444 réponses à ce sujet

[JONNY_C]

For me the repeated maps are the worst thing. There is just no excuse. When I heard that it would all be set in one city, I thought that could be great. Expecting, hopefully, the scale of say a Liberty City. But everything feels so small scale.
The worst thing of all, is the lazy feel of the production has made me decide that I'm not going to bother pre-ordering ME3.

[Aesieru]

Azmodaii wrote...

Fallout 1 & 2, Kotor 1&2, the baldur's gate games, all excellent RPG games of the good old days. Even mass effect 1 and DA 1 were good solid immersive worlds that resembled an RPG style. I'm afraid calling DA 2 anything close to an rpg is a huge shame to these excellent games, its nothing more than a hack n slash click and run action adventure game. The RPG elements are a joke and the game itself feels almost half assed.

I have played every bioware game lovingly over the last 10 years or so but this is the first time I had to uninstall a good game I payed 60$ for, because it was so boring.

You can do better bioware, please do better.

(note: I know fallout isn't a bioware franchise, I just mentioned it as an example to an incredible RPG game).

Technically KoTOR2 and NWN2 weren't either.

[Sheogor]

DA2 got rushed by EA, ME3.... not so sure, if EA manages to make that into EA standards rather than Bioware, the world with go under

[Azmodaii]

there are many ways to nitpick my post, and I do see that some people may like this game. It has mass appeal and is accessible. but then again that's the problem. It's designed to be simple and accessible and therefore lost its touch i'm afraid.

I still remember playing ME 1 for the first time, what an amazing experience... DA 1 was similarly fun to play through but this game just never hooked me on. It felt like they started designing the game with some good solid ideas, then decided to cut everything in half about a month later. Such huge potential :/

Its a good action adventure game I suppose, but please make the good RPG's you used to bioware.

[Azmodaii]

double post. sorry. 

Modifié par Azmodaii, 14 mars 2011 - 06:11 .

[Kane-Corr]

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

[Aesieru]

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

I liked the ME series, but what you're mentioning is hand-waving nearly all the issues with Dragon Age 2 such as mass use of recycled environments.

[Chadthesad]

Apechild wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Apechild wrote...

Enemies are not simply endless waves, there is more tactical complexity such as assassins targeting mages and rogues (sometimes a one-shot kill for my mage PC if her health was down).  Enemy mages were much more canny and robust.

I'm afraid they are 'endless' waves. Each fight is one of two; 3-4 waves of opponents of varying toughness or a boss for whom 'adds' will be summoned when the boss reaches a certain health percentage. Every fight is in that vein and they really are. I felt that Kirkwall had more bad guys living on its rooftops than it did citizens on ground level.
I approve of the assassin's supposed hunting out the mages/rogues but from the way they kept turning from my 'Hawke', who was a mage, and running after the tank, whilst her taunt was on cooldown, made me wonder. As for enemy mages? They just teleported around - was ridiculous to watch a Frost Mage or whatever he was take a hit from  Winters Touch and instantly teleport himself a long distance from the fight and then as soon as he was attacked again he teleported again. Thats boring rather than canny or robust - if they actually had a toolset of spells with which to challenge players beyond the copy-paste teleport + big AoE centred on main character then the combat would have been improved.

I'm at a disadvantage, as combat is the last thing I care about.  However, to dispute a couple points- mages not only teleport, they go into force fields periodically, they create bombs, and it's the first time since playing DA that a blood mage has actually made my PC do the crazy shaky thing.  She was a blood mage herself, so I was impressed.  Heh.

Ah yes, the shield, forgot about that - I use dispel magic whenever I see them do that so I tend to forget about it. So thats three spells; big AoE, shield & teleport. Not enough of a toolest. If they'd had knocked my party members back with force spells as I do to mobs, or if they'd countered my magic by dispelling it or had summoned creatures to attack me, or had made use of AoE 'utility' spells to prevent my 'tank' getting to them or had any number of other types of spells then they would havebeen more of a challenge.

Some of the boss battles were tedious- the high dragon- but the rock wraith was quite a challenge.  There is only so much you can do with enemies and AI.  For what it was, there were definite improvements from Origins.

I personally want to have the choice to find alternative means to take down 'bosses', finding ways to defeat the boss that is not the same tank'n'spank the game consists of entirely. Certainly with the Rock Wraith I had to run around a little more than other bosses, but it was not that tough.

As for the other criticism, sorry, it just sounds like nitpicking to me.  If you want to play The Witcher, Witcher 2 is out in another month.  This is a different game, so I don't expect it to look or play like that one.

My other criticisms just point to the lack of immersion. If I'm told a place is a city, I expect it to be a city. I expect there to be NPC's strolling around and chatting, I expect patrols of Guards, people to be buying from merchants, I expect there to be random distractions, I expect the city to be 'alive'. To further elaborate in my comparison - in the Witcher there are street performers that will perform when peopl are around them and citizens will wander over to see what is happening. There are minstrels and bards. When it rains the citizens run for cover beneath awnings and building overhangs. The city actually feels as though somethings happening whereas with Kirkwall? Same, same, same. All the way through. A maze of brown & beige. Denerim had more character in DA:O.
We're constantly told how overpopulated Kirkwall is...so where are the masses of Fereldan refugees? Where are all the pickpockets/cutpurses that apparently lurk in Hightown? Where is the population? To me it looks as though it just consists primarily of bandits considering how many tens of dozen I've had to slay as they randomly attack me.

My comparison was purely in the way the cities are, not the gameplay, but how the world is brought to life. That I do not expect to be different. For example look at this direct comparison of screenshots;



Which would you rather walk around & explore? Which one looks like it has life & character to it?

I pre-ordered The Witcher 2 before I pre-ordered DA2 and I have to say I'm looking forward to it even more than I was before, but thats just personal preference.

Yeah, walking through a crowd of mindless NPC's is a lot of fun. I like having atmosphere and enviroment around my characters, but not at the cost of getting his/her objectives done. These pictures are far misleading. The gallows wasn't active for a reason. The storyline explains it, I will say it was because of "fear". Kirkwall is a large city, yes there were refugee's, a good portion of the city is not explorable. Sure, they'll include other area's in DLC's. I'll argue that the NPC's in DA:II are engaging with each other. They also look like they're working, except for some of the merchants.

The Witcher 2 screenshot is what's wrong with some game companies and their design philosophies. Crowded city streets do not add any immersion, it'll just frustrate the player, when trying to find important NPC's. Some area's should have bustling streets with citizens or villagers, but other's shouldn't. For example, if it's a farming town, many people would be inside of their homes or on the pastures. If the village had a marketplace it would most likely have visitor's. The picture clearly show's Npc's standing around. They add nothing to the enviroment, besides "Oh, look it's Ted the village savant". 

I bet also, you'll see tons of reused facial meshes/textures for the NPC's in The Witcher 2.

[Soilborn88]

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

If equipping your companions manually is too much of a hassle for you then you don't need to be playing RPGs.

That's why they made Fable. Enough said.

[Sheogor]

my biggest issue would be that DA1 ME1/2 KOTOR1/2 all made me feel like part of a story that really got me to love the game and wanted to play again and again even for the same reactions or just getting that one conversation/action right. DA2 turned too much towards action, and the being rushed by EA to get it out ruined what probably couldve been a good story.
i think the new combatsystem is ok, it just needed those extra few months of refinement to not be like every other action based systems

[ppitchfork]

to me the worst thing is not being able to change your companion's armor. they even have the gall to mark all of the armor "restricted to (insert name here) hawke". like they knew we were going to try equipping it on others. besides, i was looking forward to having bethany bounce around in her undies the entire game.

[Arkynomicon]

The recycled environments didn't bother me that much considering how often they used it in the first game.

[Lycidas]

Riloux wrote...
-Reusing the same four maps 500 times.
-Setting the whole game in one city.
-Enemies have a ton of HP and come in waves so the game feels longer.
-Frame narrative to avoid being too descriptive about what happens between large periods of time.
-Half as much dialogue, more passive interaction.
-Millions of stupid side quests that have nothing to do with anything.
-Dull environment bereft of life and matter.
-Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.
-Collecting hundreds of-- literally, junk items-- to create the illusion of immersion and depth.
-Poor character development, so you hardly care about your companions by the end of the game. 
-Lack of any substantial choices that have lasting effects.
-Contrived ending, that tells you nothing, and leaves a huge gap for sub-par DLC
-Generic UI showing a lack of creativitiy and effort.

You lose! Good day, serrah. 

This game is a far greater source of embarassment for your company than it is a disappointment for us.

*Copy and pasting the OP's post*
See BioWare I can do it too

[sector001]

JONNY_C wrote...

For me the repeated maps are the worst thing. There is just no excuse. When I heard that it would all be set in one city, I thought that could be great. Expecting, hopefully, the scale of say a Liberty City. But everything feels so small scale.
The worst thing of all, is the lazy feel of the production has made me decide that I'm not going to bother pre-ordering ME3.

Yea DAO never reused maps...

[moilami]

Soilborn88 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

If equipping your companions manually is too much of a hassle for you then you don't need to be playing RPGs.

That's why they made Fable. Enough said.

Being able to equip NPCs makes sense big time. Imagine if you become a police or soldier or buss driver you will get equipment from your employer. And my friends has "equipped" me always if I have for some reason had not enough clothes with me. They do that without me asking them to do it.

Also in real immersive RPG equipment would be shared and borrowed between chars. Only a moron would say "i don't want to wear that +3 armour because i like my +1 armour more" or "now we are going to risk our lives but I still don't let u use this spare +5 sword lol".

[moilami]

sector001 wrote...

JONNY_C wrote...

For me the repeated maps are the worst thing. There is just no excuse. When I heard that it would all be set in one city, I thought that could be great. Expecting, hopefully, the scale of say a Liberty City. But everything feels so small scale.
The worst thing of all, is the lazy feel of the production has made me decide that I'm not going to bother pre-ordering ME3.

Yea DAO never reused maps...

I only remember bad DLCs reusing maps.

And apology "it was that bad in game X" does not make it good.

[Azmodaii]

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

let me tell you then, young one...
By saying that sorting through collected armour weapons and whatnot is "meaningless" and that equipping your party is "dressing up", I would already like to direct you to fps games like Halo or Cod where you are solely in charge of your own character. This was supposed to be an RPG game, and not only any rpg game, but a bioware rpg game.  Now many many people like me who love and have always loved Bioware games do so because of the immersive atmosphere, the unique characters and the sense of accomplishment. Getting lost into the world, going through the missions, only to stop in between and better  equip and prepare your teammates for the challenge to come. In this game, you just charge head on, check the star rating of something in your inventory and replace it accordingly. Its silly, its lazy and its stupid. Simplifying the itemization of an rpg game is a design flaw, not an improvement, and all you halo boys should understand the differences between genres.

Games like Fallout, ME, BG , Kotor and even DA 1 were all great because of the sense of exploration. Staying in the same generic, stale and static environment is boring and dull and just annoying. I loved the sense of fighting in new environments then having a breather in a new city, exploring that city, engaging in dialogue with every character, again preparing for your next mission as you should do in an RPG. Whereas in an action game you just storm through everything, because that is the point of that particular genre.

You talk about ME 1 like it was as dumbed down of a poor game as this one, well let me tell you that it was definitely not, I remember rummaging through every weapon and armour looted and distributing it to my companions, making decisions when distributing talents and levelling up, In this game I could not care less about any of the characters and just set it to auto level up. The first time i've done this in any bioware game ever.

Its a poor game that is oversimplified for mass appeal. Its a bioware game and a sequel to Dragon age, and therefore it was always bound to sell well, and it did, Mission accomplished for EA. I , however will not prepurchase further titles before reading every review on the game from now on, I trust bioware can still produce quality games like they used to as opposed to cookie cutter generic stale games like this and I will await that day.

Its so sad that i had to bother writing all this :/

[Kane-Corr]

Soilborn88 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

If equipping your companions manually is too much of a hassle for you then you don't need to be playing RPGs.

That's why they made Fable. Enough said.

I didn't mean benefit from an "effort" standpoint...but from a story standpoint...or true "roleplaying" standpoint. You wouldn't do it in real life....so why in a video game. The ways of the past aren't better than new methods. People just are linear in their thinking with one way. The traditional RPG qualities are mainstream...hahaha go figure that one. It's time for this awesome change to come full force...as long as it doesn't detract from teh STORY...because that is what Bioware is known for.

[Azmodaii]

Kane-Corr wrote...

Soilborn88 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

If equipping your companions manually is too much of a hassle for you then you don't need to be playing RPGs.

That's why they made Fable. Enough said.

I didn't mean benefit from an "effort" standpoint...but from a story standpoint...or true "roleplaying" standpoint. You wouldn't do it in real life....so why in a video game. The ways of the past aren't better than new methods. People just are linear in their thinking with one way. The traditional RPG qualities are mainstream...hahaha go figure that one. It's time for this awesome change to come full force...as long as it doesn't detract from teh STORY...because that is what Bioware is known for.

what we are trying to say is that the story is poor too. I have no idea what i did during my 30 odd hours playing this game. I was confused most of the time, trying to understand what was going on. They spent so much time establishing the Lore for the world in DA 1, came up with the wardens and whatnot and we are presented with this game where we have NOTHING to do with any of that stuff. Wow, a character we saved in DA 1 gets mentioned here and there, a character we saved in act 1 is now a chief somewhere... yes yes all great but what happened to the epic scale of the first game where we actually saved an entire world from shattering under the feet of evil? What happened to the gray wardens in this game? Why spend so much time establishing the order of the gray wardens, only to almost completely ignore it in DA 2? PRetty silly :/

[FearMonkey]

Riloux wrote...

-Inability to customize companions allowed you to skip designing different armor models.

This was probably also done so that they can charge us for new costumes via paid DLC similar to how they do it in Mass Effect 2. <_<

[Kane-Corr]

Azmodaii wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

let me tell you then, young one...
By saying that sorting through collected armour weapons and whatnot is "meaningless" and that equipping your party is "dressing up", I would already like to direct you to fps games like Halo or Cod where you are solely in charge of your own character. This was supposed to be an RPG game, and not only any rpg game, but a bioware rpg game.  Now many many people like me who love and have always loved Bioware games do so because of the immersive atmosphere, the unique characters and the sense of accomplishment. Getting lost into the world, going through the missions, only to stop in between and better  equip and prepare your teammates for the challenge to come. In this game, you just charge head on, check the star rating of something in your inventory and replace it accordingly. Its silly, its lazy and its stupid. Simplifying the itemization of an rpg game is a design flaw, not an improvement, and all you halo boys should understand the differences between genres.

Games like Fallout, ME, BG , Kotor and even DA 1 were all great because of the sense of exploration. Staying in the same generic, stale and static environment is boring and dull and just annoying. I loved the sense of fighting in new environments then having a breather in a new city, exploring that city, engaging in dialogue with every character, again preparing for your next mission as you should do in an RPG. Whereas in an action game you just storm through everything, because that is the point of that particular genre.

You talk about ME 1 like it was as dumbed down of a poor game as this one, well let me tell you that it was definitely not, I remember rummaging through every weapon and armour looted and distributing it to my companions, making decisions when distributing talents and levelling up, In this game I could not care less about any of the characters and just set it to auto level up. The first time i've done this in any bioware game ever.

Its a poor game that is oversimplified for mass appeal. Its a bioware game and a sequel to Dragon age, and therefore it was always bound to sell well, and it did, Mission accomplished for EA. I , however will not prepurchase further titles before reading every review on the game from now on, I trust bioware can still produce quality games like they used to as opposed to cookie cutter generic stale games like this and I will await that day.

Its so sad that i had to bother writing all this :/

First off...yeah Mass Effect was a lot of rummaging and all...but still a tiny bit more simplified than say other RPG's. Ok, DA2 was more like Mass Effect 2. But, what's the problem with that? AND...I understand your take on equipping your companion armor...but in a way DAO was TOO open with all of that...it really took away from teh experience and fluidity that shouls have been. DA2 MAYBE could have offered something more than what was there...like some more weapon choices, and maybe a default armor change in between acts. But, what your asking is so archaic that at this point in time it just takes away from the roleplaying experience. It's not all about Items...it's story. That's the main point.

AND...yeah exploration is the ideal quality you want a game to sense...but this game was exploring personal relationships, the state of a city....and a really important relationship that involves all of Thedas. Look past all of the flaws and you will see a game that IS worthy. Just open your mind a little bit to see this and you will. I didn't necessarily like the changes made to Mass Effect 2 at first...but I learned to deal with it...and now I see it as better.

It's more a transitioning then anything.

[Tirigon]

Dystopian Dream wrote...

I agree completely but it seems some 12 year olds on here disagree with you and spam threads with pictures of dogs

Dogs can be cool. They definitely are better than many of the posts.....

Emerald Melios wrote...
No, gamers have way too much of an entitlement complex. They can't even be happy with what they are given.

That´s because of what other gamers do. I mean, for many games there are fan-made mods that are waaaaay better than anything the company made. Most prominent example would of course be TES4 Oblivion, for which I have probably a few 100 hours of fan-made quests installed (most of them equal or even better than the original game), but it´s by far not the only one.

[Archereon]

It's sad how Bioware's going out with a whimper rather than something more worthy of them. TOR is going to be the end of Bioware as we know it, whether it succeeds or not. If it takes down WoW, then all company resources will be focused onto TOR, and BioWare's remaining franchises will be given to a far more general studio like Visceral or Redwoods. If it flops, BioWare will be either sold (likely to Activision, which will r*** it beyond comprehension) or shut down. Either way, it's likely Mass Effect 3 will be BioWare's last real game.

[SwedishSammich]

Your goals should be not ''to find a cure for irony and make a fool out of God.'' but to get a [monkey] brain

[No swearing, please.]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 14 mars 2011 - 07:07 .

[Kane-Corr]

Azmodaii wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Soilborn88 wrote...

Kane-Corr wrote...

Tell me, oldschool gamer...what is the benefit of having a game where you sift through meaningless piles of armor and materials to seemingly "dress up" your companion, only to further influence how they devlop combat wise, etc.???? In an effort to make a more realistic experience...I believe features like these which composed past rpg's must be left out.

A roleplaying game where YOU are the character shouldn't allow you to take care of others. This would detract from the "roleplaying" experience. Because, then, it trickles with some RTS and MMO qualities. Very bad indeed. Let me tell you what made Mass Effect so succesful. It took away many many many of those meaningless elements. Now, that does NOT make a game worse.
Many people I know that bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 did NOT buy Origins...because they couldn't get past the bland combat and the meaningless other things that took away from the experience of the story, characters, etc. You may call me a "fanboy" all you want, but I can see where Bioware is going...and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives that you see.

If equipping your companions manually is too much of a hassle for you then you don't need to be playing RPGs.

That's why they made Fable. Enough said.

I didn't mean benefit from an "effort" standpoint...but from a story standpoint...or true "roleplaying" standpoint. You wouldn't do it in real life....so why in a video game. The ways of the past aren't better than new methods. People just are linear in their thinking with one way. The traditional RPG qualities are mainstream...hahaha go figure that one. It's time for this awesome change to come full force...as long as it doesn't detract from teh STORY...because that is what Bioware is known for.

what we are trying to say is that the story is poor too. I have no idea what i did during my 30 odd hours playing this game. I was confused most of the time, trying to understand what was going on. They spent so much time establishing the Lore for the world in DA 1, came up with the wardens and whatnot and we are presented with this game where we have NOTHING to do with any of that stuff. Wow, a character we saved in DA 1 gets mentioned here and there, a character we saved in act 1 is now a chief somewhere... yes yes all great but what happened to the epic scale of the first game where we actually saved an entire world from shattering under the feet of evil? What happened to the gray wardens in this game? Why spend so much time establishing the order of the gray wardens, only to almost completely ignore it in DA 2? PRetty silly :/

The story was DIFFERENT. AND, you cant always be the savior of the world you know. The whole mentioning things was a cool feature, but don't always feel entitled to the import feature being AMAZING or, better yet, don't build up some crazy awesome world in your mind and then expect Bioware to fulfill that.