510 réponses à ce sujet

[Tommy6860]

suntzuxi wrote...

tariq071 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Some people seems to have serious memory problems here.One poster talked about a depth combat system(thus comparing the combat of both games) in witcher 2 with player inniated blocking and dodging. I answered that this this isnt rpg gameplay(which is simply true),not that this make the witcher to an adventure.(what also isnt a bad thing per se,because some of the best games are adventures and adventures could be complex)

Well in Gothic 1,2 ,3 and Risen(and some others that i can't think of right now) you initiate dodge, block and shield block.Some of those games are classics in RPG genre.

As long there are numbers that determine your success/failure of that specific action and not your(or mine) twitchy finger(like in AC games) it is RP mechanic, same as initiating attack with sword/knife/toilet brush...Which is the case in Witcher 2 also.And that makes you claim your personal preference and not real fact.

I definitely wouldn't call anything about Gothic 2 NOTR nothing but hardcore RPG, and shockingly to some (not you) it has those features and predetermined PC character(as the all other mentioned games above).So i don't see how that differs from let's say mentioned game.


P.S. Seriously , some people need to play some real RPG classics(that are not dating sim driven story with boobs and monorailed) before they start getting involved in what is rpg and what not.

witcher 2's combat mechanics are totally different from Gothic series and Risen,  I feels it's more like diablo or Sacred 2 (Hack & Slash type), but with less usable powers. I will give TW2 an 10/10 for its crafting, but other than that it's not quite classic rpg mechanics, the game is more focus on looting and leveling

If what you say is an actual function in TW2, then I will probably pass on it until a serious price drop. I loved TW, but it did the same thing and I need more elemetns for my PC build than that. Aside from being stuck playing a male character, that just makes the game even less RPGish, IMO.

[HTTP 404]

A better question for thread title would be "is DA2 not that good?" because my answer to the current thread title is an emphatic: NO.

DA2 isn't that bad but it really isnt that great. Im kind of tired of the black and white responses from some folks, including some reviewers.

[Tommy6860]

Ottemis wrote...

ExaltedReign wrote...

This is all my opinion, so no need to flip **** and freak out.

I had managed two play throughs in DA:O, managed to get all the achievements on the 360. I liked the story, the characters. One thing I didn't like was the combat, it felt sluggish and boring. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't my cup of tea.

I've played the demo for DA2 about seven times. I really like it. The combat, the dialogue, the characters. I thought it was pretty fun. Maybe *gasp* even more fun than origins. Now, I know it doesn't have all the in-depth story as Origins, but thats okay with me.

Why do people seem to think its suppose to be a sequal to Origins? The stories (I think) have nothing to do with eachother. It should be counted as its own game, not a sequal to origins. Just like WoW and Warcraft 3 should be counted as their own games.

I'm planning on getting it tommorow, and people on these forums seem to think I'd be better off getting Hello Kitty: Island Adventures.

I know that my generation (I'm 15) like games that are more action packed and whatnot, but is that a bad thing? Does that make us any less of a gamer?

Should I still get it?

<snipped>

I can tell you this though, if you're a fan of RPG's for story and immersion reasoning, and you're not easily put off by details like re-used areas for instance; this'll work for you. Especially because you've already said to like the faster combat and have played the demo so many times =)

DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

[Ottemis]

HTTP 404 wrote...
DA2 isn't that bad but it really isnt that great. Im kind of tired of the black and white responses from some folks, including some reviewers.

Fully agreed

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[Ottemis]

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 01:35 .

[PaulSX]

Marionetten wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Which implies that the majority of the attacks can be dodge. That is not true. Even then most of what can be dodge are designed to be dodged. If they were not then the damage would be done up front instead of after the long wind up time these attacks have.

Actually, that is true. Just about everything from the simple blows of a Carta thug to the swipes of a majestic dragon can be manually dodged in Dragon Age II. Sure, there are some things like backstabs, projectiles and such which cannot be manually dodged but the same goes for The Witcher 2.

Saying that The Witcher 2 is an adventure game because it has manual dodging while ignoring the fact that Dragon Age II also does is fairly silly. The fact is that The Witcher 2 is an action RPG while Dragon Age II tries to be one poorly.

I actually feel witcher 2 is more an advanture but not because of mannual dodging, but because of fighting styles. the whole witcher 2's weapon styles are srictly limited, you can use other weapons of course but most time there are really not too many differences. I like witcher 1 more than witcher 2, because it's actually possible to play as a pure spell caster type with high level Igni and Aard signs plus there are three different fighting styles to explore

Modifié par suntzuxi, 23 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[Tommy6860]

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

That's cool and I am glad you got that from it and I am being sincere.. But the way you describe it, makes it hardly an RPG. RPGs are games the player directs, DA2 holds the player's hand through the game. Even the advertising for the game doesn't come close to it, nor does it perform to the advertising. It should have been named something other than DA2 or advertised as something other than a sequel.

[Ottemis]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

That's cool and I am glad you got that from it and I am being sincere.. But the way you describe it, makes it hardly an RPG. RPGs are games the player directs, DA2 holds the player's hand through the game. Even the advertising for the game doesn't come close to it, nor does it perform to the advertising. It should have been named something other than DA2 or advertised as something other than a sequel.

I got to build my character, form and voice opinions on happenings, try my best to do what I could to save a situation.
I acted on my hope of a certain resolve, if I didn't get what I wanted, I didn't mind. It doesn't take out of how I build my character; the disasters that couldn't be avoided just made Hawke feel more human to me.
It's a 'close to home' kind of feeling, getting kicked in the groin once in a while, smacked in the head by HUGE problems that sometimes simply CAN'T be fixed, dispite our best efforts.
Does that change our intention or who we try to be, how we are percieved? I for one wouldn't have wanted Hawke portrayed as a super-human that made the impossible happen. So yeah, made sense to me.

Big change from Origins, where you do end up the 'savior' in a noticable way.
I don't think DA2 is less of an RPG because of the impact you effectively have though.
In my mind, even though these are both dark-fantasy, happy endings are more something that belongs to a high-fantasy setting. With all the grey-scale in the DA-setting, I found this believable. Toss them in the maelstrum, watch them try and climb back out again with as little tear as possible.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 02:06 .

[marshalleck]

Ottemis wrote...

It's a 'close to home' kind of feeling, getting kicked in the groin once in a while, smacked in the head by HUGE problems that sometimes simply CAN'T be fixed, dispite our best efforts.

Yeah, like mom being turned into Bride of Frankenstein. 

What a piece of trash.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The idea is to balance choices with consequence with what you should actually be able to change in terms of a narrative perspective.

It's possible to have a quasi-realistic slant and not have the protagonist become all things to all people, but at the same time, Dragon Age 2 takes the path of offering a clear choice, then utterly disregarding that choice or making it pointless. Which is what people don't like. If you're offered a choice, people like to see different choices lead to different outcomes. Whether this is a positive or negative outcome is sort of irrelevant, the fact that your choices matter, does.

If you've played the Origins Landsmeet, and Neverwinter Nights 2's Ember Trial, you can definitely see the difference between offering choices then honoring them and offering choices then disregarding them.

In both cases, the greater narrative isn't really changed.

[Ottemis]

marshalleck wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

It's a 'close to home' kind of feeling, getting kicked in the groin once in a while, smacked in the head by HUGE problems that sometimes simply CAN'T be fixed, dispite our best efforts.

Yeah, like **SPOILER** 

What a piece of trash.

Dramatic yes. For some it worked though, the horror of the situation. Feeling powerless, frustrated of your inability to stop it all from coming to that conclusion. Another example which shows that Hawke is only human, not a miracleworker, and Hawke is not excluded from things that could happen to anyone, and are excruciatingly horrible. 

For others though, too extreme. Too dramatic, looses effect. 

Watch the spoilers btw.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 02:16 .

[Tommy6860]

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

That's cool and I am glad you got that from it and I am being sincere.. But the way you describe it, makes it hardly an RPG. RPGs are games the player directs, DA2 holds the player's hand through the game. Even the advertising for the game doesn't come close to it, nor does it perform to the advertising. It should have been named something other than DA2 or advertised as something other than a sequel.

I got to build my character, form and voice opinions on happenings, try my best to do what I could to save a situation.
I acted on my hope of a certain resolve, if I didn't get what I wanted, I didn't mind. It doesn't take out of how I build my character; the disasters that couldn't be avoided just made Hawke feel more human to me.
It's a 'close to home' kind of feeling, getting kicked in the groin once in a while, smacked in the head by HUGE problems that sometimes simply CAN'T be fixed, dispite our best efforts.
Does that change our intention or who we try to be, how we are percieved? I for one wouldn't have wanted Hawke portrayed as a super-human that made the impossible happen. So yeah, made sense to me.

Big change from Origins, where you do end up the 'savior' in a noticable way.
I don't think DA2 is less of an RPG because of the impact you effectively have though.
In my mind, even though these are both dark-fantasy, happy endings are more something that belongs to a high-fantasy setting. With all the grey-scale in the DA-setting, I found this believable. Toss them in the maelstrum, watch them try and climb back out again with as little tear as possible.

This is what matters, that you got that from DA2 and you are therefore satified. I, OTOH, did not experience that at all and felt a total let-down. My choices had little effect on the game and any quests or plots states were mostly predertimined and I had no effect on them, even when I had a dialogue choice that seemingly would indicate that I would have an effect, but it didn't. It fits your style of gaming, not mine, but I truly respect your opinion on the game :-).

[erynnar]

Ottemis wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...
DA2 isn't that bad but it really isnt that great. Im kind of tired of the black and white responses from some folks, including some reviewers.

Fully agreed

Seconded...or thirded. I don't love TW2 more, I love them differently. Nor do I hate DA2. And no DA2 was not a 0 game (nor was it a 10). It was splendid in it's mediocrity. There were parts I loved, parts I liked, parts were meh, some I hated. So it really is a gray game for me.

Modifié par erynnar, 23 mai 2011 - 02:21 .

[Ottemis]

Tommy6860 wrote...
This is what matters, that you got that from DA2 and you are therefore satified. I, OTOH, did not experience that at all and felt a total let-down. My choices had little effect on the game and any quests or plots states were mostly predertimined and I had no effect on them, even when I had a dialogue choice that seemingly would indicate that I would have an effect, but it didn't. It fits your style of gaming, not mine, but I truly respect your opinion on the game :-).

Same here, I'm sorry it didn't work for you.
I do get it though, I was often frustrated to see that sometimes making a choice for 'the best' just led you to the knowledge that there just wasen't any good to be had or that it would unfold the same anyways. All equally crappy for different reasons.
I do normally 'need' a certain degree of feel-good from a game, in a large sense DA2 doesn't really deliver the happy ending, so it can be a real let-down on that field aswell I reckon.

Still I'm glad for the unique experience in the end.
Anyways time for bed! Sweet dreams for later =)

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 02:22 .

[erynnar]

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
This is what matters, that you got that from DA2 and you are therefore satified. I, OTOH, did not experience that at all and felt a total let-down. My choices had little effect on the game and any quests or plots states were mostly predertimined and I had no effect on them, even when I had a dialogue choice that seemingly would indicate that I would have an effect, but it didn't. It fits your style of gaming, not mine, but I truly respect your opinion on the game :-).

Same here, I'm sorry it didn't work for you.
I do get it though, I was often frustrated to see that sometimes making a choice for 'the best' just led you to the knowledge that there just wasen't any good to be had or that it would unfold the same anyways. All equally crappy for different reasons.
I do normally 'need' a certain degree of feel-good from a game, in a large sense DA2 doesn't really deliver the happy ending, so it can be a real let-down on that field aswell I reckon.

Still I'm glad for the unique experience in the end.
Anyways time for bed! Sweet dreams for later =)

But it did work for you? I am happy to read when people loved it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

That's cool and I am glad you got that from it and I am being sincere.. But the way you describe it, makes it hardly an RPG. RPGs are games the player directs, DA2 holds the player's hand through the game. Even the advertising for the game doesn't come close to it, nor does it perform to the advertising. It should have been named something other than DA2 or advertised as something other than a sequel.

I got to build my character, form and voice opinions on happenings, try my best to do what I could to save a situation.
I acted on my hope of a certain resolve, if I didn't get what I wanted, I didn't mind. It doesn't take out of how I build my character; the disasters that couldn't be avoided just made Hawke feel more human to me.
It's a 'close to home' kind of feeling, getting kicked in the groin once in a while, smacked in the head by HUGE problems that sometimes simply CAN'T be fixed, dispite our best efforts.
Does that change our intention or who we try to be, how we are percieved? I for one wouldn't have wanted Hawke portrayed as a super-human that made the impossible happen. So yeah, made sense to me.

Big change from Origins, where you do end up the 'savior' in a noticable way.
I don't think DA2 is less of an RPG because of the impact you effectively have though.
In my mind, even though these are both dark-fantasy, happy endings are more something that belongs to a high-fantasy setting. With all the grey-scale in the DA-setting, I found this believable. Toss them in the maelstrum, watch them try and climb back out again with as little tear as possible.

This is what matters, that you got that from DA2 and you are therefore satified. I, OTOH, did not experience that at all and felt a total let-down. My choices had little effect on the game and any quests or plots states were mostly predertimined and I had no effect on them, even when I had a dialogue choice that seemingly would indicate that I would have an effect, but it didn't. It fits your style of gaming, not mine, but I truly respect your opinion on the game :-).

I feel much like Tommy here. To me the issue is that we were promised that Hawke's decisions would impact the story plot (you can hear Mr Laidlaw saying that in the official first DA2 podcast and he made a big deal of it). Yet in DA2 it is not you who impacts the story plot, it is the story that forces Hawke to go a predetermined route. At best Hawke can respond with cosmetic dialogue.

[Ottemis]

erynnar wrote...
But it did work for you? I am happy to read when people loved it.

Yep, I found it (by lack of better wording) realistic. I won't say I pref it over Origins, I just like them both for different reasons.
If I'd like to see the same repeated next time around is another matter though =)
Gone now! Enjoy still.

Modifié par Ottemis, 23 mai 2011 - 02:28 .

[erynnar]

Ottemis wrote...

erynnar wrote...
But it did work for you? I am happy to read when people loved it.

Yep. I won't say I pref it over Origins, I just like them both for different reasons.
If I'd like to see the same repeated next time around is another matter though =)
Gone now! Enjoy still.

ROFL! I wouldn't mind if you did. I like cheerful debates. But I don't think people are awful for liking DA2 nor liking it bettter than DAO. Glad you liked it. Glad you got what I didn't out of it. I get to live vicariously through you. Yeah, same thing for me and Witcher 2 vs DA2, I like them for different reasons.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

And there in lays the problem imho with most of the people on here who defend DA2, "didn't mind" isn't good enough tbh, if they had produced something that changed that didn't mind into liked or loved then you should praise them for it and not before. Not the idiology of you can live with that sacrifice or quality or it's not the end of the world or even meh, it could of been worse scenarios. DA2 was not the best they could produce, it was merely a quick buck, I expect better from Bioware because I know they are capable of it and as such my expectations are not any higher then they have shown to be compentant at delivering. Bioware should always be looking to exceed expectations and not throw something out there just because they can or want a quick cash cow.

I'm glad you liked it (overall) but I hate when people praise something which falls short in so many ways. Especially when they say could of been better if given more time, because thats irrelevant as not only do we not know if more time would have improved it and thats just a guess but that they are praising something they feel shouldn't of even been released yet in the first place as they say needed more time to begin with.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 02:39 .

[marshalleck]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
DA2 is hardly immersive, as reused areas takes away much immersion and add tedious familiarity, IMO. The story is a framed narrative and the PC has no effect on the outcome of the story, and minimal effect with companion and quest plots, making the game more an adventure than RPG. The OP did say he likes action so this game will appeal to the OP on that big time.

I didn't much mind that in the end, Hawke was much more taken on a journey rather then directing the mayority of it's outcome. I found it believable nonetheless, even moreso because of it.
My experience is simply that, my experience.
I was immersed, you weren't.

And there in lays the problem imho with most of the people on here who defend DA2, "didn't mind" isn't good enough tbh, if they had produced something that changed that didn't mind into liked or loved then you should praise them for it and not before. Not the idiology of you can live with that sacrifice or quality or it's not the end of the world or even meh, it could of been worse scenarios. DA2 was not the best they could produce, it was merely a quick buck, I expect better from Bioware because I know they are capable of it and as such my expectations are not any higher then they have shown to be compentant at delivering. Bioware should always be looking to exceed expectations and not throw something out there just because they can or want a quick cash cow.

I'm glad you liked it (overall) but I hate when people praise something which falls short in so many ways.

It's Bioware fanboy stockholm syndrome at work.

"well I didn't mind..."
"it would be too much work..."
"there are too many variables..."
etc. etc.

Modifié par marshalleck, 23 mai 2011 - 02:38 .

[Dragoonlordz]

marshalleck wrote...

"well I didn't mind..."
"it would be too much work..."
"there are too many variables..."
etc. etc.

I agree with this part about how often such things are used on here from those who like the game... It's really beyond depressing and leaves little to the imagination as to why Bioware felt they could get away with rushing out DA2 when such people are here sucking up everything Bioware say or do. Bioware was and may still be a truly great RPG developer (excluding what they just rushed out the door for quick cash turnaround or silly signing of a contract if was one making them push out something unfinished which is what people/fans complained about regarding EA merge in first place).

But as long as those people suck up everything thrown their way and don't ask for something that exceeds their expectations then Bioware will continue to throw them scraps and they will say nothing about it. I want Bioware to continue striving to always produce the best they can produce and take as much time as needed to do so, I want them to meet expectations and go beyond them. Become the company they once was prior to DA2 fiasco, actually not even what they was but instead even better.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 02:52 .

[OddityAngel]

Recognizing a game's faults and qualifying your responses is not 'sucking up everything Bioware does.' Recognizing a game's faults (and measuring those to standards that vary by person) is being realistic, qualifying statements suggest a recognition of the subjectivity of certain statements and your own fallibility. 'I enjoyed Dragon Age II, but this, this and this could have been better' is not the equivalent of saying 'Bioware could have shipped an empty box and I would have been okay with that because...Bioware.' If someone had a pleasant gaming experience and was ultimately satisfied with the product it's up to them to decide if that's enough. Nothing is to be gained by telling them that they should be as dissatisfied as other consumers may be.

[Dragoonlordz]

OddityAngel wrote...

Recognizing a game's faults and qualifying your responses is not 'sucking up everything Bioware does.' Recognizing a game's faults (and measuring those to standards that vary by person) is being realistic, qualifying statements suggest a recognition of the subjectivity of certain statements and your own fallibility. 'I enjoyed Dragon Age II, but this, this and this could have been better' is not the equivalent of saying 'Bioware could have shipped an empty box and I would have been okay with that because...Bioware.' If someone had a pleasant gaming experience and was ultimately satisfied with the product it's up to them to decide if that's enough. Nothing is to be gained by telling them that they should be as dissatisfied as other consumers may be.

Yes I used generalisations, maybe I shouldn't have but there's a difference, people on here say they thought something was ok, not great, not loved or liked but either ok or worse, but not game breaking for them then they go on to defend those aspects or praise it because overall they might have found just about enough enjoyment in the game. More often than not they go searching for worse examples to justify how it could of been worse examples being people who complain about DAO in order to promote DA2 or compare it with Witchers 'flaws' in order to make the flaws in DA2 less important. This is a bad way to approach improving games and promoting such features in defense of an overall product is not acceptable to me. There is no "could of been better", it is what was made and nothing more or less if they praise it because it 'might' have been special if had more time rather than in the reality or what was bought by them being special then imho they shouldn't be praising it unless what was released and what they played was special rather than what might have been.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 03:41 .

[OddityAngel]

Eh, I like a little wiggle room. Black and white statements ('This was irredeemably bad!' 'This was unquestionably awesome!') set my teeth on edge. For example, I liked having a voiced protagonist over Origins' silent Warden, but yes, I thought it could have been done better. That doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap the entire concept. Just...tweak it.

I don't think comparing the game to others in order to measure its strengths or weaknesses is bad (it's quite natural to compare DA II it to Origins), but I agree that statements like 'DA II did ________ badly, but at least it wasn't as bad as ________'s!' aren't constructive. If the best you can say about a game is that it wasn't as bad as something else, well...that's damning with faint praise, isn't it?

Ideally I'd like to see a natural progression from one game to the next. I don't consider DA II an evolutionary dead end (though obviously ymmv, and that's cool), it's just something that needs polish.

[Dragoonlordz]

OddityAngel wrote...
That doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap the entire concept. Just...tweak it.

That is what they should of done with DAO follow up aka DA2. Instead they did exactly what you said they shouldn't do but in reality did.