494 réponses à ce sujet

[Gotholhorakh]

IN1 wrote...
 DA2 is a huge improvement over DAO/DAA in all things mechanics-related. And that's not a subjective evaluation. 

You see the main problem with this is that you're trying to lend credence to your opinion by repeatedly, endlessly referring to it as objective and factual, when what it boils down to, is precisely the opposite.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, this bit:

is a huge improvement

is the subjective component of your argument, it is where you differ, given the same facts, from other people.


If you think DA:O combat is

an unplayable buggy mess

well that's ridiculously subjective, too, (a truth to which the number of people who bought it, played it and reviewed it as excellent will attest) and so on.

Onto the questions being asked - it's rather like trying to force people to analyse a rock song and tell you what is musically incorrect about it, objectively speaking, because they don't enjoy listening to the trombone solo.

Analysis is possible with the game mechanics, but the reality is that all the changes in the world wouldn't have mattered at all if the overall experience was enjoyable for people who played the first game, and I think that with some exceptions, it often wasn't.

(That's not an outrageous aim for a sequel which will get bought by people who played the first game)


I just think your question boils down to "here is a short opinion piece which refers to itself as objective, now dispute it but only with objective facts". 

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 25 avril 2011 - 10:48 .

[IN1]

Wow, now that is really what i waited for. A "RPG" that i can play like a shooter.

What exactly is the problem to play it exactly like DAO? Pausing, microing, you know. You are not supposed to play DA2 the way you describe. My experience, at least, was vastly different. For me, it played like DAO, just actually fully functional.

Just avoid to use the overpowered spells like Mana Clash and others, made the fights again interesting.

Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so. 

Traps, i always had a NPC with me who was a trap expert.  A really tactical element.

As badly designed and overpowered as everything else. I've posted an infamous High Dragon video killed by 50 traps on NM in its day. It's still there on my Youtube account.

I could think about a strategy, attack the main enemy or kill first his helpers.

Ummm... And now what? You don't?

[Amfortas]

I agree that DAII is harder than Origins in nightmare and I'm willing to accept that combat mechanics are better, even if I enjoyed it less because I had to use auto attack more than I would have wanted.
The problem is that the encounters design is so bad that it overshadows any other virtue the game could have. In a game were the only thing you do is fight, if every fight is the same, it's impossible not to get bored of it. The only explanation I can find for the waves of enemies is to artificially expand the game's duration, making it as long as Origins but with half the content. On the process they killed the game.

[agentofatlas7]

SirLogical wrote...

IN1 wrote...

Riloux wrote...

Are you kidding? You can beat DA2 with auto-attack alone.

On Casual? I'm sure you can.

If you meant NM, I'd absolutely love to see some vids of you auto-attacking your way through, say, Night Lies, Dissent or Nexus Golem fights. Come on, show us some real skill

In which case, feel free to post a video of Gaxkang on nightmare without mana clash. See, I can do it too. Or the Harvester. (Origins version not the p.o.s. DA:2 version). Or the 6 golem room. At least you can't hit >200k in origins. (Impressive btw)

Edit: was actually over 200k, my bad.

Gaxkhang w/o mana clash

[IN1]

I just think your question boils down to "here is a short opinion piece which refers to itself as objective, now dispute it but only with objective facts". 

Well, I did my best to elaborate on every point of comparison. You've just chosen to ignore the arguments presented, for some obscure reason. 

[AkiKishi]

Well one of the key differences is this.

DA has real tactics. You can recon, plan and execute a battle plan.
DA2 has spawns and waves it's more reactive, but it's also totally repetative and takes very little time to crack how it works and exploit it.

[Bostur]

IN1 wrote...

I just think your question boils down to "here is a short opinion piece which refers to itself as objective, now dispute it but only with objective facts". 

Well, I did my best to elaborate on every point of comparison. You've just chosen to ignore the arguments presented, for some obscure reason. 

So did I, I also tried to refer to a thread with very detailed analysis from some people. But you seem to prefer to attack argumentation instead of staying on the subject.

[Amfortas]

IN1 wrote...


Traps, i always had a NPC with me who was a trap expert.  A really tactical element.

As badly designed and overpowered as everything else. I've posted an infamous High Dragon video killed by 50 traps on NM in its day. It's still there on my Youtube account.

could you explain why killing an animal with traps is bad design?
It's not very honorable as that hunter in Tatooine said, but I don't see why it shouldn't be viable

[IN1]

SirLogical wrote...

IN1 wrote...

Riloux wrote...

Are you kidding? You can beat DA2 with auto-attack alone.

On Casual? I'm sure you can.

If you meant NM, I'd absolutely love to see some vids of you auto-attacking your way through, say, Night Lies, Dissent or Nexus Golem fights. Come on, show us some real skill

In which case, feel free to post a video of Gaxkang on nightmare without mana clash. See, I can do it too. Or the Harvester. (Origins version not the p.o.s. DA:2 version). Or the 6 golem room. At least you can't hit >200k in origins. (Impressive btw)

Edit: was actually over 200k, my bad.

A bit asymmetrical, don't you think? There were 3 (three) somewhat challenging encounters in Origins (Gaxx, pre-Fort Drakon Ser Cauthrien et al., Branka + Golems), while DA2 NM average level of challenge is quite high.

About that no-Mana Clash challenge: by the way, a Dwarf Templar Warden can just auto-attack poor Gaxx to death. Solo.

[Theagg]

One of the problems for me with Nightmare is that it just doesn't seem to strike the right balance when, after having cleared out all the mobs and adds, quite often the main boss is left standing with its epic life bar.

At which point you know that its almost a guarenteed win for you party, but not neccessarily a quick one. It then just becomes a tedious spam fest for the next few minutes as you whittle the boss down in a repetitive way I don't recall happening often in Origins.

Perhaps in this position the bosses should rout more often, surrender, run away...because they are never going to win.

[IN1]

So did I, I also tried to refer to a thread with very detailed analysis from some people.

I was replying to a comment by a different poster, and I really don't understand why are you reacting to it as if I was talking to you. Some manners...

To be honest, I wanted to spare you the embarrassment, but if you insist... CCC = cross-class combo. I cannot continue to discuss DA2 mechanics seriously with someone unfamiliar with this basic concept. Sorry, I'm done communicating with you in this thread. Nothing personal.

But you seem to prefer to attack argumentation instead of staying on the subject.

Staying on the subject of what? I talk about mechanics, people talk about exploding body animations and reinforcements spawning out of thin air.

Anyway, don't bother to post here anymore, your comments will be ignored. Fair warning, I guess  

I'll read the thread you've posted the link to, though.

Update: Read it. In a nutshell, some people think DA2 combat is less tactical, because: (a) there is no FF on Normal (they conveniently forget there is 100% FF on NM); ( the game is much faster (they conveniently refuse to use pause). Needless to say, taking such argumentation seriously is out of question.

Modifié par IN1, 25 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[Yrkoon]

IN1 wrote...
 
DAO/DAA:

(1) Extremely easy, to the point of being downright boring. You can literally fall asleep during late game fights. .

I stopped reading at about  here.

I was promised  cold had facts, only to see   a hyperbole-riddled subjective opinion tossed at me as the very first point being made.

That's a pet peeve of mine.  And you nailed it right away.  Good job.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 avril 2011 - 11:28 .

[AkiKishi]

IN1 wrote...
Update: Read it. In a nutshell, some people think DA2 combat is less tactical, because: (a) there is no FF on Normal (they conveniently forget there is 100% FF on NM); ( the game is much faster (they conveniently refuse to use pause). Needless to say, taking such argumentation seriously is out of question.

If you don't need to use the pause then why use it? Just so you can pretend you are being tactical?

[Kilshrek]

IN1 wrote...

-
 
DAO/DAA:

(1) Extremely easy, to the point of being downright boring. You can literally fall asleep during late game fights. Differences between difficulty levels are minimal. DAO NM is, essentially, Normal where the enemies get a couple of insignificant fixed bonuses. Extremely short cooldown on health/mana potions. Badly designed asymmetrical scaling system: Georg Zoeller advocated it with some vigor in its day, but many things that sound nice in theory just do not work that well practically.

(2) Amateurishly designed, ridiculously unbalanced classes/abilities system. Examples: ridiculously overpowered specializations like Arcane Warrior and DAA Spirit Warrior; pathetically useless specializations like Shapeshifter; Mana Clash (enough said). In a nutshell: Mages, especially AW >>>>>>>> anyone else (DAO); Spirit Warrior Archers >>>>>>>>>> anyone else (DAA).

(3) The implementation of abilities/item properties in DAO/DAA is a buggy mess. ~30-40% of abilities/item properties either do not function properly, or do not work at all. Examples: abilities/properties that should modify threat do not do this (exceptions: AoS, Walking Bomb, Scattershot, Mind Blast, Cadash Stompers); abilities/properties that should modify attack animation speed either do not do this or do this in a buggy/messy/glitchy way; aura-like abilities stack (Rock Mastery, Rally); Shale and Dog abilities bugged beyond belief (yes, you won't believe what Overwhelm actually does); elemental spells applying states use incorrect resistance checks (Cone of Cold always assumes the target has a physical resistance of -1, for example); +X% healing property on items does nothing; crossbows being unaffected by attributes, thus leaving the whole weapon class totally useless. The list, in fact, is much much much longer.

Overall, I'd say DAO combat is an unplayable buggy mess without third-party modifications/fixes (four official patches do very little to fix the mechanics issues). Now, if you don't care about combat at all, I guess you can play DAO just fine. If you do, good luck installing a dozen conflicting third-party mods.

Ah, another "purely objective, I swear!" post. Firstly your objective
views fail before they begin because you qualify your points by
giving putting your opinion on it. How does that make it objective? Now,
that jab aside let me pick your "DA 2 mechanics are superior" apart.

DAO

1) How does quick potion cooldown make things easier?
To the point of being able to autopilot? Again, subjective and incredibly so. No, potion
cooldowns had little effect on the difficulty because the enemies were
more balanced. Armour was balanced, weapons were balanced. Your choice
of equipment matter a great deal more than it does in DA 2, and your enemies wore armour as well (yes, it's hard to believe). My favourite example of combat is fighting a Revenant in DAO. Tough, mostly immune to magic, AoE attacks. Even with potions and healers fighting a Revenant is no easy task. You juggle your melee figthers, you need to kite a little because a Revenant's damage output is pretty damn high. The Revenant can use that pull ability, forcing you to act quick if it's a squishie he just pulled. If you're saying power building makes the game easy, I think you just answered your own question. Not everyone power builds and regular builds go through a nice fight sequence. Why else would people drop the game at Normal? And those who fought without undue difficulty claim that Normal on DA 2 is ****** easy and Hard is merely annoying? More on DA 2 in the DA 2 section.

2) Again, with the impartial wording. How we fail at being objective. And also, you only use the mage as your example, which is the universally accepted OP class. I don't think there is anything else to add here, the other classes are fairly balanced, with the unfortunate exception of Archers, who were woeful. There's always going to be an OP class(which by right should be solved in game balancing patches), but to call it amateurish is very poor form.

3) Managing threat has always been rather poor in DAO and I can offer no defence of that. I am however rather interested in the other examples that you can offer, as an education to me if nothing else. However did you pull those percentages or somewhere or are there actual numbers to back it up?

Unplayable buggy mess? I think not, flawed? Certainly, unplayable? Only if you believe the 80% drop out rate that spies telemetry apparently says. Of course that may be due to the fact that the console versions of DAO weren't given the love they needed. But that is another debate.

IN1 wrote...
DA2:

(1) The difficulty settings have their issues: the difference between Normal, Hard and NM is reportedly enormous (no first-hand experience with Normal or Hard). However, NM is quite nightmarish, especially on your first playthrough. And that's a good thing for those of us that enjoy challenge. Cooldowns on hp/mana pots are adequate. Fully symmetrical scaling system that may sound idiotic, but, de facto, works much better than DAO/DAA's system. The most challenging NM fight in the game is probably Meredith+Gate Guardians, and that's actually an incredible achievement -- as any experienced RPG player knows, the final bosses are, as a rule, total pushovers due to scaling issues (in other words, party/protagonist getting stronger much faster than the enemies). 

(2) A solidly designed classes/abilities system. Yes, it has it flaws (a bit rigid, I admit). And no, it's no D&D. But it is balanced: little to no useless specializations/talents/spells, this time.

(3) The abilities and the properties are correctly implemented in 95% of the cases. Most of the mechanics glitches (Rally not transferring modals; shield armor rating stacking; Lacerate upgrade treated as a separate ability) were fixed in the very first patch. The only really serious bug that persists is the infinitely stacking Healing Aura.

Overall, I'd say DA2's gameplay design team work is most commendable. DA2 is a huge improvement over DAO/DAA in all things mechanics-related. And that's not a subjective evaluation. Again, I understand that if you don't care much about combat and find the new plot/dialogue/art direction repulsive, this fact alone won't make DA2 any more acceptable for you.

DA 2

1) Normal and Hard are indeed worlds apart. I gave up playing on Hard because the waves caused me all sorts of aggravation. This is also due to the fact that there is no isometric or even detachable camera, which makes keeping an eye on the party slightly more difficult. I could just keep my eye on the left side of my screen but I believe that would be counter productive. And yes, waves are a part of the game mechanics, no worming out of that. Taking a set number of foes out in favour of a wave system has performance benefits or so I'm told, but what with waves being nonsensically placed (enemies dropping in from my point of entry, really?) The idea of Fortitude is good in theory but rather poor in practice since your archers and mages can generate threat faster than they can mitigate and tanks don't do the greatest job at managing threat, again. Boss fights in DA 2 are honestly more autopilot affairs than any fight in DAO. Bosses receive ridiculous health buffs and take forever to take down, and not because you can't pile it on fast enough, but because they go through invulnerable phases
-And apparently they have a timer on health, ie their health will not go down past a certain % until a certain amount of time has passed (and I do not disbelieve this as the fight with that Templar fanatic, whatshisface under Petrice, I wiped out his whole retinue and focussed attacks on him, attacks connected but there was no damage dealt. What's the deal?)
How is that an acceptable fight mechanic?

2) classes and abilities this time around are more restricted. as well as companions whose equipment is exteremely restrictive. Truly there is no point in giving us 100 pieces of armour, unique and generic, if only Hawke can use the things. Weapons go that way as well, with Varric getting the most OP weapon out there, a trick to keep him in the party so as to justify having Varric around half the time.

3) Again, I'm no expert so I cannot offer any input on this, but again, percentages. Numbers, please.


I apologise if I seem harsh, but your post claiming objectivity irked me. I never once claimed to be objective in my points, but I don't think them to be entirely subjective either. DA 2's mechanics were less palatable to me, the story does well if not held under a microscope.

edit : also your saying that D&S rogue is cheesy but not buggy should be rather incorrect since it obviously wasn't meant to be that way, was it? Rogues were only meant to be able to wield two daggers or a bow. Same reason why warriors could only go weapon & shield or two hander. Game design, make them unique and all that jazz. So, D&S rogue is a bug, isn't it?

Modifié par Kilshrek, 25 avril 2011 - 11:26 .

[Dormiglione]

IN1 wrote...

Wow, now that is really what i waited for. A "RPG" that i can play like a shooter.

What exactly is the problem to play it exactly like DAO? Pausing, microing, you know. You are not supposed to play DA2 the way you describe. My experience, at least, was vastly different. For me, it played like DAO, just actually fully functional.

Arishok fight. Run, dodge, call the mabari, hope he distracts the arishok so that the potion cools down, blow, run, dodge, wait - cool down active, ok run, dodge ...

IN1 wrote...

Just avoid to use the overpowered spells like Mana Clash and others, made the fights again interesting.

Well, no. You are virtually untouchable in DAO by level 18 or so. 

Same applies in DA2 if you choose the rogue class. With talents like backstab, twin fang, Inconspicuous the Rogue is the overpowered counterpart of the mage in DAO.

IN1 wrote...
Traps, i always had a NPC with me who was a trap expert.  A really tactical element.

As badly designed and overpowered as everything else. I've posted an infamous High Dragon video killed by 50 traps on NM in its day. It's still there on my Youtube account.

If traps were overpowered i could have killed the high dragon with 4 or 5 traps. But who you mentioned, there were 50 traps on the fields. Unsporty? Yes! Overpowered? No!

IN1 wrote...
I could think about a strategy, attack the main enemy or kill first his helpers.

Ummm... And now what? You don't?

Now i have always to wait until the waves end. Because there is no real aiming option.

[IN1]

I stopped reading at about  here.

Ohhh, no! You are breaking my heart.

[Yrkoon]

IN1 wrote...

I stopped reading at about  here.

Ohhh, no! You are breaking my heart.

And you're boring me to tears.  We're even.

(And that's a cold hard fact.  lol)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Kilshrek wrote...
 This is also due to the fact that there is no isometric or even detachable camera, which makes keeping an eye on the party slightly more difficult. I could just keep my eye on the left side of my screen but I believe that would be counter productive.

This.

I find combat an exercise in spinning the camera around constantly, if I could have one thing changed (well, that would be paraphrasing, but on-topic, if I could have one thing changed about combat) - only one thing, it would probably be the iso view.

The combat feels so very broken without iso view, if iso view is what you have already been playing Dragon Age in for 100 hours plus.

I don't mean in a "I'm not familiar with this" way, I mean in an "OK, now I have got used to this combat a bit more, and I still feel half-blind in combat like half my monitor is covered in masking tape" way.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 25 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[Bostur]

IN1 wrote...

I was replying to a comment by a different poster, and I really don't understand why are you reacting to it as if I was talking to you. Some manners...

To be honest, I wanted to spare you the embarrassment, but if you insist... CCC = cross-class combo. I cannot continue to discuss DA2 mechanics seriously with someone unfamiliar with this basic concept. Sorry, I'm done communicating with you in this thread. Nothing personal.

Well you started by asking me to elaborate, which I tried to do. Then you seemed to abandon your original topic of gameplay mechanics and accused others for doing the same which seemed odd.

I know what cross-class combos means, I just didn't know your home made acronym.

Hand-picking posts in order to find flaws doesn't exactly result in constructive debate, this seemed to be what you focused on. Which in turn felt even more like a double standard when you start accusing others for ignoring arguments.

But youre right, not much point of following this thread when you so obviously try to ignore arguments. The way you interpreted the thread I linked to speaks on its own.

[Firky]

IN1 wrote...

I stopped reading at about  here.

Ohhh, no! You are breaking my heart.

IN1 did have a point there. "DAO/DAA: (1) Extremely easy, to the point of being downright boring. You can literally fall asleep during late game fights."

Literally, the only fight I had to actually play in DAA on NM was the final battle. (And that's because I'd been so lazy building the party. The others were, trigger battle, go make a cup of tea. Actually, there was one other - it was a surprise attack with lots of overwhelm. But second time, I sent in a scout and it was easy.) The specs were way overpowered. I wasn't cheesing or anything.

IN1 - come on, man. Tell me what I'm doing wrong with Commanders (from post on previous page.) 

[FedericoV]

I do agree with the OP. If there's one thing where DA2 is clearly superior to DA:O is combat mechanic and the rule system (at least playing on the PC). Really, no comparison and whoever said it's not, have not any experience with RPGs (computer or pen and paper). And I agree with the OP: mechanic are objective and not subjective. The superiority of DA2 system is self evident. And yes, DA2 on hard was more challenging that DA:O on hard (at least, on the PC). Normal do not count since it's intended for people who does not want to be challenged.

The problem is that most critics ignore the differences between mechanic and encounter design, between the rule system and style/animation. So they talk generally about "combat" and point the flaws of DA2 in the encounter design/style department to dismiss everything that's good. Because I admit without problems DA2's flaws in the "combat" department: constant use of the wave mechanich, enemies spawning from nowhere, body exploding, boring boss fights, anime style 2H weapons, and some general sillyness in the animation department. But those flaws have nothing to do with the gameplay mechanics wich are really one of the strongest point of DA2.

The only thing that I do not get: you have such a beautifull party based RPG system. Why hide it with the button/awesome campaing like it's something to be ashamed about? Why develop the consolle version of the game with a "button mashing" style in mind as first option only adding autoattack on the run (to the point of having it out of the game a release...)? Why dodge is not allways skill based, I mean... why force the player to control manually the charachters to avoid blows? That's really a mistery for me.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 avril 2011 - 11:45 .

[IN1]

1) How does quick potion cooldown make things easier?

I think it's obvious. If you cannot figure it out, we have nothing to discuss No offense.

And also, you only use the mage as your example, which is the universally accepted OP class.

There are three classes overall, in case you are not aware of it. Also, Spirit Warrior was not a mage last time I checked.

Managing threat has always been rather poor in DAO and I can offer no defence of that. I am however rather interested in the other examples that you can offer, as an education to me if nothing else. However did you pull those percentages or somewhere or are there actual numbers to back it up?

I offer a lot of examples, besides threat management. Tl;dr syndrome, I guess? Concerning the percentage, you can consult the wiki and do the elementary math by yourself. I'm not your private DAO instructor

I apologise if I seem harsh, but your post claiming objectivity irked me. I never once claimed to be objective in my points,
 
It's not my points that are objective, it's game mechanics that are. They are either buggy or not. Either functional or not. Either balanced or not. DA2 mechanics are, for the most part, not buggy, functional, and balanced. DAO mechanics, on the other hand, are the exact opposite.

edit : also your saying that D&S rogue is cheesy but not buggy

Not buggy? Where did I say that? Don't put your own words into my mouth, please.

[Bostur]

FedericoV wrote...

I do agree with the OP. If there's one thing where DA2 is clearly superior to DA:O is combat mechanic and the rule system (at least playing on the PC). Really, no comparison and whoever said it's not, have not any experience with RPGs (computer or pen and paper). And I agree with the OP: mechanic are objective and not subjective. The superiority of DA2 system is self evident. And yes, DA2 on hard was more challenging that DA:O on hard (at least, on the PC). Normal do not count since it's intended for people who does not want to be challenged.

The problem is that most critics ignore the differences between mechanic and encounter design, between the rule system and style/animation. So they talk generally about "combat" and point the flaws of DA2 in the encounter design/style department to dismiss everything that's good. Because I admit without problems DA2's flaws in the "combat" department: constant use of the wave mechanich, enemies spawning from nowhere, body exploding, anime style 2H weapons, and some general sillyness in the animation department. But those flaws have nothing to do with the gameplay mechanics wich are really one of the strongest point of DA2.

The only thing that I do not get: you have such a beautifull party based RPG system. Why hide it with the button/awesome campaing like it's something to be ashamed about? Why develop the consolle version of the game with a "button mashing" style in mind as first option only adding autoattack on the run (to the point of having it out of the game a release...). That's really a mistery for me.

That is true DA2 did fix some imbalances and flaws in mechanics. But the enjoyment of a game like this also depends on how mechanics and other factors like encounter design fit together.

As you say yourself why hide the good mechanics with a button-mashing style of gameplay. Other factors than lack of auto-attack add together to make that kind of gameplay.

[IN1]

Firky wrote...

IN1 wrote...

I stopped reading at about  here.

Ohhh, no! You are breaking my heart.

IN1 did have a point there. "DAO/DAA: (1) Extremely easy, to the point of being downright boring. You can literally fall asleep during late game fights."

Literally, the only fight I had to actually play in DAA on NM was the final battle. (And that's because I'd been so lazy building the party. The others were, trigger battle, go make a cup of tea. Actually, there was one other - it was a surprise attack with lots of overwhelm. But second time, I sent in a scout and it was easy.) The specs were way overpowered. I wasn't cheesing or anything.

IN1 - come on, man. Tell me what I'm doing wrong with Commanders (from post on previous page.) 

I don't get why Commanders are so easy to manually dodge. I can take them down fairly quickly now (so I'm not accusing them of being tedious, like some are) but they do this big wind-up to their melee attack and it just takes a sec to pause what I'm doing and move Aveline (or whoever is engaging them) out of the way. You can avoid taking damage altogether.

Do you think that's a flaw? I'm not sure. I tend to think it's better than having the instinct to dodge in DA:O and then running away and being taken down on the other side of the battlefield because the damage was done at the beginning of the animation, but it still doesn't sit right with me somehow.

How would it be improved? Giving Commanders a fast and a slow attack? I dunno. I'm stumped on this one.


Hmmmm... They are not THAT easy to dodge. You can dodge their ranged attacks, if you run away as soon as they start the animation, but I've never found it overly easy. If we give them two ranged attacks with similar animations but different timings, they will be much more dangerous, indeed. 

[FedericoV]

Bostur wrote...

That is true DA2 did fix some imbalances and flaws in mechanics. But the enjoyment of a game like this also depends on how mechanics and other factors like encounter design fit together.

As you say yourself why hide the good mechanics with a button-mashing style of gameplay. Other factors than lack of auto-attack add together to make that kind of gameplay.

I was following the OP and trying to separate gameplay mechanic from the rest. You know, I'm very interested in combat system since I have a P&P background. The OP has never said that those flaws do not exist or that they should not be fixed. He has only focused on the "mechanic" and wrote a very interesting and in depth analysis of both systems.  Personally, I enjoyed more DA2 combat as a whole. I see all the issues that has been raised in the last weeks but still, I have more fun than DA:O playing it. 

So, I hope that for the future of the franchise the devs will use the current combat mechanics and adjust them where needed in the encounter design/style field. Especially, they should understand that it's pointless to develop a party based rpg like DA2 and then try to sell it as "god of war with numbers". I't pointless to develop such a system and then try to convince players to play it as a button masher. Because, I remember Ladlaw saying that with DA2 he wanted to create a link between RPGs and action games like GoW. You, know, that game allready exists, it's called Diablo 2 and there's no point to develop another clone or to sell a DA game as such.