That was a pretty whiny review. He hits some of the technical stuff accurately like falling knights from the sky and reused maps. But a lot of it is just personal opinion that if you don't agree with you're an idiot.
"For some reason, BioWare thought that dropping a character into a city and watching them meddle in quasi-political affairs while cooling their heels for a decade would be just as entertaining as going on an epic adventure. Surprise—it's not"
Uhh it was to me. What? The adventure can't be epic if it's based on one location mainly? Whatever man. Did we need another "hero is only one who can save the world let's go on a long journey adventure whee this is fun?" Bioware tried something different. Some may like it some may not. Not every story needs to be epic in scope to be good.
"To start with, the cast of teammates as well as the central hero (or heroine) feel like shallow sketches, rather than fully-fleshed characters. Meetings and events happen quickly and without much of the required pacing, and at no point did I feel any sort of connection with them. Companion quests meant to illustrate each character are tossed at the player in regular intervals with no fanfare or build-up beforehand, leaving each "growth moment" feeling unconvincing, mechanical and false. Instead of people the player grows to know over the course of the adventure, these faces are more like boxes to be checked off in pursuit of unlocking a skill tree."
I had no problem connecting with the characters and I felt the personalized skill tree made them feel less carbon copied then Origins did. Also the upgradable skills (which he failed to mention) expanded the tree even more. We got to know our companions past better in Origins but they didn't seem to have a life on their own apart from being with the PC when we were with them. In DA 2 they interacted with each other more and you got the sense they had their own lives.
"However, the plot, setting, dialogue and characters are all shockingly slapdash and unsatisfying."
I disagree.
"Sadly, the developers fundamentally misunderstand what was wrong with encounters in the first place—if you ask me, the fatal flaw was crippling the strategy element for consoles."
Now I know he never set it above Normal. You play this game on Hard or Nightmare and you'll be pausing and readjusting characters and strat quite frequently with barely enough time to mash a button until most of the enemy are dead. I actually used choke points frequently in Act 2 whereas Origins almost never. Combat is crazy. It should be chaotic. We are not moving mass troops against an enemy you can clearly see a mile a way. You start a fight with spells and the clashing or armour in a house or cave then the whole damn place WOULD be alerted to your presence. In Origins the Darkspawn should have been alerted to your presence just as you can sense them but you almost always were able to ambush them (except for the shrieks).
Yes, the humanoid re-spawning was silly looking and needs to be looked at but skeletons popping from the ground, spiders from the ceiling and demons entering though tears were just fine. Most of the Origin players who complain that strat is out the window just can't or won't adjust to the change of pace. You wipe out a group then more come? Oh no, well guess you shouldn't have blown every skill cooldown on the last remaining enemy. Maybe you'll conserve a bit next time. Throw down some tar until you are ready. Divert aggro or run behind a pillar to block LOS. No reason NOT to use poisons as they last for 30 min! No strat my ****.
You REALLY want strat, turn off companion tactics and do it yourself.
2.5. Whatever, this is why I don't listen to reviews that criticize gameplay, they are all just a matter of personal over payed opinions. Talk about tech sure, that is unbiased but don't whine about strat when simple things can be done on your end to change that. Reading that review was a waste of time, I'll be sure to skip any of his others.
Modifié par DaVeO52, 24 mars 2011 - 07:27 .
Retour en haut
