Xena_Shepard wrote...
Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...
woundedheart wrote...
There's a reason why DAO was such an immense success. It didn't gain its fame from being a boring game with a "super bad icky monster."
So what was the secret behind Origins success? What was it that Origins or even Awakening had that DA2 was missing? Not trying to be an ass here I just want everyones honest opinion without the hyperbole.
Dragon Age Origins was a masterful RPG experience that stuck to the roots of a good ol' fashion RPG. It had interesting characters, locations, dialogue, and especially choices. I was struck by how amazingly dynamic the choices were in DAO, that any choice could be seen as good or bad depending on how you saw the situation. The story was simply awesome too. People whined about the cliche "save the world" plot, and so they got DA2. Way to go, morons.
And anybody who says the combat was "hard" or "slow" just sucks at gaming that doesn't involve repeative pressing of a singular button.
Agree!
Further, it had a compelling skill advancement system with a combination system with spells that begged development for other classes, such as a series of fighter skills firing off some final bonus attack, or interactions with alchemy and magic, or alchemy and poison.
DA2 suffered horribly from the super-hyper combat, with combat visuals that look like they belong in a Nintendo game, and a dialogue system dilluted down to icons just so people don't have to read, making the whole thing insulting. Then they took it a step further, and just railroaded you into decisions. Finally, they made it impossible to equip your party, simply to cut corners and not have to do a little extra programming, because TBH, no one would've cared if the art wasn't there. Hasn't bothered anyone for the last 30 years or so.
As an avid RPG player, I found it insulting, and found Laidlaw and Gaider's dismissing RPGers very offensive. So, to be honest, even if DA3 is a great game, I will not buy it if either of those two are making decisions. I don't give people who insult me my money.
Contrast this to ME3, I didn't care for ME2's switch in gameplay, but I'll give it a chance and likely buy it. Christina Norman doesn't insult me even when she's driving at "More shooter!" and Casey Hudson seems to "Get" RPGs. So even if it's more shooter than I like, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, give them my money, and hope they realize RPGs need more RPG in them.
Insulting your customers is never a good idea, I'll vote against them with my dollars.