important in their rpgs. For me it's all about the story and the journey throught that story. I want to see my character and my party evolve as I play through the game. I want to interesting environments. I want a character that I feel like I've uniquely created. The combat style is near the bottom of my list. I love the Elder Scroll games but much of the combat ends up being hack n slash. I think when people think of classic rpg, they are thinking of the old KOTOR style of play. While I still play that game to this day and love it, I do at times wish I could fight using ME or DA type of combat. I bet in 10 years people are going to be lamenting the old ME & DA style of rpg combat when something new is introduced.

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
t doesnt matter what you think or what I think because everyone has different opinions. The bottom line is they had stuff that was in the game. They could have improved it instead they took it out so now at least in those areas the game has less depth. And its not like anything I suggested would have bankrupted the company when they had 10 years to make these improvements. Its not just those things I named too. They removed base stuff like death, custom portraits, and doors that worked. I look at BG and I ask what could I cut from it to make it better? How could streamlining work? My answer Load times, multiplayer. Their answer...

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks?

OK. So why should I care about "depth"? You're not saying it makes a better game. So why care?

[TEWR]

I'm playing it now and my hunch about the demo was right. It WAS just a rough version of the game. The actual game does not have an overly dramatic sense of gore, rarely do you make a darkspawn explode, usually it only happens if they're frozen which makes sense.

The women's running is better and not as weird looking.

The environment is not "bland" and "badly designed". It's actually what you would expect.

It was a demo and people were calling the whole entire game ****ty. And they only had a demo to base it off of. The actual game is awesome

stuff I'm glad is the same so far:

Wesley is still a ****** saying "The Order dictates". Aveline's still badass.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 mars 2011 - 05:49 .