966 réponses à ce sujet

[mdugger12]

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

[Everwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O,

How so? It boils down to mashing buttons, difficulty only affects how long you are forced to mash buttons.

and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

No, it isn't. Even if Origins was a formula based story (and it was), it did that well and used the simple goal to add depth to the world along the way to the end of that goal. The depth isn't in the primary objective, but in the secondary objectives you are lead to through the primary objective, and those secondary objectives are typically deep and well written.
Dragon Age 2 has a nonsensical narrative with no cohesion, no central theme, and no real motivation for the protagonist. "Kill the big bad" may be a simple motive, but it's a motive. "Do this quest because you can't progress until you do" isn't a motive at all, and that's all progressing through DA2 amounted to. You run into a chantry sister in the alley and are -forced- to run an errand for her, not because it makes sense for the character, but because the game says so. That is failed narrative design.

A gaming shoehorning in "politics" and "family" does not make it deep, especially when both are done as sloppily as in DA2.

That's not even getting into the entire third act, which was garbage on a level of bad that I'd expect from Bethesda on a bad day. You are railroaded into a pre-set, awful ending. One that does not vary at all no matter what 'choices' you make throughout the game and happens abruptly, amounting to a complete anti-climax with a big "To be continued for 60 more dollars!" stapled to the credits. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 avril 2011 - 09:51 .

[Melca36]

mdugger12 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

The fact is the majority of these so called gamers want eveything handed them to them, they don't want to put any effort thus the shortened and dumbed down Deep Roads.

I don't hate DA:2  but the developers pandered to one group instead of striking a balance and the group they focused are gamers who don't play rpgs to begin with and think exploding bodies are cool.

This is an 18 and over game...why design it to make it geared for teens?

[Edli]

mdugger12 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

How do you make a game accesible to those who are new to rpgs? You make combat and managment simple. That was the purpose of ME while DA was the hardcore one. DA:O never tried to scale down for a larger audience and that's why players liked it.

No it is not wrong appealing to a wider market. What is wrong is appealing to everyone, even my granpa. Blizzard didn't say we're targetting cod players with starcraft, or Creative Assembly with Shogun 2. They knew their audience which btw is not as niche as some may think. 

[Kilshrek]

mdugger12 wrote...


How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

Nothing wrong with it at all, really. It's a good thing to make a game more accessible to a larger audience, after all it brings in the bucks. However messing with a formula that didn't need messing with (broadly speaking) is a bad thing. I felt DA 2 could have been so much more, instead it rather fell face first before the finish line. It's not bad, it's not great.

Combat is really one of my biggest gripes with DA 2, along with the horribad "new" Darkspawn. As I said earlier Hard on DA 2 is just monsters with tons more health. Boss fights? Long grinds because they have a metric crap ton of health. Tactics? Who needs them? Enemies just drop in behind, in front, on the sides, any which way they please. Why bother placing your archers and mages in a 'safe' zone behind the main fight when immediately after 4 melee enemies spawn and KO your archer and mage.

Why bother talking to your companions when the game helpfully tells you when they have anything meaningful to say to you. Otherwise you just get one line repeated for as long as you like. The banter was great, but then the inability to interact with companions when you want to, is not so great.

So, change is not bad. Changes to DA 2, bad.

edit : in other news, Portal 2 may or may not be launching in 6 hours. I may still be awake to play it. I have been promised the best single player experience, ever. Either way, science will happen.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 15 avril 2011 - 10:03 .

[Aradace]

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

[Kilshrek]

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

Right, because it makes sense for him to just hold up his hands and say "I dun goof'd" no matter what his personal thoughts. I don't think he has any direction other than this one to move in, because going back and saying he was wrong in changing this and that would only draw fire from both sides. Nope, when you're the big cheese you stick to your guns.

Anyway you can giggle and laugh all you want but if you think Hard or Nightmare in DA 2 is a bigger challenge than their equivalents in Origins, or even to Normal on Origins, I'd like to disagree.

[Dracotamer]

Everything I have to say about this interview can be found here...

http://social.biowar...74071/2#7087192

To sum it up, I will NEVER buy another Bioware game without doing my research. Prolly won't pre-order anymore as well.

[Aradace]

Kilshrek wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

Right, because it makes sense for him to just hold up his hands and say "I dun goof'd" no matter what his personal thoughts. I don't think he has any direction other than this one to move in, because going back and saying he was wrong in changing this and that would only draw fire from both sides. Nope, when you're the big cheese you stick to your guns.

Anyway you can giggle and laugh all you want but if you think Hard or Nightmare in DA 2 is a bigger challenge than their equivalents in Origins, or even to Normal on Origins, I'd like to disagree.

That's not what Im laughing about at all.  What's truly got me rolling is that he has essentially said that regardless of what you want, the DA2 combat engine is here to stay.  That's the biggest thing that's got me LOL'ing so hard.  Which translates into:  If you dont like the new combat system, too bad, go back to playing Origins.

[Kilshrek]

Aradace wrote...

That's not what Im laughing about at all.  What's truly got me rolling is that he has essentially said that regardless of what you want, the DA2 combat engine is here to stay.  That's the biggest thing that's got me LOL'ing so hard.  Which translates into:  If you dont like the new combat system, too bad, go back to playing Origins.

Ah that's all right then, I thought there was a higher reason to it. Good to know, carry on.

[Everwarden]

Aradace wrote...
But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

Enjoy it while you can. DA2 sales are awful, and the odds are if there is a sequel that goes in the same direction it won't break a million and Laidlaw will get canned. EA doesn't understand art, but they understand losing money. 

[AkiKishi]

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

That sort of flippant answer is why the guy does not understand roleplaying games. It's not like Uncharted where only your skill matters, it's down to party makeup and builds. One build will find the game hard, another will breeze through it. It's been that was since the ever so popular Kensei/Mage of BGII (and before in other series).

For a game supposedly aimed at pulling in new people not having a respec option outside of the CE/DLC was a huge oversight by the project lead.

[mdugger12]

Melca36 wrote...

The fact is the majority of these so called gamers want eveything handed them to them, they don't want to put any effort thus the shortened and dumbed down Deep Roads.

I don't hate DA:2  but the developers pandered to one group instead of striking a balance and the group they focused are gamers who don't play rpgs to begin with and think exploding bodies are cool.

This is an 18 and over game...why design it to make it geared for teens?

I don't think they had kids(players under 17) in mind. By younger I think we're talking about players that don't come into the game familiar with 10 year old mechanics. Laidlaw spoke about the "skill gap" and I don't think anyone can dispute that it's alive and well. Some gamers have been playing RPGs for some time and have mastered and become accustomed to certain aspects of the genre that in some cases developed independant of what has become expected in the rest of gaming. It's hard to jump into a title when so many elements of gameplay don't include anything relatable to games you've played up to that point. Bioware just tried to find a way to include more people in what can be a rich gaming experience.

DA II isn't the love letter to fans that DA:O was and maybe that rubs people the wrong way. But you had to expect once they gave a taste to console gamers the first time, they were going to make changes to make this game more console friendly. But I think they still maintained the integrity of the franchise.

[Stegoceras]

I think someone needs a "PR for dummies" course fast, He isn't very good at stopping himself saying things he shouldn't say, but he gets merit for trying to anwser some tough questions.

Roxlimn wrote...
I like it better because it represents a continually changing tactical situation.  Some people apparently can't adopt and get wiped over and over and hate it.  Or maybe they like laying down careful plans and dislike it when it's disrupted.

I like the spawns because I have to have backups, contingencies, and emergency measures.  My plans rarely survive the first contact with the enemy intact, and I like it like that.  Replaying DA2's been more interesting because the battlefield isn't always the same.  In DA:O, it is.

I don't want to critize you or anything, cause your opinion is a valid as my own. However as it seems you are currently the fiercest protector/appreciator of the DA2 'wave' combat system in this thread, I want to ask you this:

Did you never have the "Oh my... not again" feeling during the combat in DA2? I felt that continously, for example: while I was traveling from point A to B, I would run into a mob, kill the first wave, second wave pops up, kill them, (possibly) third waves pop up. I loot the little they have dropped and go round the corner, to find yet a similar mob, Kill them all (+waves), go round the next corner and again a similar mob with another 1-3 waves. That got really old to me fast, besides it really cemented my 'tactics' (which came down to just nuking the main group, taking a 180 degree turn to start pot-shooting the enemies that spawned behind me, while my companions were frantically running around bashing anything that moved) at a certain point that I could have done them blindfolded.

[AkiKishi]

Stegoceras wrote...

I think someone needs a "PR for dummies" course fast, He isn't very good at stopping himself saying things he shouldn't say, but he gets merit for trying to anwser some tough questions.

Roxlimn wrote...
I like it better because it represents a continually changing tactical situation.  Some people apparently can't adopt and get wiped over and over and hate it.  Or maybe they like laying down careful plans and dislike it when it's disrupted.

I like the spawns because I have to have backups, contingencies, and emergency measures.  My plans rarely survive the first contact with the enemy intact, and I like it like that.  Replaying DA2's been more interesting because the battlefield isn't always the same.  In DA:O, it is.

I don't want to critize you or anything, cause your opinion is a valid as my own. However as it seems you are currently the fiercest protector/appreciator of the DA2 'wave' combat system in this thread, I want to ask you this:

Did you never have the "Oh my... not again" feeling during the combat in DA2? I felt that continously, for example: while I was traveling from point A to B, I would run into a mob, kill the first wave, second wave pops up, kill them, (possibly) third waves pop up. I loot the little they have dropped and go round the corner, to find yet a similar mob, Kill them all (+waves), go round the next corner and again a similar mob with another 1-3 waves. That got really old to me fast, besides it really cemented my 'tactics' (which came down to just nuking the main group, taking a 180 degree turn to start pot-shooting the enemies that spawned behind me, while my companions were frantically running around bashing anything that moved) at a certain point that I could have done them blindfolded.

Once you know how to "play the system" then it's not that hard. The endless waves are just a huge drag after that because the gameplay becomes almost formulaic repeating the same series of CCC's and stall spells to break the waves.

People who think it is good or hard have generally not seen through the simplicity of the triggered waves.

[mdugger12]

Stegoceras wrote...

I think someone needs a "PR for dummies" course fast, He isn't very good at stopping himself saying things he shouldn't say, but he gets merit for trying to anwser some tough questions.

Roxlimn wrote...
I like it better because it represents a continually changing tactical situation.  Some people apparently can't adopt and get wiped over and over and hate it.  Or maybe they like laying down careful plans and dislike it when it's disrupted.

I like the spawns because I have to have backups, contingencies, and emergency measures.  My plans rarely survive the first contact with the enemy intact, and I like it like that.  Replaying DA2's been more interesting because the battlefield isn't always the same.  In DA:O, it is.

I don't want to critize you or anything, cause your opinion is a valid as my own. However as it seems you are currently the fiercest protector/appreciator of the DA2 'wave' combat system in this thread, I want to ask you this:

Did you never have the "Oh my... not again" feeling during the combat in DA2? I felt that continously, for example: while I was traveling from point A to B, I would run into a mob, kill the first wave, second wave pops up, kill them, (possibly) third waves pop up. I loot the little they have dropped and go round the corner, to find yet a similar mob, Kill them all (+waves), go round the next corner and again a similar mob with another 1-3 waves. That got really old to me fast, besides it really cemented my 'tactics' (which came down to just nuking the main group, taking a 180 degree turn to start pot-shooting the enemies that spawned behind me, while my companions were frantically running around bashing anything that moved) at a certain point that I could have done them blindfolded.

It seems like you had a pretty simple way to wipe them out, but that sounds like more of an AI issue then a problem with waves of enemies. How would anything have been different if you only ran into the first mob of enemies? I mean it sounds like you pretty much would have just been "nuking the main group".........the end.

[DeathStroke TZA]

Kilshrek wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I found myself laughing the entire time reading that. No, not because I think Laidlaw is a jerk. I personally stand behind him on this. What I find funny, is all the Origins fans are seemingly butt-hurt over this interview and were hoping (in futility) that Mr. Laidlaw would somehow see your way of thinking and say something to the effect of "We screwed up, we're sorry". But instead, you practically got *****slapped and told if you dont like it, you can either play the game on a higher setting or shove off lol. Laidlaw just made my top 10 personal hero list

Right, because it makes sense for him to just hold up his hands and say "I dun goof'd" no matter what his personal thoughts. I don't think he has any direction other than this one to move in, because going back and saying he was wrong in changing this and that would only draw fire from both sides. Nope, when you're the big cheese you stick to your guns.

Anyway you can giggle and laugh all you want but if you think Hard or Nightmare in DA 2 is a bigger challenge than their equivalents in Origins, or even to Normal on Origins, I'd like to disagree.

I completely agree with Kilshrek. Dragon Age 2 WAS FLAWED. It's not hard to see. They cut corners, released a incredibly buggy game, and killed enjoyment (mine atleast) with the characters introduced (It was a chore working with all the characters in the game besides Varric, Merrill, and a special someone that should have been a companion, but was not.) The Story I feel however was great, I will not diminish that.

OFF-Topic
 Anyone else notice the trend BioWare is taking?
Mass Effect 1 = Awesome
Mass Effect 2 = Good, but incredibly buggy, And story just wasn't top of the line, I didn't feel pulled in like I was in the first.
Dragon Age: Origins = Awesome, a little outdated for it's release (Graphics wise)
Dragon Age 2 = Good, but incredibly buggy, story just isn't good enough, and re-used area's make it impossible for me to replay.(Daggers making someone explode into gibbs breaks immersion.. for me atleast)
 You see what thier doing?! They decided to make the second game's crap compared to the first's so the third looks like the chocolate covered gold!! Quick, grab your tinfoil hats, they're listening to every single thought we have!!
If I have poor sentence structure or spelling.. Don't judge; I'm really tired

[ejoslin]

mdugger12 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

You are beginning to sound like a paid schill more than anything else.

The combat is different but dumbed down to pander to the young gamers.
Its also way too fast in some areas and the exploding bodies is utterly ridiculous.

They need to come up with a compromise that is fair to all fanbases instead of pandering to the group that dont like rpgs to begin with.

How does making a game more accessible to fans new to RPGs equate to being dumbed down?

Is it somehow wrong to make a game appealing to a wider market?

So, given that...  Should CoD have the shooting elements simplified and the story elements enhanced to appeal to a wider audience?

The problem is, of course, that RPG fans like their RPGs.  It's a better idea to keep a game true to its genre but make it so good that more people buy it to try it out (like DAO, which is hugely successful despite being a fairly old-skool type RPG).  The RPG market just doesn't have that many games, yet the games that ARE made generally, if they're decent (and some even if they're not), are quite successful because there just aren't that many games.

DAO was so succsssful because it was extraordinary.  Not everyone liked it -- not everyone likes story driven RPGs.  Does that mean that the franchise should abandon the people who DO like RPGS for the people who don't?  It doesn't make much sense, really.

Modifié par ejoslin, 15 avril 2011 - 10:42 .

[Bostur]

jds1bio wrote...

Bostur wrote...


One thing that makes me a bit emotional about the interviews he made, is that he doesn't seem to like traditional RPGs much.
I like developers who are enthusiastic about what they make, Laidlaw
doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about DA2, and in many cases he
seems to think that DAO was a huge failure. As a fan of the genre that
strikes me as being a bit odd.

Also the many times he said that
crtitics can't cope with change is almost personally insulting. That
seems to be the company line, and the official response to critique.

Thanks for responding.  I think you've helped me figure out why there is so much vitriol here surrounding one person - the bolded text above.  It's as if people are saying "He's not one of us."  Which is rather frightening, in a pitchfork-mob sort of way.

I think in this day and age there are many people who cannot cope with change OR criticism.  Lots of them are on these forums, and often their first-instinct response to change or criticism is to insult others. 

But he's right, some critics can't cope with change.  Some can only frame things in terms of Call-Of-Duty or World-Of-Warcraft.  Some can only give each game the same exact amount of playtime before calling it a review.  Some go out of their way to echo (and then spar with afterwards) their own comment forums just to get more hits.  And I think the older the critic, the worse it seems. Too many life changes in the span of 5 or 10 years can make you long for some constants in your life, and what better place to look for constancy than one of your favorite things - videogaming.  Except videogaming (and the demographic that participates) has always been fluid, not a set-in-stone solid.

Considering that DAO became popular on its traditional qualities, it seems odd to put a lead designer on it who seems to mostly have contempt for those qualities.  When specific and concrete feedback is countered with "People can't cope with change", I think some resentment is called for.

In my opinion there is good change and there is bad change. The games and sequels I enjoy feature good changes. It's possible to make changes and retain old qualities, but only if those qualities are recognized. In this interview Laidlaw comments on tactics using terms that show he doesn't know what those qualities are about. Seems he believes tactics means things like 'slow' and 'complicated'.

Change needs to be handled with some loving and care for the original, not with a sledge hammer.


I use video gaming a lot to search for new innovation and new qualities. I've seen an enormous amount of change through 30 years of gaming. I've seen a lot of good games and bad games, the best periods were those seeing big changes. It feels a bit ironic that Bioware uses DA2 as an argument for change, considering that the changes in this title mostly constitutes poking randomly with a stick. The changes are tiny but in many cases crippling.


This forum has hundreds of pages of concrete and constructive feedback at a very high detail. Laidlaws response to those? We are all old farts that can't cope with change. Are you really surprised that people respond with some vitriol?

[FedericoV]

You know guys, I've read the whole thread and really... I'm disgusted. I can understand criticism and I see the flaws of DA2 too. But all the name calling against Laidlaw and everyone who agrees with something he says, to the point of people asking him to be fired looks really retarded.

You know what, I think that Bioware would gain a lot by loosing most of you as paying costumer in the short and long run. Go, please.

Yep, the old Bioware is dead, but the so called new "community" is one of the main causes of it. I've seen many rants and negative post in the history of Bioware forums and I follow them since the time of BG I & II. But I never seen something so rude, stupid and retarded.

Modifié par FedericoV, 15 avril 2011 - 10:43 .

[AkiKishi]

ejoslin wrote...

So, given that...  Should CoD have the shooting elements simplified and the story elements enhanced to appeal to a wider audience?

You just described "Homefront".
 
It's currently sharing the bargain bin with DA2.

[Louis deGuerre]

What I like about Laidlaw is that it's so obvious that if you don't like what he likes, you're obviously retarded. Reminds me of George Lucas. Of course, DA2 was not as horrible as the SW prequels...close but not THAT bad.

[DeathStroke TZA]

FedericoV wrote...

You know guys, I've read the whole thread and really... I'm disgusted. I can understand criticism and I see the flaws of DA2 too. But all the name calling against Laidlaw and everyone who agrees with something he says, to the point of people asking him to be fired looks really retarded.

You know what, I think that Bioware would gain a lot by loosing most of you as paying costumer in the short and long run. Go, please.

Yep, the old Bioware is dead, but the so called new "community" is one of the main causes of it. I've seen many rants and negative post in the history of Bioware forums and I follow them since the time of BG I & II. But I never seen something so rude, stupid and retarded.

Laidlaw isn't wanting to see the flaws of the game and he is saying those that do, are playing the game wrong and ignorantly. Which is insulting, so I can feel for those calling him out. I think he'd be a great asset to Bioware if they'd put him on games that are more in his lines of gameplay, and keep him from doing interviews, because so far all we're seeing from Laidlaw are "Lol you don't like my game? Oh well don't play it. and btw play it right dumb***" He keeps that up and No one will equals no money for Bioware and in turn none for EA. EA likes monies. 

Modifié par DeathStroke TZA, 15 avril 2011 - 10:53 .

[Kilshrek]

FedericoV wrote...

You know guys, I've read the whole thread and really... I'm disgusted. I can understand criticism and I see the flaws of DA2 too. But all the name calling against Laidlaw and everyone who agrees with something he says, to the point of people asking him to be fired looks really retarded.

You know what, I think that Bioware would gain a lot by loosing most of you as paying costumer in the short and long run. Go, please.

Yep, the old Bioware is dead, but the so called new "community" is one of the main causes of it. I've seen many rants and negative post in the history of Bioware forums and I follow them since the time of BG I & II. But I never seen something so rude, stupid and retarded.

I don't know about you but I'm not one of those calling for anyone's head. Most of the posters here aren't calling for anyone's head. Sure there are the idiots and fools out there who think their word is all that matters and seem to think that it'll be a hoot to ask so and so to retire or get sacked, but that isn't the majority opinion, I daresay.

I would think the majority opinion is that DA 2 simply isn't good enough. Simple as that. As Bostur said before, there has been plenty, lots, loads of feedback, unofficial surveys have been done, what I read is a leaning towards DAO.

There was plenty of negativity on the forums when the changes were announced, I thought I wouldn't have to worry about DA 2 being like ME 2, which had its guts ripped out and replaced with "streamlined". DA 2 wasn't quite so drastic but sure has started down the same path.

Bioware may not have as much to gain from losing fans as you may think since they're aiming for this game to be in everyone's hands.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Roxlimn wrote...

Laidlaw actually does have a point in combat terms. DA2's combat systems are more complex than DA:O, and better balanced. Narrative design is more sophisticated, too.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:.
Oh boy..you're killing me.

DA2 combat system is garbage. More complex??
Yes, because DPS is the only wepon stat..that is SOOO much more complex than having things like armor penetration, critical chance and multiplier, raech and stuff..

And really? Tacics and random teleporting?