966 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Volourn wrote...

"The riposte to that is that you are a Grey Warden and therefore untouchable. "

O RLY? Must explain why you are attacked by a bunch of epople. You are attacked by Denerium guards, thugs, and bdanits. You are attacked in the dwarven city, elven village, and everywhere else you go. Why lie, and make stuff up/ The GW isn't untouchable. I mean, come on, for the majority of the game, you are hunted like a dog 9which was done poorly overall).

LMAO Warden untouchable. HAHAHA!

Untouchable in the sense templars can't haul you to the Circle as an apostate. Basic comprehension of the context helps...

[MrTijger]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you're going to do something, you do it right, not just the bare minimum you can get by on. 

So, you say that grey wardens have the right of conscription and poof, all issues with magic go away. How is that NOT the bare minimum as well?

[Kimberly Shaw]

A Grey Warden when a Blight is in full effect probably has a lot more reason to be ignored by the Templars than when there is no Blight.

[Kilshrek]

MrTijger wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you're going to do something, you do it right, not just the bare minimum you can get by on. 

So, you say that grey wardens have the right of conscription and poof, all issues with magic go away. How is that NOT the bare minimum as well?

Because the Wardens had saved the world several times, a lesson to be learned here is that you do not bite the hand that saves you I suppose. There are more complicated issues to be explored but why go through all that effort? The bare minimum is there.

[sami jo]

Aradace wrote...

@Sabriana - You do realize that its the exact same way in Origins right? You can use magic right in front of a Templar and there is 0 consequence?

Yes, but at least several of the Templars comment on how they have their hands too full herding refugees to worry about apostates who aren't causing harm; beyond which, Grey Wardens are not subject to the rules of the Circle.  There are other mages outside of the tower proper on sanctioned circle business.  It is made clear repeatedly in DA2 that the mages aren't even being allowed to go see the grand cleric and Hawke is not a Grey Warden.

[Tommy6860]

Kilshrek wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Only when it is scripted, not at any time. For example, I could ask Leliana at any time "What do you know of this place?" and get the proper response. Not happening in DA2, until the sequence for a "set in stone" conversation is triggered. Origins was also better at forcing triggers at the appropriate time for a conversation, where you could forget a chat that was a possiblity (only after giving a gift) in DA2.

That is true, but she really only has meaningful input for Denerim and... maybe Redcliffe. Everywhere else she just says "Maybe I just haven't discovered its secrets yet". Which is slightly better than "Lead the way, Hawke", or "I think Sandal is watching me".

 

Not true, she has input on the Dalish Camp, Orzammar and Lothering as well. Anyway, I was simply giving an example, that all of the companions have something to say when you randomly talk to them when you want, and have different levels of topics to discuss based on their level of how much they like you. You cannot do this in DA2 at all, regardlesss of the friend/rival level. it lacks any real substance for meaningful chat between PC and companion, when it is forced into only happening according to scripted events, and lessened to side banter as the only random talk.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

Laidlaw chose to answer only one facet of the question.

Well, perhaps that's because "dumbed down" is such an incredibly vague term that doesn't really describe anything, except a strong feeling of "I don't like it".

Sorry, but Laidlaw has been on the forums enough to know the full extent of what his game's players deem to mean 'dumbed down'. I know not a lot of people on this forum give him much credit, but I'll allow him that.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire interview. If the context of the question was in relation to combat then I can perfectly understand Laidlaw's response, and would instead take issue with the interviewer )

[G00N3R7883]

[/i]What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.

Hmm ... is this not what EASY mode is for? Seriously, if you're totally new to a genre of games, you should be playing on the lowest difficulty setting until you've learned how everything works. And developers should not be changing Normal/Hard to suit players who don't realise that. Its not arrogance or elitist to say that. I hardly play RTSes but Shogun 2 looks interesting to me. I'm not going to jump on the middle difficulty and then whine about it being too hard. I'm going to start on the lowest and learn what I need to survive on higher levels.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 15 avril 2011 - 03:18 .

[Nerevar-as]

sami jo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Sabriana - You do realize that its the exact same way in Origins right? You can use magic right in front of a Templar and there is 0 consequence?

Yes, but at least several of the Templars comment on how they have their hands too full herding refugees to worry about apostates who aren't causing harm; beyond which, Grey Wardens are not subject to the rules of the Circle.  There are other mages outside of the tower proper on sanctioned circle business.  It is made clear repeatedly in DA2 that the mages aren't even being allowed to go see the grand cleric and Hawke is not a Grey Warden.

They should have used the multiple choice past from Mass Effect (if they were going to copy that game, at least they could have copied what worked), and made mage Hawke one of the Circle towers in Ostagar and work from there. With a bit of effort they probably could have made up a story that didn´t clash so much with game lore. And at least Hawke´s lack of reaction at losing family members could have the excuse s/he hadn´t had that much contact with them.

[Bostur]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Only when it is scripted, not at any time. For example, I could ask Leliana at any time "What do you know of this place?" and get the proper response. Not happening in DA2, until the sequence for a "set in stone" conversation is triggered. Origins was also better at forcing triggers at the appropriate time for a conversation, where you could forget a chat that was a possiblity (only after giving a gift) in DA2.

That is true, but she really only has meaningful input for Denerim and... maybe Redcliffe. Everywhere else she just says "Maybe I just haven't discovered its secrets yet". Which is slightly better than "Lead the way, Hawke", or "I think Sandal is watching me".

 

Not true, she has input on the Dalish Camp, Orzammar and Lothering as well. Anyway, I was simply giving an example, that all of the companions have something to say when you randomly talk to them when you want, and have different levels of topics to discuss based on their level of how much they like you. You cannot do this in DA2 at all, regardlesss of the friend/rival level. it lacks any real substance for meaningful chat between PC and companion, when it is forced into only happening according to scripted events, and lessened to side banter as the only random talk.

Even if these kinds of conversations aren't exactly deep stuff, they add a bit of flavour to the game. In the same way as item descriptions, or trash items with graphics.

As one example, I much prefer to pick up a treasure called "Old painting of Andraste" than a trash item labelled as trash. Even if the mechanical purpose is the same.

The item decriptions don't give us choice or add gameplay, but they add to our imagination. I am much more inclined to believe in the iconic representation of a glove if it has a name and a description of the manufacturer.

In the same way the small conversation options help to make us believe that those characters are actually persons and not just combat bots.

[Killjoy Cutter]

MrTijger wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you're going to do something, you do it right, not just the bare minimum you can get by on. 

So, you say that grey wardens have the right of conscription and poof, all issues with magic go away. How is that NOT the bare minimum as well?

That's not what I said. 

Recall that certain Templars do still persue Grey Warden mages.  My point is that because the PC of DA:O is a Grey Warden, the Templar Order as an organization is going to leave him be.  Especially because there is a Blight going on.  The Templars are busy helping refugees, killing Darkspawn where they happen across them, guarding and watching the Circle, hunting really dangerous apostates, etc. 

There's also the fact that DA:O takes place in Ferelden, where evidently most of the Templars and Mages both aren't gibbering, cackling madmen... unlike some days in Kirkwall.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Aradace wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Tijger wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Sabriana - You do realize that its the exact same way in Origins right? You can use magic right in front of a Templar and there is 0 consequence?

The riposte to that is that you are a Grey Warden and therefore untouchable. Odd though that this fact didnt hinder a templar to lay a trap for Anders in Awakenings even after being warned off by the King no less.

True on the grey warden part.  Regardless though,  BW obviously isnt interested in this level of immersion anymore.  It's great that some of you are,  but dont damn them just because they dont take into account for EVERYTHING anymore like they apparently did in their RPGs 10-15 years ago.

If you're going to do something, you do it right, not just the bare minimum you can get by on. 

Apparently they disagree with you and according to the interview, vehemently so. 

Then they're part of the problem.

[sami jo]

Sabriana wrote...

Very well put Sami. I had this in my head, but there was no way I could have put it in writing as eloquently as that.

Aside from choices/consequences, inability to customize, and all the other non-RPG changes, there are also the glaring plot-holes. The most glaring one is the MageHawke running around unmolested while shooting off spells right in front of templars, guards, and citizens. It was never explained, there was not even the attempt to explain this utterly horrific plot-hole.

And please don't tell me that it would have hampered the story. It's their story, and their lore. So see to it that it makes sense. Any sense. At least try. For example, give mages the skill to use a bow, or a dagger. If they use magic withing the perception range of a guard or templar, there will be consequences. There are many other ways. But I guess they couldn't be bothered with "details". Maybe if I play on "hard", there will be plot-hole closure.

Wait! I already do, NM even.... Darnit.

The third or fourth time a templar watched me whip out my mage staff and light someone on fire only to thank me for taking care of those evil apostates for them I gave up on my mage playthrough.  There was at least an attempt to explain away the ability of a mage to meander around the countryside in Origins.  There wasn't even an attempt at handwaving here.  I suppose that since the entire mage population of Kirkwall seems to have a severe case of abomination-itis the poor stupid templars forgot what a regular mage looks like...

[Kilshrek]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Not true, she has input on the Dalish Camp, Orzammar and Lothering as well. Anyway, I was simply giving an example, that all of the companions have something to say when you randomly talk to them when you want, and have different levels of topics to discuss based on their level of how much they like you. You cannot do this in DA2 at all, regardlesss of the friend/rival level. it lacks any real substance for meaningful chat between PC and companion, when it is forced into only happening according to scripted events, and lessened to side banter as the only random talk.

Not that I was really disagreeing with you in the first place, I fully agree that companions were more... companion in DAO than DA 2.

[Dubya75]

adneate wrote...

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

You may not like the combat system, but calling it broken is simply inaccurate.

[Tommy6860]

Dubya75 wrote...

adneate wrote...

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

You may not like the combat system, but calling it broken is simply inaccurate.

And you may like the combat, but calling it unbroken is just being simplistic. I can cite a litany of the differences in tactics, strategy, overhead views, enemies and how they act realistically, weapons differences, etc. It would be near a whole web page and i just simply don't have the patience to list them out.

My experience with those who seem more the DA2 apologists and how the game plays more like a medieval version of Mass Effect is, "We have dismissed that claim!"

Modifié par Tommy6860, 15 avril 2011 - 03:40 .

[_Aine_]

Playing on Hard or Nightmare makes the waves rage-inducing. I had to go down to casual on subsequent playthroughs to be able to enjoy the game. The first wave on Hard was fun and challenging enough, though not as tactical as DA:O. I liked having to plan out some difficult fights strategically in DA:O. When I personally speak of slower combat in DA:O it was the getting stuck behind people and taking a while to get to the enemy with the combat music blaring. lol Not that I want to swat people more and have them explode quicker and therefore need wave upon wave for quick ADHD combat style.

Sure, DAO was slow. But DA2 was not incredibly tactical and there was too much combat interrupting everything you do everywhere you go for it to stay enjoyable for long on a hard setting, especially when you beat them and more drop on you. My Hawke had audible sighs and it wasn't from exertion. I did it for one playthrough and it would have been my last had I kept it up there.

Modifié par shantisands, 15 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[Dubya75]

Fandango9641 wrote...

If Mikes latest interview proves anything, it is just how far entrenched he is in defending the horrible design choices for this game. As if switching to hard would somehow repair the horrible combat mechanics, linear levels, lack of variety, character, charm, choice and substance in DA2. Sorry Mike, but your consensus driven vision for Dragon Age is such that I’ll not be investing another penny in the franchise so long as you are involved.

I don't understand why people are so displeased with the combat mechanics after having played Origins! Have you played Origins after DA2? If you did, you will find that the combat mechanics is very much improved in DA2.
Of course, the argument that playing on Hard or Nightmare necessitates the use of tactics more is totally subjective to your own level of skill. However, on the flip side of that coin, it is IMPOSSIBLE to just hit the awesome button and win battles on that difficulty level. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. So tactics are a necessity. No-one is after all beyond the allowances of the combat mechanics.
And why do people complain about the waves of enemies? Because it's different and probably a bit harder to deal with on high difficulty levels.

Modifié par Dubya75, 15 avril 2011 - 03:40 .

[Monica83]

Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though  the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations  necessitated this decision?

In the balance of production, we  realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,  content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels  for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?

It really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply  means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios  and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I  personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat  system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and
that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy.  This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.

Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely  absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?

The "prominent antagonist" is a  staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless
hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt  something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance,  rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not  born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the  antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human  tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional  appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her  being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I  think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current  goals!"

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.

I believe you are the wrong person to work in a DA sequel...

[Dubya75]

shantisands wrote...

Playing on Hard or Nightmare makes the waves rage-inducing. I had to go down to casual on subsequent playthroughs to be able to enjoy the game. The first wave on Hard was fun and challenging enough, though not as tactical as DA:O. I liked having to plan out some difficult fights strategically in DA:O. When I personally speak of slower combat in DA:O it was the getting stuck behind people and taking a while to get to the enemy with the combat music blaring. lol Not that I want to swat people more and have them explode quicker and therefore need wave upon wave for quick ADHD combat style.

Sure, DAO was slow. But DA2 was not incredibly tactical and there was too much combat interrupting everything you do everywhere you go for it to stay enjoyable for long on a hard setting, especially when you beat them and more drop on you. My Hawke had audible sighs and it wasn't from exertion. I did it for one playthrough and it would have been my last had I kept it up there.

Well, if the combat is too much for you why not lower your difficulty level? Isn't the high difficulty levels all about having a challenge in combat? Now you have that in DA2 with waves of enemies and you complain?
And how exactly does combat "interrupt" anything? Does it interrupt your Sunday afternoon stroll through Lowtown? I just don't get it.

Modifié par Dubya75, 15 avril 2011 - 03:47 .

[_Aine_]

Dubya75 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Playing on Hard or Nightmare makes the waves rage-inducing. I had to go down to casual on subsequent playthroughs to be able to enjoy the game. The first wave on Hard was fun and challenging enough, though not as tactical as DA:O. I liked having to plan out some difficult fights strategically in DA:O. When I personally speak of slower combat in DA:O it was the getting stuck behind people and taking a while to get to the enemy with the combat music blaring. lol Not that I want to swat people more and have them explode quicker and therefore need wave upon wave for quick ADHD combat style.

Sure, DAO was slow. But DA2 was not incredibly tactical and there was too much combat interrupting everything you do everywhere you go for it to stay enjoyable for long on a hard setting, especially when you beat them and more drop on you. My Hawke had audible sighs and it wasn't from exertion. I did it for one playthrough and it would have been my last had I kept it up there.

Well, if the combat is too much for you why not lower your difficulty level? Isn't the high difficulty levels all about having a challenge in combat? Now you have that in DA2 with waves of enemies and you complain?
And how exactly does combat "interrupt" anything? Interrupt your Sunday afternoon stroll through Lowtown? I just don't get it.

I did. And I said I did, actually. I played it through once the way I *wanted* to, on Hard, trying to get the tactical feel I enjoyed in DA:O.  I didn't find it.  I was only annoyed at the continual waves.  So, in subsequent playthroughs, I dropped the setting to casual to blow through the annoying combat (not the logical battles).  And yes, annoying combat.  Walking from one house to the pub, in the middle of the day, should not have me being the ONLY person in Kirkwall being attacked by renegade blood mages, Antivan assassins, possessed templars and someone I pissed off in Act 2.  All on my way to the pub.  With other people not bothered and muttering about shoes.  NOT immersive.  While it may give people looking only to kill things something to do, for me, it happening *so* often ruined my enjoyment of the story.  *my* enjoyment.  I was speaking of my own experience.  

As in anything, *your* mileage may vary.   

[MingWolf]

Dubya75...

And why do people complain about the waves of enemies? Because it's different and probably a bit harder to deal with on high difficulty levels.

It certainly is different... and yes, its harder to deal with, but not because of the difficulty. I think people complain about the waves of enemies because its a cheap way of achieving an end to justify the means. I don't argue with the fact that tactics may be necessary at harder difficulty levels because the odds are so stacked against you--you are right in this sense--but that doesn't make it any more fun. Going through this over and over again is just--sorry to break it to you--extremely boring for some of us. Try moving your arm back and forth, over and over again, and you will begin to understand just how tiring it is. It also dissolves tactics into a grind fests. It has the value of adaptability, but beyond that, its hopelessly vulgar. There are better ways to bring forward tactics and I'm sure you can understand this. Removing the opponents' side of tactics and instead having them appear in the ceiling isn't exactly the best way forward.

[sami jo]

Dubya75 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

If Mikes latest interview proves anything, it is just how far entrenched he is in defending the horrible design choices for this game. As if switching to hard would somehow repair the horrible combat mechanics, linear levels, lack of variety, character, charm, choice and substance in DA2. Sorry Mike, but your consensus driven vision for Dragon Age is such that I’ll not be investing another penny in the franchise so long as you are involved.

I don't understand why people are so displeased with the combat mechanics after having played Origins! Have you played Origins after DA2? If you did, you will find that the combat mechanics is very much improved in DA2.
Of course, the argument that playing on Hard or Nightmare necessitates the use of tactics more is totally subjective to your own level of skill. However, on the flip side of that coin, it is IMPOSSIBLE to just hit the awesome button and win battles on that difficulty level. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. So tactics are a necessity. No-one is after all beyond the allowances of the combat mechanics.
And why do people complain about the waves of enemies? Because it's different and probably a bit harder to deal with on high difficulty levels.

You prefer the new system.  I, and many other, do not.  Yes, I have gone back to playing Origins and I vastly prefer it.  The waves of enemies are ridiculously predictable and tedious for me.  I don't enjoy the pointless combat.  That isn't why I play an RPG.  If I want to do nothing but hack and slash through wave after wave of enemy for no apparent reason, I will pick up a game that is designed for exactly that sort of gaming experience.  Do not mistake your preferences for hard fact.

Edit: While I would agree with those who say that nightmare difficulty in DA:O was too easy, at least on the PC; it became too easy in part because I didn't play on nightmare until after I had beaten the game several times and therefore I knew what tactics would work best for each battle and because of modded/DLC equipment.  The combat in Golems was significantly more difficult without altering the base system, which demonstrates that the existing system could be made more challenging without resorting to gimmicky waves of baddies. 

Modifié par sami jo, 15 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[ejoslin]

Dubya75 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

If Mikes latest interview proves anything, it is just how far entrenched he is in defending the horrible design choices for this game. As if switching to hard would somehow repair the horrible combat mechanics, linear levels, lack of variety, character, charm, choice and substance in DA2. Sorry Mike, but your consensus driven vision for Dragon Age is such that I’ll not be investing another penny in the franchise so long as you are involved.

I don't understand why people are so displeased with the combat mechanics after having played Origins! Have you played Origins after DA2? If you did, you will find that the combat mechanics is very much improved in DA2.
Of course, the argument that playing on Hard or Nightmare necessitates the use of tactics more is totally subjective to your own level of skill. However, on the flip side of that coin, it is IMPOSSIBLE to just hit the awesome button and win battles on that difficulty level. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. So tactics are a necessity. No-one is after all beyond the allowances of the combat mechanics.
And why do people complain about the waves of enemies? Because it's different and probably a bit harder to deal with on high difficulty levels.

I have played Origins after DA2.  I disagree with your assessment of the combat.  I liked that advanced planning could be done in DAO.  I liked that I could use traps.  I liked that I had to have my rogue stealth in, disarm traps, try to take out the mage and as soon as he showed, my mage had to take out the other FAST.

Hell, asthetics-wise, I liked that in DAO Zevran wasn't turning cartwheels and my mage didn't have a wand that went laserspewpew.  And that things didn't explode into gore.  And that, if a companion killed the Ogre or broodmother or dragon or archdemon, THEY did the final blow instead of Hawke coming back from unconscious to land that blow.

I actually like DA2 (not nearly as much as DAO), but there's no way I think the combat in DA2 is better.  There were a couple of fights in DAO that had waves -- major fights (those spiders omg), but even spiders coming down from the ceiling made more sense.  This teleporting enemies just broke all sorts of immersion for me.  It made no sense, and was in EVERY fight.

Plus I really didn't get WHY there were so many gangs.  In Orzammar it made sense.  Just like in Denerim back alleys.  But SO MANY in DA2.  All of them dumb enough to jump the most influential citizen in act 3 who had proven herself in combat repeatedly...

Modifié par ejoslin, 15 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[Bostur]

Dubya75 wrote...

I don't understand why people are so displeased with the combat mechanics after having played Origins! Have you played Origins after DA2? If you did, you will find that the combat mechanics is very much improved in DA2.
Of course, the argument that playing on Hard or Nightmare necessitates the use of tactics more is totally subjective to your own level of skill. However, on the flip side of that coin, it is IMPOSSIBLE to just hit the awesome button and win battles on that difficulty level. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. So tactics are a necessity. No-one is after all beyond the allowances of the combat mechanics.
And why do people complain about the waves of enemies? Because it's different and probably a bit harder to deal with on high difficulty levels.

I've played Origins after DA2. It was a huge relief, much much smoother. Commands register, the tactics screen works, companions hold when asked to, they generally dont move around at random unless the area is huge and they don't get stuck. Also I don't need to babysit all my companions constantly.
This is comparing hard mode on both versions.

Origins is harder though, but in a good way. Tactical planning has a much greater effect, and random events less of an effect.

The only downside of Origins combat is the shuffling. It looks silly but in most cases it doesn't have much of a game play effect. Sometimes they get a bit stuck when trying to squeeze through a large blob of mobs, but thats a bad plan in the first place. And not entirely unrealistic.