157 réponses à ce sujet

[bstrothe]

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

[Maladismal]

Were things really so great in DA:O?

You had your caster enemies, who you cc'd immediatly or they'd cause a party wipe fast.
You had your rank and file melee, who you just controlled with the tank
you had your archers who spamed scattershot at the beginning of the fight and then proceeded to shoot whoever.

That was the vast majority of the content in DA:O.

[Captain_Obvious]

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

[Demx]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

And what makes it so hard to get past Ostagar?

[Melca36]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

I played Origins and finished it several times. Please explain how difficult it is to get past Ostagar???

Are you a consoler. Do you lack patience?

Its too bad you can't appreciate Origins because it is a good game that won many awards.

DA:2 was good in its own way but had a GREAT MANY problems. 

[Melca36]

Siradix wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

And what makes it so hard to get past Ostagar?

I think it all goes down to laziness and people wanting things handed to them. 

[Xilizhra]

I disagree. My Warden really didn't feel like much of a person, just a sort of blank avatar, and the story didn't feel like I owned it. It was just things happening, that I could theoretically decide, but I didn't feel integrated into the world.

Hawke, on the other hand, feels much more like a real person.

[Carmen_Willow]

Maladismal wrote...

Were things really so great in DA:O?

You had your caster enemies, who you cc'd immediatly or they'd cause a party wipe fast.
You had your rank and file melee, who you just controlled with the tank
you had your archers who spamed scattershot at the beginning of the fight and then proceeded to shoot whoever.

That was the vast majority of the content in DA:O.

You forgot a few things: You had an introduction to your YOUR character that really made you care about what had happened to them, so that by the time you arrived at Ostagar you were deeply involved in the storyline.

And you had companions who had profound back stories that gave them depth, scope and character (or a lack of it). 

And you had Loghain and Branka and other antagonists who were complicated and worthy of opposition.

And you had quests that seemed polished and finished.  Example of a DA: 2 quest that just didn't seem "done."  When you take on the Magistrate's quest your are promised that helping will gain you "support"  and if you kill the guy you get threatened.....and yet, nothing happens.  There are no consequences....there were a number of quests in DA:2 that were like this.  They didn't seem finished.

You had battles that you really had to think about.  There were battles that when I figured out how to take out the boss, I cheered....(I'm thinking Marjolaine and her crew; she really gave me trouble).  The DA:2 battles were mainly,  "Oh gods, not another wave.....oh, it is another wave....."  Or it was, "Oh gods, he's not getting to drink another health potion....oh he's getting to drink another health potion...."  Don't tell me that was fun.....at least  I didn't find it so.

I'm replaying Origins right now (I need a canon Dailish elf)....and while I know the game very well, I just got a convesation line I hadn't heard before from one of my companions.  That was suprising and made me wonder what else I've missed.

DA:2  feels like Torchlight with friends, not the successor to Origins. [Edited to add quotes.]

Modifié par Carmen_Willow, 06 mai 2011 - 11:40 .

[Realmzmaster]

What do you mean by traditional game play? Compared to what? If I compare DA:O to the Might and Magic series or Temple of Elemental Evil (TOEE) DA:O and DA 2 fall very short in terms of that old school feel. Death of a character in old school games was very real.For example in TOEE the characters hit points were reduce to zero and the character falls unconscious. The character continues to loss hp until it receives -10 at which point character is dead. (It use to be zero in the old D & D 2.0 ruleset.) Your companion has to reach you to stabilize your condition with an injury kit or your cleric (or priest) had to cast a healing spell to keep you from dying. But the cleric was limited in the number of healing spells the cleric could have. So if none of that was possible, you had a dead character which had to go to the temple for resurrection.
DA:O and DA 2 remove that possibility.

[TEWR]

I went back and played Origins on my PS3 to finish up my Dalish elf playthrough. Well, technically all I did was battle the Archdemon, Awakening, GoA, and then WH.

I'll have to go back and try the whole storyline again and see how I feel.

I do however prefer DA2 combat over DA:O combat, for the most part. It's better but still incredibly flawed and needs some fine-tuning. No more overhauling, just tweaking.

Like make 2 handed warriors attack slow at first but then as you level up their attack speed gradually increases.

The new way archers attack is perfect, as is the new mage style combat (for those wondering, Witch Hunt pretty much told you the new style of attacking for mages in one of the books in the Circle library).

I've already suggested a way for 2H warriors to be better. Sword and Board I'm not really sure about, and rogues I'll have to examine again.

Exploding bodies however needs to go.

[Xilizhra]

You forgot a few things: You had an introduction to your YOUR character that really made you care about what had happened to them, so that by the time you arrived at Ostagar you were deeply involved in the storyline.

But none of them felt too connected to the main plot thread, and they weren't brought up often enough later on.

And you had companions who had profound back stories that gave them depth, scope and character (or a lack of it).

Which is interesting, but all they're doing now is following the Warden. 2's companions have their own lives.

And you had Loghain and Branka and other antagonists who were complicated and worthy of opposition.

I believe 2 had them as well.

And you had quests that seemed polished and finished. Example of a DA: 2 quest that just didn't seem "done." When you take on the Magistrate's quest your are promised that helping will gain you "support" and if you kill the guy you get threatened.....and yet, nothing happens. There are no consequences....there were a number of quests in DA:2 that were like this. They didn't seem finished.

Some, but not all.

You had battles that you really had to think about. There were battles that when I figured out how to take out the boss, I cheered....(I'm thinking Marjolaine and her crew; she really gave me trouble). The DA:2 battles were mainly, "Oh gods, not another wave.....oh, it is another wave....." Or it was, "Oh gods, he's not getting to drink another health potion....oh he's getting to drink another health potion...." Don't tell me that was fun.....at least I didn't find it so.

It was far more interesting to watch, and I hated Origins' combat. Possibly because I don't find that sort of turn/speed based combat very interesting. I at least liked to look at 2.

[Xilizhra]

Realmzmaster wrote...

What do you mean by traditional game play? Compared to what? If I compare DA:O to the Might and Magic series or Temple of Elemental Evil (TOEE) DA:O and DA 2 fall very short in terms of that old school feel. Death of a character in old school games was very real.For example in TOEE the characters hit points were reduce to zero and the character falls unconscious. The character continues to loss hp until it receives -10 at which point character is dead. (It use to be zero in the old D & D 2.0 ruleset.) Your companion has to reach you to stabilize your condition with an injury kit or your cleric (or priest) had to cast a healing spell to keep you from dying. But the cleric was limited in the number of healing spells the cleric could have. So if none of that was possible, you had a dead character which had to go to the temple for resurrection.
DA:O and DA 2 remove that possibility.

Vastly for the better, IMO.

[Captain_Obvious]

Melca36 wrote...

Siradix wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

And what makes it so hard to get past Ostagar?

I think it all goes down to laziness and people wanting things handed to them. 

I was difficult to get past Ostagar because, in comparison with DA2, Origins is clunky, the warden is mute, and the combat is pretty boring. If you think it's lazy to not play a three-year-old game, because in retrospect now it looks pretty boring, then I'll glady be lazy.  Yes, I play on a console, and no, I don't play Call or Medal of whatever it is. 

[Carmen_Willow]

[It was far more interesting to watch, and I hated Origins' combat. Possibly because I don't find that sort of turn/speed based combat very interesting. I at least liked to look at 2.[/quote]


But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....I will grant that DA:2 is more interesting to watch....but some of the combat was also cartoonish....to the point that it broke immersion for me.  I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone's sword without dying.....that was ridiculous. 

I can think of three battles that really called for stragtegy for me  in Origins (although I am certain the more experienced probably found it easy).  Marjolaine, The fight with the Forgemaster in the Deep Roads, the Weird machine that produced the spirit warriors in the Deep Roads.  And I'm talking about playing on console, not PC, so I don't generally pause except to cast a spell that's not in my hot key,or do a combat move that isn't in my hot keys.  I also set up tactics, but I don't pause and order other companions to spots to fight. 

By the end of some of the DA:2 fights, my elbow was hurting so bad from button mashing, it took any fun that was left in the combat out of it.  This is better with auto attack, but some of the fights are just tedious.

And the boss fights are unbalanced....really unbalanced.  

 

[Realmzmaster]

Xilizhra wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

What do you mean by traditional game play? Compared to what? If I compare DA:O to the Might and Magic series or Temple of Elemental Evil (TOEE) DA:O and DA 2 fall very short in terms of that old school feel. Death of a character in old school games was very real.For example in TOEE the characters hit points were reduce to zero and the character falls unconscious. The character continues to loss hp until it receives -10 at which point character is dead. (It use to be zero in the old D & D 2.0 ruleset.) Your companion has to reach you to stabilize your condition with an injury kit or your cleric (or priest) had to cast a healing spell to keep you from dying. But the cleric was limited in the number of healing spells the cleric could have. So if none of that was possible, you had a dead character which had to go to the temple for resurrection.
DA:O and DA 2 remove that possibility.

Vastly for the better, IMO.

I understand where you are coming from Xilizhra. Not everyone wants to play MIght and Magic or TOEE. I was simply trying to understand what is meant by traditional style gameplay. Becuase my definition could be vastly different from someone else's.
Actually there are gamers on the board who like D & D 2.0 ruleset which was the basis for BG1 and BG2. I could tell you the problems I have with that ruleset, but that is a different discussion. I have been playing CRPGs close to 35 years so my definition of traditional will differ from other gamers.

[Carmen_Willow]

Xilizhra wrote...

You forgot a few things: You had an introduction to your YOUR character that really made you care about what had happened to them, so that by the time you arrived at Ostagar you were deeply involved in the storyline.

But none of them felt too connected to the main plot thread, and they weren't brought up often enough later on.

But I felt connected.  I felt engaged.  I knew who I was and how I'd ended up in Ostagar...my Dwarf Noble had totally different reactions than my Human Noble did or my Mage....

And you had companions who had profound back stories that gave them depth, scope and character (or a lack of it).

Which is interesting, but all they're doing now is following the Warden. 2's companions have their own lives.

They are following the Warden because they all have to be with him/her to end the Blight.  What's the problem with that?

And you had Loghain and Branka and other antagonists who were complicated and worthy of opposition.

I believe 2 had them as well.

A lyrium crazed Templar, and a First Enchanter who goes over the edge at the end.  The Arishok was the only truly interesting adversary.

And you had quests that seemed polished and finished. Example of a DA: 2 quest that just didn't seem "done." When you take on the Magistrate's quest your are promised that helping will gain you "support" and if you kill the guy you get threatened.....and yet, nothing happens. There are no consequences....there were a number of quests in DA:2 that were like this. They didn't seem finished.

Some, but not all.

More than Origins.

Sorry don't know how to do the box thing.

[Viyu]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

I honestly would've rathered a clone than this. Why? Because you guys are discussing battle mechanics and failing to get to the meat of the issue. Making choices that impacted the characters you travelled with pretty much WAS the gameplay, or at least the only thing that could make a Bioware game stand out from something like Final Fantasy. Bioware managed to MAKE the story the gameplay, and when you screw up and retcon the story, you screw (to put it lightly) the enjoyability of the game to a large degree. In DA2 practically NONE of your choices matter in the grand scheme of things. Its as if all of the relevant gameplay elements were thrown out. Even if the game were a clone, at least there would be new characters to make the gameplay refreshing. I mean battle is great and all, though I hated the hoardes and potion cooldowns, but I hardly think that's where the meat is. If I wanted hack and slash gameplay I can play Phantasy Star Universe. At least I can interact with REAL people on online mode and it has far more dungeons than DA2. I actually don't like that game but battle wise? Better than this.

Modifié par Viyu, 07 mai 2011 - 12:10 .

[Xilizhra]

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....I will grant that DA:2 is more interesting to watch....but some of the combat was also cartoonish....to the point that it broke immersion for me. I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone's sword without dying.....that was ridiculous.

As many times as you can take fireballs to the face?

By the end of some of the DA:2 fights, my elbow was hurting so bad from button mashing, it took any fun that was left in the combat out of it. This is better with auto attack, but some of the fights are just tedious.

I play on PC, so I never had autoattack issues. The only fight I thought was really tedious was the high dragon, and that was mostly because she kept flying away.

[Carmen_Willow]

Xilizhra wrote...

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....I will grant that DA:2 is more interesting to watch....but some of the combat was also cartoonish....to the point that it broke immersion for me. I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone's sword without dying.....that was ridiculous.

As many times as you can take fireballs to the face?

.

LOL, I'll give you that one. 

[Zjarcal]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....
 

I had to think a LOT about how to do some battles in DA2 on Nightmare. Sometimes even respeccing my entire party to use an entirely different strategy. The only battle in Origins where I really had to think ahead was the Ser Cauthrien battle (also on Nightmare).

[Viyu]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....I will grant that DA:2 is more interesting to watch....but some of the combat was also cartoonish....to the point that it broke immersion for me. I mean, how many times can you be impaled and lifted on someone's sword without dying.....that was ridiculous.

As many times as you can take fireballs to the face?

.

LOL, I'll give you that one. 

Or be slashed into bitty peices by a sword.

[Zjarcal]

Viyu wrote...

Or be slashed into bitty peices by a sword.

Realism isn't a strength of either game. While DA2 may be a bit more over the top with certain things, Origins was by no means realistic in its depiction of combat.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 07 mai 2011 - 12:19 .

[Carmen_Willow]

Zjarcal wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....
 

I had to think a LOT about how to do some battles in DA2 on Nightmare. Sometimes even respeccing my entire party to use an entirely different strategy. The only battle in Origins where I really had to think ahead was the Ser Cauthrien battle (also on Nightmare).

Respeccing your characters for each battle is not the same thing as figuring out that you need to draw some of the darkspawn into another room instead of just charging in or figuring out who to sic on the two mages in Marjolaine's house by changing their tactics.  IMHO.

I'm not as good as you are in the gaming department, certainly not if everything was easy for you in Nightmare, but I just didn't see  how strategy played much of a part in DA:2.  Again, completely assigning new abilities to your characters and companions for each fight doesn't seem very roleplay to me.  I like to be able to win through tactics and weapoins choice because IRL, those are the things I can actually change.  Have I respec'd?  Sure, but it's just to see if someone's character build actually works...it doesn't make the game more immersing.  At that point, it's more like an exercise.

[Viyu]

Zjarcal wrote...

Viyu wrote...

Or be slashed into bitty peices by a sword.

Realism isn't a strength of either game. While DA2 may be a bit more over the top with certain things, Origins was by no means realistic in its depiction of combat.

Yeah but I think that was way too cartoony in DA2. Felt like I was playing Brutal Legend all over again. But being spun around on a sword sounds like something straight off of Tekken. Yoshimitsu....

With the Arishok I could almost imagine the Tekken 2 announcer going "ROUND 1....FIGHT!!"

Modifié par Viyu, 07 mai 2011 - 12:29 .

[Zjarcal]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

But in Origins, you had to think about how you were going to take down the enemy....
 

I had to think a LOT about how to do some battles in DA2 on Nightmare. Sometimes even respeccing my entire party to use an entirely different strategy. The only battle in Origins where I really had to think ahead was the Ser Cauthrien battle (also on Nightmare).

Respeccing your characters for each battle is not the same thing as figuring out that you need to draw some of the darkspawn into another room instead of just charging in or figuring out who to sic on the two mages in Marjolaine's house by changing their tactics.  IMHO.

Eh, I should've explained.

There were many battles in DA2 where I kept banging my head against my desk, dying again and again. I'll give two examples (although there were more), one where I respecced and one where I simply took a different approach.

The last battle with the Templars during Anders' dissent quest, where you fight nearly a dozen templars in a tight room, one of them who is a commander and two of them Templar Hunters (Assassins in other words). Those two bastards kept stealthing and due to the tight space, using cone of cold to expose them usually resulted in the death of one of my party members due to the friendly fire. After a while, I decided instead to take the coward's way out and haul ass out of the tight room back into the caves. As the enemies started chasing me and got near a choke point, I used pull of the abyss and a combustion grenade to pack them tight and stun them (including the assassins). This gave me the chance I needed to eliminate those Templar Hunters ASAP, making the rest of the fight relatively easy.

Now, another battle was the one from Hubert's quest in Act 2, where you must catch the people who have been stealing from the Bone Pit. During that battle you face FIVE assassins (three in the first wave and two in the second wave). It was brutal. No matter how I played, be it by luring them away or facing them right there, it was impossible to keep everyone alive (I was going for the "Unstoppable" achievement). I had to rethink my plan and take a look at what I had available in my arsenal. I didn't have enough crowd control spells in there, so I did a quick respec and added a few spells that were good for cross class combos. Once I restarted the fight, I still had to think of a way to eliminate the assassins ASAP, so I made use of my crowd control abilities and exploited the cross class combos for extra damage, while making sure to keep my "squishy" party members afar. It was still hard and my warrior nearly died but I was able to make it through without anyone falling.

The latter situation (respeccing characters) only occurred about three times in the game, but IMO, it's a good example of how planning ahead around how a battle will play out makes you think about what you're doing, especially since it wasn't just "respec and win", it was "respec and rethink the battle and win". Could I have gone through without respeccing? Sure, but then I would've had to say goodbye to the "Unstoppable" achievement.

The former example was the more common one and when friendly fire is involved, it's something I had to constantly do. Another example was a room in Sundermount with tons of Revenants, Desire Demons, Abominations, and Rage Demons. Taking out the main threat was always my priority and doing so quickly certainly required a lot of thinking. I didn't need to respec there but I sure had to think around my available arsenal.

And that's what I'm getting at, I DID have to think a lot in DA2. It's true that on the lower difficulties this isn't really necessary, but then again, the same could be said about Origins (at least from MY experience)

Modifié par Zjarcal, 07 mai 2011 - 12:42 .