157 réponses à ce sujet

[lionalio87]

In my opinion, the gameplay in DA2 is still good, even some point could be better than the DA:O, the combat is more real and respect the real combat in life. In DA:O, it is something unreal.
- For example, when someone hit you, no matter what melee or ranged attack, even if you are not in the same position, they still hit you. WTH?, and my elite human enemy didn't drink a drip of potion to heal themselves, which is a little boring. In DA2, they'd like to heal themselves when low-health, which is annoying, but really fun!!!
- But I don't really like the idea exploding the enemies when they are eliminated in DA2, this is not true! After all, the combat is still reliable to me, I can enjoy it much.

The spells and talents in DA2, even there are still good in some point, but one problem, it is so simple. So even though it can ruin the gameplay somehow, I didn't feel the depth in the gameplay when enter the combat and use the skills or talents. This is really a big deficiency and should not be placed in the next sequel if they are planning to do so.

Maybe the most enjoyable combat for me in DA2 is the boss fight! They are the REAL challenges and the most difficult bosses that i've ever encountered. Combat with bosses makes me feel chilling but very addicted. If there exist some boss like those in DA:O, imagine how fascinating it is!!! This is the advantage in DA2 in comparison with its precedessor.

Over all, DA2 is still worth to play, but it SHOULD improve some more things in combat system, gameplay, etc... not to be overuse the previous combat system of DA:O, but it should be improve more in their own way. Honestly I don't want the traditional gameplay like DA:O, I want to experience the new challenge and the new gameplay which can satisfy me more than now!

[Brockololly]

bstrothe wrote...
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.

Its best not to look at or read any of the old interviews when Origins was still being billed as the spiritual successor to BG. Doing so will induce profound disappointment and multiple facepalms and/or headdesks.




*sigh* 
Such a contrast to Zeschuk saying how combat is "almost like a chess match"  in that video to Darrah this past year saying how "you don't want combat to feel like you're playing a chess game with a friend."

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

You gotta admit Brock, at least DA2 allows you to facepalm at it with it's own assets, that's epic. 

[Carmen_Willow]

Zjarcal wrote...

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....

......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)

Thank you.  What you are saying makes sense, and it takes away the inaccurate vision I had of multiple respecc's before each battle.

[Sidney]

There's nothing untraditional about DA2.

Do you build your characters' stats and skills? Check.
Do you make moral/ethical choices via dialog? Check.
Do you point n' click for combat? Check.
Auto-attack? Check.
Do you control your party members during combat? Check
Do you loot and equip items? Check

There's no shooter elements like ME2 or FO3, there's none of the action game timing and aiming of Oblivion - anyone who says "action game" about DA2 is immediately and obviously wrong, there is nothing "action" about this game. Anything you argue about those core elements comes down to parsing things in such a way that makes it meaningless. This is old school RPG and what is wrong with DA2 isn't the RPG elements it is a bunch of other gameplay mechanics - re-used environs, bad urban design, lame waves- that have nothing to do with RPG or not.

[MyKingdomCold]

I recently replayed Origins so I can do different things to import into DA2. I was able to complete it n 23 hours and finished all the sidequests. At least, all of the different board quests (Chanters, Mage Collective,...) and the crime wave quests.

Then I tried to play again as a human mage so I could have an Amell grey warden. I really couldn't get very far. I know I've probably finished Origins 5 or 6 times already, so that may be why I couldn't finish it again. Or even get past Lothering.

While Origins had the different origins you could choose to play as, it all became the same after Lothering. You would get different dialogue options from Flemeth asking about your elven mind or being treated as a servant in Ostagar as an elf. Or if you were a dwarf, Anora would crack a joke if you asked if she's short for a guard. Other than that, the different races and origins seemed to be pretty cosmetic to me. No real difference between an elf rogue and human rogue for example.

[Maria Caliban]

Siradix wrote...

And what makes it so hard to get past Ostagar?

Mind-numbing boredom.

[jlb524]

simfamSP wrote...

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.

If your views on DA:O's content go as far as the combat system, then your as shallow as your post.

This thread is just about combat.

[Mr.House]

simfamSP wrote...
If your views on DA:O's content go as far as the combat system, then your as shallow as your post.

The thread is about combat, not about the other content. Go troll elsewhere.

Modifié par Mr.House, 07 mai 2011 - 01:35 .

[Knight of Dane]

I didn't feel connected to the story or any of the characters like i did in Dragon Age: Origins.
But what i found important in origins was that your character had a background you experienced.
I never felt like the city elven warden or the human mage warden, I felt like "The grey warden who once were ________"
With Hawke you are put into the role with a set background and runaway family with a dead father and a destroyed home. I felt that i played Hawke and not my Hawke despite the little difference personality could have.
I do agree that Hawke felt more alive though, that the personality and voice accomplished for me.

About the companions i guess it's as much about personal preference. I felt more connected to them in Dragon Age: Origins, perhaps because it felt more like they all had a common goal that was the same as the warden's, ending the blight.
In Dragon Age 2 they lead their own lifes, which are still good, but they just happen to help out when they can.
I did like that they had their own base of sorts, but i would have liked more content on each character and more conversation other than what was triggered by bringing them along on certain quests.

What goes for the combat system i am all in for the new one, i do think that battles are easier and doesn't require as much thinking, which i do dislike.

I'm sad about the meaningless quests such as "Hey i found your junk, reward me."
Whenever something close to that happened in origins there were always a little story or funny comment to it.

/thoughts, now off to bed!

[TEWR]

Zjarcal wrote...


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)

Wow.... that does sound like something that would require tactical thinking. I kept telling people combat wasn't "dumbed down" way before DA2 came out, and I haven't tackled Nightmare yet. Now I've actually seen a post that shows that the people who say DA2 is dumbed down are wrong.

As for the bolded, that was my problem with Origins. I found it way too easy on the lower difficulties as well. Easy and Normal posed no threat, and even Hard wasn't that big of a deal. I never did Nightmare though because I usually play for the story and not the challenge. The only time I did Nightmare was with the Harvester, and he killed me when he only had like 3% of his health left.

I guess this kinda proves Mike Laidlaw's "Play it on hard" comment, though he should've at least phrased that better so it didn't come off as it did.

Knight of Dane wrote...

I'm sad about the meaningless quests such as "Hey i found your junk, reward me."

If you play an aggressive Hawke and do the fetch quests, sometimes he'll say "Your lost garbage, serah." Even Hawke hates those quests.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 mai 2011 - 01:43 .

[jonesd]

I don't get how people can like Origins COMBAT better then DA2. Matter of opinion I suppose.

Anyways, imo DA2 combat is light years better then Origins. I can't tell you how much I hated playing melee or how much it pissed me off when my character is standing there beating an enemy down. Then my character decides he/she isn't close enough to hit said enemy and then runs BACKWARDS, moves to the side a bit, runs back at the same distance, and then continues attacking. That happened all the damn time.

Not to mention playing a 2H warrior. How can you hit anyone when it takes a year to swing your weapon? I would say Origins was more challenging as well, but it was damn boring.

The story is what saved Origins imo.

Modifié par jonesd, 07 mai 2011 - 02:06 .

[lrrose]

What amuses me is that people rag on DA2's "I found this" quests and ignore DAO's "get 16 Corpse Gall" quests which were even worse.

[bstrothe]

My initial post was not simply about combat, nor was the video I linked purely about combat, but since that is the direction the thread has taken, I will elaborate on the ways I prefer DA:O combat to DA2.

First is the ability to go to a full tactical overhead view. Second is the way a rogue can stealth, scout ahead, disarm traps, and then take out the most dangerous foe at the start of a fight, with no worries about waves of enemies spawning in after the first group is defeated. Third, I have much more freedom on how to level myself and companions, so if I wanted to I could make all three mages (Warden, Wynne & Morrigan) arcane warriors I could, and then equip all of them in massive armour, where in DA2 I have very little control over my companions armour and there are specializations restricted to only one companion. Fourth there is the fact that in DA:O both rogues and warriors had the option of dual-wield or archery, where in DA2 they are rogue-only for no apparent reason. Last bit of DA:O combat I liked better is that you had options when it came to party members for each role, so I had at least two mages, two rogues, three warriors (plus the Mabari and Shale) to select from, which gives you a huge variety of character build options, whereas DA2, Aveline is your only companion tank, Anders is your only companion healer so if you don't care for that character, *coughAndersTerroristcough* too bad, cause you need a healer right?

I like the new voice acting just fine, and I don't even mind a little faster pace combat as an OPTION, but I do miss the freedom and epic scope of DA:O, comparing it to DA2, I feel like my character is far more predefined, and the outcome is far more predetermined in the sequel.

[Foolsfolly]

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

I have many Origins characters and quite a few got stuck in Ostagar. It's one of the three deadzones in the game for me. Ostagar, the Fade, and the Deep Roads are BORING. Every replay is an effort in those areas. Outside of those three areas I love the game. But man, it's sometimes too hard to keep playing when you're neck deep in the Deep Roads or Fade or Ostagar.

As for the gameplay. I prefer the DA2 gameplay, just that it gets more depth. The game has no depth in combat. The speed and all isn't a bad thing, it's that there's no tactics needed to win a fight. You just spam AoE or button mash to victory.

[Melca36]

Foolsfolly wrote...

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

I have many Origins characters and quite a few got stuck in Ostagar. It's one of the three deadzones in the game for me. Ostagar, the Fade, and the Deep Roads are BORING. Every replay is an effort in those areas. Outside of those three areas I love the game. But man, it's sometimes too hard to keep playing when you're neck deep in the Deep Roads or Fade or Ostagar.

As for the gameplay. I prefer the DA2 gameplay, just that it gets more depth. The game has no depth in combat. The speed and all isn't a bad thing, it's that there's no tactics needed to win a fight. You just spam AoE or button mash to victory.

Funny I thought the Deep Roads was a cheap joke in DA: 2

There was nothing scary or forboding about with those cartoony darkspawn.

At least with the original. you could split it in two parts and it gave you a sense of forboding.

They need to make a compromise in the next game and not cater to one demographic of fans.

As for the FADE, I am good aty memorizing things and the Fade never took more than 30 minutes for me.

[Melca36]

jonesd wrote...

I don't get how people can like Origins COMBAT better then DA2. Matter of opinion I suppose.

Anyways, imo DA2 combat is light years better then Origins. I can't tell you how much I hated playing melee or how much it pissed me off when my character is standing there beating an enemy down. Then my character decides he/she isn't close enough to hit said enemy and then runs BACKWARDS, moves to the side a bit, runs back at the same distance, and then continues attacking. That happened all the damn time.

Not to mention playing a 2H warrior. How can you hit anyone when it takes a year to swing your weapon? I would say Origins was more challenging as well, but it was damn boring.

The story is what saved Origins imo.

Exploding bodies and waves of enemies coming out of nowhere is an improvment?

All they had to do was speed it up. They got rid of some of the fun aspects of combat. I wanted it sped up but I did NOT want the aspects I enjoyed to be taken away.  

[frustratemyself]

bstrothe wrote...

My initial post was not simply about combat, nor was the video I linked purely about combat, but since that is the direction the thread has taken, I will elaborate on the ways I prefer DA:O combat to DA2.

First is the ability to go to a full tactical overhead view.

Yes this is missed by many particularly I think during boss fights.

bstrothe wrote...

Second is the way a rogue can stealth, scout ahead, disarm traps, and then take out the most dangerous foe at the start of a fight, with no worries about waves of enemies spawning in after the first group is defeated.

Again missed by many.

bstrothe wrote...

Third, I have much more freedom on how to level myself and companions, so if I wanted to I could make all three mages (Warden, Wynne & Morrigan) arcane warriors I could, and then equip all of them in massive armour, where in DA2 I have very little control over my companions armour and there are specializations restricted to only one companion.

The set companions specialisations again go towards a balanced party. They all have their own unique thing they bring the the party. This is probably because they are not following Hawke as their fearless leader who will save the land. As other people said DA2 companions are Hawkes mates who will help out/run amok when they're not busy.

bstrothe wrote...

Fourth there is the fact that in DA:O both rogues and warriors had the option of dual-wield or archery, where in DA2 they are rogue-only for no apparent reason.

The DW and archer options were probably pared down to rogue only because they work better on rogues than warriors. They are high dexterity and cunning builds that and are aided by a rogues class skills whereas warriors focus more on strength and constitution to add to their damage output.

bstrothe wrote...

Last bit of DA:O combat I liked better is that you had options when it came to party members for each role, so I had at least two mages, two rogues, three warriors (plus the Mabari and Shale) to select from, which gives you a huge variety of character build options, whereas DA2, Aveline is your only companion tank, Anders is your only companion healer so if you don't care for that character, *coughAndersTerroristcough* too bad, cause you need a healer right?

I think the companions in DA2 are quite balanced. You get 2 mages (1 nuker, 1 healer), 2 warriors (1 tank, 1 dps) and 2 rogues (1 ranged, 1 dps). You then also get another nuker mage or dps warrior for act 1 with Carver/Bethany, another ranged rogue from act 2 with Sebastian DLC and a free 5th party member if you include the dog.
This allows you to be as flexible in your party build as in Origins no matter what class you play and is the same as the companion specs in Origins.

As for people whinging about Anders whinging, Wynne was a fault-finding bat but I'm sure plenty most of us dragged her along too cause she was she was specced as a healer.

bstrothe wrote...
I like the new voice acting just fine, and I don't even mind a little faster pace combat as an OPTION, but I do miss the freedom and epic scope of DA:O, comparing it to DA2, I feel like my character is far more predefined, and the outcome is far more predetermined in the sequel.

Yes the character you play in DA2 feels predefined, probably because it is. You aren't creating your character from scratch with just a basic origin story template. You're playing as Marian/Malcom/whatitsface Hawke. The story is already set from the start with what happens in general. You are filling in the details for Varric's telling to Cassandra.

Modifié par frustratemyself, 07 mai 2011 - 03:26 .

[Merced652]

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.

As opposed to what? Scythe + whirlwind > ANOTHER WAVE IS COMING.

[Foolsfolly]

Melca36 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

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

I have many Origins characters and quite a few got stuck in Ostagar. It's one of the three deadzones in the game for me. Ostagar, the Fade, and the Deep Roads are BORING. Every replay is an effort in those areas. Outside of those three areas I love the game. But man, it's sometimes too hard to keep playing when you're neck deep in the Deep Roads or Fade or Ostagar.

As for the gameplay. I prefer the DA2 gameplay, just that it gets more depth. The game has no depth in combat. The speed and all isn't a bad thing, it's that there's no tactics needed to win a fight. You just spam AoE or button mash to victory.

Funny I thought the Deep Roads was a cheap joke in DA: 2

There was nothing scary or forboding about with those cartoony darkspawn.

At least with the original. you could split it in two parts and it gave you a sense of forboding.

They need to make a compromise in the next game and not cater to one demographic of fans.

As for the FADE, I am good aty memorizing things and the Fade never took more than 30 minutes for me.

All I said was that they were my deadzones in the game. The areas where my interest wanes and if I drop a character its in one of those areas (Ostagar more than any where else).

Also, the darkspawn were never forboding or scary. The only time they were interesting were, ironically, in the Deep Roads where we meet a Brood Mother for the first time. That was disgusting, brilliant, wonderfully set-up, and it made me finally hate the darkspawn.

I really didn't care about them until I met that thing. Then I knew, perfectly knew, I had to wipe these monsters out.

That said, the latest look for the darkspawn is hideous. The original look was better but not by much, they just looked like orcs.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Any game that is being made for a niche audience has to have the 'traditional' elements those fans were attracted to in the first place to keep their dedicated attention.

But making money isn't about the niche audience; it's about getting as large an audience as you possibly can. That means attracting people from other audiences by luring them with things *they* like. This waters down the 'traditional' aspects the core fans loved and risks alienating them. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't.

Traditional gameplay should not mean unchanging. But you have to be careful of what you add, and *especially* what you remove.

[GenericPlayer2]

While I like DA2 and consider it to be head and shoulders above any non-BioWare game on the market, it fails when compared to Origins. I guess part of the problem is that the sequel is rarely better than the original (though I liked ME2 better than ME).

I don't want to mention stuff other people brought up, but there are a few things that make this game feel like a hack'n'slash instead of an RPG:

1. The tactical view is gone, and perhaps it is no longer needed because enemy spawn waves appear out of no where, making positioning impossible.

2. All classes and nearly all abilities have AoE damage. In DAO I did not need to pause every two seconds because I could script Morrigan's tactics to use things like Sleep and Waking Nightmare. Those spells in DA2 now do friendly fire, just as Fenris does waving his big sword around. With the tactical view gone I find playing nightmare solo easier than with the team.

3. Unique armor: The unique armor in this game is acquired through a very lackluster means. Why does the Deep roads dragon have the warplate of the fallen? How did the champion's boots end up with Huon? Compare this to following the burial sites of Tevinter generals to get the full Juggernaut set. Or finding the parts of the Topsiders blade in the deep roads. Or even by getting dragon scales to a master smith to craft you something. Why didn't that champion title come with its armor or a commission from a smith to craft it with materials I brought him? Instead I just find it on the corpses of random people and creatures with no connection whatsoever.

4. The amount of choices and their effects are greatly reduced. I could undermine the Templars at every opportunity and I still get called a Templar stooge in Act III. Compare this to the Brecilian forest. I could side with the wolves, I could side with the Elves and end the curse, I can side with the Elves and not end the curse, I could side with the elves and not end the curse AND kill Zathrian. 4 possibilities each leading to a slightly different outcome.

5. Puzzle solving is all but completely gone. I know the Fade was hugely unpopular but I loved it. Same could be said for the Andraste bridge. But still, to go from that to two puzzles that look like the remedial version of the Hanoi Towers? I could not have been the only one who liked reading about the elven ritual and then acting it out to unlock the door to the burial chamber.

6. Creature Lore: Origins did a great job of explaining exactly what abominations and other creatures were, and it carefully placed them to match up with the nature of the quest and its location. In DA2 we see Abominations rise from the ground as though they are undead. No care was taken in details like that.

It feels like an Arcade game compared to Origins....

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 07 mai 2011 - 03:57 .

[IanPolaris]

Here is the problem as I see it. DAO did extremely well, but I think Bioware completely misread their market. DAO did very well because it gained almost cult-like following with the old-style (traditional) ©RPG crowd (i.e. BG, Neverwinter Nights, etc crowd) and they flocked to it because DAO offered something that was rare in other releases.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable for BW (or EA) to want to expand their audience but when a game has a cult-like following you DARE NOT alienate the people that got you the success in the first place, and IMHO that's exactly what DA2 has done.

-Polaris