184 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

I get to impose my personality upon Hawke... thats the whole point of being able to choose how I will respond to questions (unlike with the NPC in the game... I don't get to decide how anyone else responds to questions). You pointed out the defining difference between the main character (me) and everyone else.

You get to impose a personality on Hawke.  It doesn't have to be yours.

Yes, I'll grant that's a difference.  But as DAO (and KotOR, and ME) demonstrate, that doesn't require you can't equip armour on the others.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

I get to impose my personality upon Hawke... thats the whole point of being able to choose how I will respond to questions (unlike with the NPC in the game... I don't get to decide how anyone else responds to questions). You pointed out the defining difference between the main character (me) and everyone else.

You get to impose a personality on Hawke.  It doesn't have to be yours.

Yes, I'll grant that's a difference.  But as DAO (and KotOR, and ME) demonstrate, that doesn't require you can't equip armour on the others.

[Valus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Also, in DAO you could stop the animation half-way through.  If you were winding up for an attack, or casting Inferno, or whatever, and some urgent tactical need to do something else arose, you could immediately go do that other thing.

I had forgotten about that. While it does end up having it's share of negative consequences (especially in regards to slow swinging 2 handers or breaking a channel 90% of the way through accidentaly) it still leaves it in the player's control thus your fault if you choose innapropriately. Good point.

Still not entirely sold that DAO was more 'responsive' overall. I certainly preferred DAO's combat to this in many many ways however I don't miss trying to shield slam an opponent that runs right up to me, around me, then past me to my casters while I'm still trying to shuffle up into position. Also really not missing getting slammed by an ogre after he's done doing his mega animation even though I've run 40 yards away by the time I take damage. I don't find either of these things to be responsive. I will say that these issues could have been addressed without causing the new problems like frontloading the animation or locking us into cast time that could be tactically disadvantageous.

[skylr616]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, I'll grant that's a difference.  But as DAO (and KotOR, and ME) demonstrate, that doesn't require you can't equip armour on the others.

Who's to say controlling a few more armor pieces of your party members in those games was a strength.. that's an assumption based on the fact that you just happened to enjoy that aspect of the game. We are not all you ;(

The absence of paper-doll party members is a huge boon in terms of development costs... well worth it IMO in terms of cost/benefit. In the process they now made the "gift" mechanic a bit more relevant in this game as its the only method to improve team members gear (beyond jewelry/weapons). It also ensures the appearance of the NPC characters fit the story as intended... taking away choice isn't always a bad thing (contrary to some car insurance commercials).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You get to impose a personality on Hawke. It doesn't have to be yours.

Sorry... you replied before I finished my final edit on an earlier post... here it is copy-paste.

I can choose to impose a superficial personality on Hawke if I feel like it but I find that I prefer playing as myself at least the first time through so I have a more visceral emotional connection to the story. I doubt I am the only one that does this ;P

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 08:31 .

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

Unless you played both games with friendly fire on your opinions of combat doesn't matter and are not worth to read.

DA2's nonsensical ruleset badly damages friendly fire.

Why do my characters hit so much harder than everyone else in the world?  Why do we have so many fewer hit points?

Yeah, that's why I wrote "friendly fire enabled". I take friendly fire as an option which should be able to be toggled by the player. No FF is like a cheat. I don't know what difficulty level enabled FF in DA, but I have heard in DA2 only nightmare enables it. However FF is part of normal difficulty level. No FF is easier than normal difficulty.

That why chars hit so much harder and have more special skills than enemies while enemies have more HP is immersion breaking. I can only see my chars to be some kind of X-men in medieval fantasy world. And enemies are completely other species, some sort of cro magnons at most.


Edit: And the combat ruleset is totally absurd and exactly what Sylvanius said - and the concequence of it is that there is no way casual combatants can enable FF because if they would do it their "awesome fluid fast combat" would be completely different experience lol.

Modifié par moilami, 18 mars 2011 - 08:35 .

[Mooh Bear]

skylr616 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, I'll grant that's a difference.  But as DAO (and KotOR, and ME) demonstrate, that doesn't require you can't equip armour on the others.

Who's to say controlling a few more armor pieces of your party members in those games was a strength.. that's an assumption based on the fact that you just happened to enjoy that aspect of the game. We are not all you ;(

The absence of paper-doll party members is a huge boon in terms of development costs... well worth it IMO in terms of cost/benefit.

How is cost/benefit relevant to you? Do you have EA shares? The reason companion customization was taken out is lack of time. Because the game was developed in over a year or so. So you get a half-done game released in half the time needed, but still selling at full price. The only ones benefiting here are EA stock holders. I don't understand your logic 

[Chadthesad]

Great insights from ReavousX. Thank you for posting, your opinions are outlined constructively.

[skylr616]

Mooh Bear wrote...


How is cost/benefit relevant to you? Do you have EA shares? The reason companion customization was taken out is lack of time. Because the game was developed in over a year or so. So you get a half-done game released in half the time needed, but still selling at full price. The only ones benefiting here are EA stock holders. I don't understand your logic 

You completely misunderstand me... I wasn't referring to Bioware's cost/benefit but the customers (although I'm sure it proved an effective cost cutter to Bioware... that was far from the only reason they did it).

It has been talked about in other threads that Bioware found (from data mining DAO) that a huge portion of their customer base was simply overwhelmed with the player/item stats and stopped playing early on in frustration... I can completely understand why they would want to simplify NPC stats a bit (by limiting customization to just jewelry and weapons).

I am actually impressed with the compromises they managed to find... it is now a very easy game for just about everyone to get in to (because you can play through easily without spendiing hours outfitting a dozen characters) but it still retains a surprising amount of DAOs complexity if you want to dig in. You get to choose just how many hours/effort you want to sink in to the game...

Preliminary sales seem to show they made the right choice (still top seller on Steam two weeks later and the console version are supposedly even doing better).

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 08:45 .

[Lord_Saulot]

A lot of us bought and played the game *despite* the heavily simplified inventory system. Or more accurately, I did not know how simplified the inventory was because it was not showcased in the demo. I did know that companion armor would be fixed, and I played despite not liking that decision, because I wanted to give the game a fair shot, and because I liked certain other aspects of the game.

[Mooh Bear]

skylr616 wrote...

Mooh Bear wrote...


How is cost/benefit relevant to you? Do you have EA shares? The reason companion customization was taken out is lack of time. Because the game was developed in over a year or so. So you get a half-done game released in half the time needed, but still selling at full price. The only ones benefiting here are EA stock holders. I don't understand your logic 

You completely misunderstand me... I wasn't referring to Bioware's cost/benefit but the customers (although I'm sure it proved an effective cost cutter to Bioware... I'm sure that was far from the only reason they did it...).

It has been talked about in other threads that Bioware found (from data mining DAO) that a huge portion of their customer base was simply overwhelmed with the player/item stats and stopped playing early on in frustration... I can completely understand why they would want to simplify NPC stats a bit (by limiting customization to just jewelry and weapons).

I am actually impressed with the compromises they managed to find... it is now a very easy game for just about everyone to get in to (because you can play through easily without spendiing hours outfitting a dozen characters) but it still retains a surprising amount of DAOs complexity if you want to dig in.

What compromise? They changed a bunch of stuff (art, combat, leveling), took away features (skills, customization, top-down view), reused ad nauseam the same 5 maps and added what? Voice acting for the PC? 

[Chadthesad]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why do my characters hit so much harder than everyone else in the world?  Why do we have so many fewer hit points?

This is the way action rpg's work. It would not be much fun, if your opponent's could do everything you could do. Would it present a challenge? Surely, however if the mobs mimicked cross class combo's with the damage output from those combos (based on level/statistics). Your heroes would not be able to stand toe to toe. Staggered enemies can easily be struck with five to eight hundred plus damage in the mid tier levels. Ultimately based on the contribution of constitution to your characters overall health, you would be one shotted quite frequently. Do you wish to play a video game under those circumstances? I surely do not.

[skylr616]

Mooh Bear wrote...

What compromise? They changed a bunch of stuff (art, combat, leveling), took away features (skills, customization, top-down view), reused ad nauseam the same 5 maps and added what? Voice acting for the PC? 

It's actually about 10 or so but I understand why you feel you need to exaggerate. Thats the one thing I can say the sincerely goofed up on... its even worse because they knew it was a poor choice but completely misjudged just HOW bad it was.

"took away features" could just as easily be stated as "removed boring, unecessary, *features*" depending on your perspective... 

Modifié par skylr616, 18 mars 2011 - 08:51 .

[Sidney]

moilami wrote...


Edit: And the combat ruleset is totally absurd and exactly what Sylvanius said - and the concequence of it is that there is no way casual combatants can enable FF because if they would do it their "awesome fluid fast combat" would be completely different experience lol.

This is patently untrue and makes zero sense that you even wrote it - big shock. NPC X might move faster to point Y but they don't do some dance of one hit death through their foes - I think a lot of you whining played about 5 minutes of the demo and then stopped. They move faster to point Y but the whack, whack, whack, part of things takes every bit as long as in DAO and during that time they ain't moving a whole lot and so you can drop all kinds of stuff around or near them w/o breaking FF rules. Heck, I find it easier to target up the FF spells now because when I tell someone to do something they do it - both caster and anyone trying to avoid being collateral - and so I'm not having to guess where anyone will be or when they'll cast a spell.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

skylr616 wrote...

The idea that your party should be a collection of paper dolls always seemed wrong to me. I am the protagonist... not some hive mind that lives in the skin of every party member. I am the leader of the party and as such they should certainly follow my orders in a battle... but... they are not my personal play things that I get to play dressup with.

Hawke is your personal plaything that you get to play dressup with.  What makes the others different?  They're all just characters in a fictional world.

I want to dress them up.  If you don't want to, don't do it.

They should be able to be dressed up. Pros get their hands on better gear. Now they use the same gear all the time except swap some jewelry.

I find all kind of crap from the world which have a tag "restriction: Only useable by Salmivaara Hawke". WTF!? Is Hawke some kind of god in there to whom people have tailored and magically enchanted gear in a way none else except Hawke can use it?

I understand casual adventure gamers are not affected of it because it boosts their "Mah is SPECIAL man" ego and because they don't have a clue what is RPG.

[lilliful]

I've bolded key sentences for the TL;DR crowd.

An interesting post. I think there's a middle ground between the "poster girl for casual gaming" and "poster guy for hardcore gaming" that often gets lost in the woodwork. I'm a gay female gamer that plays on both console and PC, and video games have always been a huge part of my life (read: my main hobby), and RPG's set in some creative variation of the middle ages have always had a special place in my heart. The thing is, my video game backlog is out of control. That I'm a completionist only adds to the problem. So, if I have the option, I will play casual just to keep things moving. At the same time, no matter how masochistic the game is (Demon Souls), I'll play it. This probably makes clear that, while I enjoy interesting combat, it comes in second to the overall story. I'll play a great story with crap combat, but not vice versa. 

So, I play DA on both console and PC, and I didn't really agree with either of you on the combat. For me combat wasn't too fast, but it also wasn't refined. The waves of enemies were ridiculous to play on casual... I'd obliterate the battlefield, think the battle was over because no enemies would show up for 15 seconds, head on my merry way, only to realize that the game probably just hadn't expected me to clear them out so fast and only just now is spawning "another wave!" If I'm playing the game on casual to get through the combat faster, the delayed spawning of waves just slows me down. Then, if I play on a higher difficulty to make the combat less laughably stop and go, the waves are ruining my threat management and just come off as annoyingly random rather than adding intrigue to the combat.

As for the story, I actually liked it. Maybe I'm just dense -- I'm usually not the one to figure out the end of the movie before it arrives -- but I really didn't see the end coming. But, one thing I didn't like is that there was no option to really support the Qun. I mean, I would look time and again for dialogue choices that were along the lines of "Actually, you guys are on to something," and they were routinely missing. I felt DA:O really set us up to be able to pursue this path (your warden can choose to travel with Sten to the homeland of the Qunari, for example), but the conclusion of Act II just seemed too finite, too closed, too linear. I think that they could have kept an immutable plot point (resolving the Quanri issue) while still offering us more options of how to go about it. Even if all the fighting at the end of Act II had to be inevitable, which I don't think was a winning decision, why didn't I have the option to join the fray on their side? Personally, I'm more interested in the Qun vs the Chantry vs the Tevinter Imperium, than the Mages vs the Templars. I think THAT is my major gripe with DA2, and the only reason I found the conclusion satisfying was that Anders really forcibly brought the Chantry into it by the end. That, to me, was epic. Also, was it just me, or was Act I just one giant fetchquest? Not enough plot in Act I, imho.

As for the companions, I had a pretty different reaction as well. I played all romances as their same-sex version. I thought Fenris was the best developed character if you pursue his romance, but perhaps has difficulty endearing himself to some Hawkes otherwise as most players are likely to have some degree of mage-sympathy. He was my favorite overall. I had difficulty with Anders' romance (he says different lines to an M!Hawke than an F!Hawke, which ultimately lead to his actions making much less sense in an M!Hawke romance, won't get into it here) but enjoyed his platonic route. He ties with Aveline for second favorite, whose personal story I loved. I really got a feel for who she is as a person, and she was always totally bros with my M!Hawkes. Isabela/Varric were consistently hilarious (although I wouldn't put Varric as my top pick because I never feel we get to know him all that well). Merrill made NO sense to me if not rival!manced, and even then is only half-redeemed, so she's far down the list for me. Bethany, to me, was the most bland (a kind of blank yes-woman) whereas Carver, even when obnoxious, came through loud and clear with a personality. Sebastian felt a bit tacked-on, especially compared to Shale, but I guess them's the breaks. Let me be clear, though: I loved and felt more attatched to my DA2 companions than those of DA:O, which made it all the more painful that I didn't get enough of them.

Actually, as for the voice protagonist, I felt there were both gains and losses to be had. First of all, how many of you made a custom character only to burst out laughing when we heard such an unfitting voice come from that face? Happened to me time and again -- gradually I would get used to the voice, but I never had this problem in the Mass Effect series. I feel silly saying it, but maybe there's something about picking a voice that fits a beard that just doesn't work with the smooth characters. Another interesting thing is that the voice actors, even when going down different personality paths, still had an ambient persona to the voice that took away some of the options for imbuing them with our own characteristics. For example, F!Hawke always had some degree of melodiousness to her voice such that, even when she was trying to be aggressive and cruel, she just didn't completely make it there for me the way that M!Hawke did. However, I didn't hate it... I just felt a bit hemmed-in by it. At this point, I'd marginally prefer the return to an unvoiced protagonist, but wouldn't mind continuing voiced as long as the voice actors were better chosen (actually, if I had my way, all three tones would have had different voice actors, unfeasible though that may be). I did mind the occasional lack of distinction between an battle-hardened no-nonsense Hawke and a cruel or violent Hawke -- sometimes when I picked the aggressive response I'd be going for "hardened general" and get "bloodlusty jackass." In these cases, I loved the automatic autosave at the beginning of many companion conversations :3 Please keep doing this, BioWare! You absolutely spoiled me with how well-placed the autosaves are in DA2.

Also, just for good measure, the main things that drove me batty about DA2 are pretty easy to list: NO MORE DOORS THAT CAN'T OPEN. Really, just remove the doors if I can't use them. I don't even mind if you re-use environments. I'm tired of walking up to them to find out if they're selectable. AMBIENT NPC DIALOGUE SHOULD ONLY BE SAID ONCE. I'm really tired of walking past that same random noble who always says that same lines about how gross Fereldans are, etc. Waves of enemies was my third gripe, but it was nowhere near as obnoxious as those first two.

Okay, I've rambled enough. Overall, I've accepted DA2 as a spinoff of DA:O rather than a direct sequel, where they planned to test all the ideas they had running around for the franchise in one game, so that future releases can benefit. And frankly, I enjoyed DA2 for what it is. If I want more Origins, I go back and play DA:O. I'm exciting for the franchise to combine the best of both worlds in the next game.
 

Modifié par lilliful, 18 mars 2011 - 08:52 .

[Sidney]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

A lot of us bought and played the game *despite* the heavily simplified inventory system. Or more accurately, I did not know how simplified the inventory was because it was not showcased in the demo. I did know that companion armor would be fixed, 

...so other than this what exactly is "simplified" -- and again let's not act like putting the Legion of the Dead armor on someone was a titanic intellectual task-  because other than calling vendor trash "junk" there's nothing different here. There's still the same overbloated amount of "magical" items - how many Rings +2 mana regeneration can I find - and the same need to clikic on dead people to steal pittances from their pockets. The only simplification is that vendor trash is now moved to the junk w/o you having to click to do it - was that really a gameplay element you wanted? Did you feel so much better seeing Dark Spawn Dagger (Iton) and selecting "Move to Junk"?

[moilami]

Sidney wrote...

moilami wrote...


Edit: And the combat ruleset is totally absurd and exactly what Sylvanius said - and the concequence of it is that there is no way casual combatants can enable FF because if they would do it their "awesome fluid fast combat" would be completely different experience lol.

This is patently untrue and makes zero sense that you even wrote it - big shock. NPC X might move faster to point Y but they don't do some dance of one hit death through their foes - I think a lot of you whining played about 5 minutes of the demo and then stopped. They move faster to point Y but the whack, whack, whack, part of things takes every bit as long as in DAO and during that time they ain't moving a whole lot and so you can drop all kinds of stuff around or near them w/o breaking FF rules. Heck, I find it easier to target up the FF spells now because when I tell someone to do something they do it - both caster and anyone trying to avoid being collateral - and so I'm not having to guess where anyone will be or when they'll cast a spell.

You did not even understand what I wrote. If you try to understand but just can't understand it I may explain it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

Who's to say controlling a few more armor pieces of your party members in those games was a strength.. that's an assumption based on the fact that you just happened to enjoy that aspect of the game. We are not all you ;(

It was a feature.  It gave the player more control.  These things are indisputable.

It's possible that some people would prefer not to have them, but my point here is that they're something we used to be able to do, and the option not to do them isn't incompatible with their presence.

The absence of paper-doll party members is a huge boon in terms of development costs... well worth it IMO in terms of cost/benefit.

I don't see how.  DA2 went to the trouble of giving each companion its own animation rig.  That's needlessly expensive, and something they'd have avoided if they had swappable armours.

In the process they now made the "gift" mechanic a bit more relevant in this game as its the only method to improve team members gear (beyond jewelry/weapons). It also ensures the appearance of the NPC characters fit the story as intended... taking away choice isn't always a bad thing (contrary to some car insurance commercials).

Taking away choice for no benefit is absolutely always a bad thing.  There's no reason why those armour upgrade pieces in DA2 need to be companion-specific, but they are.  That's just bad design.

I can choose to impose a superficial personality on Hawke if I feel like it

Sure, or you could create a fully detailed personality.

Or are you saying that any personality that isn't yours is necessarily superficial?  Because that would be wrong.  There's no reason why you can't design a personality that's as detailed as yours.

but I find that I prefer playing as myself at least the first time through so I have a more visceral emotional connection to the story. I doubt I am the only one that does this ;P

I have an intellectual connection to my character.  He has an emotional connection to the story.

[Mooh Bear]

skylr616 wrote...

Mooh Bear wrote...

What compromise? They changed a bunch of stuff (art, combat, leveling), took away features (skills, customization, top-down view), reused ad nauseam the same 5 maps and added what? Voice acting for the PC? 

It's actually about 10 or so but I understand why you feel you need to exaggerate. Thats the one thing I can say the sincerely goofed up on... its even worse because they knew it was a poor choice but completely misjudged just HOW bad it was.

"took away features" could just as easily be stated as "removed boring, unecessary, *features*" depending on your perspective... 

The point stands. They decided (or had to) remove a lot of things without adding much in. Overall, we lose some options without gaining new ones. I would hardly call that a "compromise".

[Lord_Saulot]

Sidney wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

A lot of us bought and played the game *despite* the heavily simplified inventory system. Or more accurately, I did not know how simplified the inventory was because it was not showcased in the demo. I did know that companion armor would be fixed, 

...so other than this what exactly is "simplified" -- and again let's not act like putting the Legion of the Dead armor on someone was a titanic intellectual task-  because other than calling vendor trash "junk" there's nothing different here. There's still the same overbloated amount of "magical" items - how many Rings +2 mana regeneration can I find - and the same need to clikic on dead people to steal pittances from their pockets. The only simplification is that vendor trash is now moved to the junk w/o you having to click to do it - was that really a gameplay element you wanted? Did you feel so much better seeing Dark Spawn Dagger (Iton) and selecting "Move to Junk"?

There was no "move to junk" option on my PC version, so no, that has nothing to do with it.

Also, it is not relevant whether you think that putting the Legion of the Dead armor on someone was intellectual.  Having the ability to put any helmet on a character, and the ability to choose any of their other armor pieces is inherently more complex than not being able to change anything other than pursuing a linear upgrade path.  More variables is greater complexity.  That is just what the word means.  Of course, runes were in both games, so they don't really affect complexity either way.

But other ways the inventory was simplified?  In Origins, every item had a description to be read.  This was eliminated.  In Origins, all the random rings and amulets you refer to had specific names.  In Origins, every item had an image; in DA, all the images are generic.  In DA2, there isn't even a menu to view your quest items.  I have no way of knowing, for example, how many qunari swords are in my inventory at a given time.

If you like these changes, that is fine, but please don't act like anyone is unjustified in saying the inventory was simplified.

[skylr616]

moilami wrote...
Pros get their hands on better gear. Now they use the same gear all the time except swap some jewelry. 

I find all kind of crap from the world which have a tag "restriction: Only useable by Salmivaara Hawke". WTF!? Is Hawke some kind of god in there to whom people have tailored and magically enchanted gear in a way none else except Hawke can use it?

I understand casual adventure gamers are not affected of it because it boosts their "Mah is SPECIAL man" ego and because they don't have a clue what is RPG.

In most RPG you outfit your character and NPC (non player characters) get to make their own decisions... many Bioware games have deviated from this as they incorporate some RTS elements (control over dozens of characters, tactical RTS views).

The changes in DA2 really seem like a shift away from RTS towards more traditional RPG. To pretend that DA2 is less of an RPG because you can't dress up NPC's is a little silly IMO.

If it would make you feel better I'm sure a user could throw together a little mod where you try to dress your NPC companions and they get pissed and tell you to go @^#$ yourself... will have to wait on the toolset unfortunately.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chadthesad wrote...

This is the way action rpg's work. It would not be much fun, if your opponent's could do everything you could do.

This used to be how RPGs were designed.  I think it's the only way to design a truly good RPG.

Your heroes would not be able to stand toe to toe.

The fight qould be equal.  My characters would be as capable as their enemies.

Staggered enemies can easily be struck with five to eight hundred plus damage in the mid tier levels.  Ultimately based on the contribution of constitution to your characters overall health, you would be one shotted quite frequently.

Are Lieutenant-rank enemies one-shotted quite frequently?  Because that's roughly equivalent to the PC and his companions.

If the enemies had roughly equvalent HP levels to the PC, then there would be no need to have anyone do 800 damage at a time.  You're not even trying to see how interconnected all these feeatures are. 

Do you wish to play a video game under those circumstances? I surely do not.

Baldur's Gate.  Everyone in the game followed the same rules.  It was brilliant.

[DariusKalera]

lilliful wrote...

As for the story, I actually liked it. Maybe I'm just dense -- I'm usually not the one to figure out the end of the movie before it arrives -- but I really didn't see the end coming. But, one thing I didn't like is that there was no option to really support the Qun. I mean, I would look time and again for dialogue choices that were along the lines of "Actually, you guys are on to something," and they were routinely missing. I felt DA:O really set us up to be able to pursue this path (your warden can choose to travel with Sten to the homeland of the Qunari, for example), but the conclusion of Act II just seemed too finite, too closed, too linear. I think that they could have kept an immutable plot point (resolving the Quanri issue) while still offering us more options of how to go about it. Even if all the fighting at the end of Act II had to be inevitable, which I don't think was a winning decision, why didn't I have the option to join the fray on their side? Personally, I'm more interested in the Qun vs the Chantry vs the Tevinter Imperium, than the Mages vs the Templars. I think THAT is my major gripe with DA2, and the only reason I found the conclusion satisfying was that Anders really forcibly brought the Chantry into it by the end. That, to me, was epic. Also, was it just me, or was Act I just one giant fetchquest? Not enough plot in Act I, imho.

Personally, I would have loved to see and interact more with the Qunari.  Their leader was the one antagonist in the game that actually felt believable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

skylr616 wrote...

In most RPG you outfit your character and NPC (non player characters) get to make their own decisions... many Bioware games have deviated from this as they incorporate some RTS elements (control over dozens of characters, tactical RTS views).

The changes in DA2 really seem like a shift away from RTS towards more traditional RPG.

You've just invented the defintion that excludes party-based RPGs out of whole cloth.  DAO followed not only from games like BG, but also Wizardry, Might & Magic, Ultima, Bard's Tale, and the Gold Box games that gave the player control of an entire party.

That's what party-based RPGs do.  You can't just declare that they don't exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Again, do you have issues with FO:NV not allowing you to swap guns on NPC's? Is it wrong NPC's won't just wear any armor you toss at them - dear god they have a will of their own and aren't just your thrall? Do the people who play NV not understand what an RPG is?

You don't get to control those NV companions in combat, either.  There's no problem there.