Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Its probably because those who actually own the game and have it registered wouldnt dare speak bad about it. Having an oppinion means you get banned on this website.
]
Nah, I guess the reason is - they want to head oppinions from people that PLAYED the full game (and paid to do so).
I did. Played for 50 hours, a full game in Hard as a mage (elemental/Force), then started 2 games on normal as rogue and warrior.
The game is very good, you're sucked into it after some 10 hours, but some design flaws are simply abysmal.
Who the heck could like the fact that adds spawn from NOWHERE every damn fight? And also that you have limited zoom so your awareness is bad (not to mention AoE spells placement)?
My guess: They tried to balance the game so people could play without changing the char control, and those ideas (very bad ideas) where the way they limited the effect to play tactically over playing it as an action game.
The sad part is - DA:O was cheered on the PC and loathed on consoles BECAUSE DA:O for PC allowed for a more tactical approach. DA2 suffer from an identity crysis. No, you cannot make a "stop and issue orders tactical game that is ALSO an action console game". Make up your mind.
Tip: Use what people liked most about the previous game, not what people didn't care about. There are tons of devil may cry and god of wars clones out there, give us a traditional RPG. DA:O seemed to be the old school RPG renaissance. Give us DA with Mass Effect QUALITY (yes, ME2 rules), but keep the identity you created with the first game.
Alas, you'll notice I played on hard first. That's because I like my DA expericente tactical. But the damn limitations to camera and random spawn of adds are so frustrating I gave up on playing on Nightmare (my original plan for the 2nd run). So I just chose to play the game as an action game from now on, destroying stuff mindlessly as my NPC companions do their jobs automated. It's fun sometimes. Just nothing unique.
Retour en haut
