143 réponses à ce sujet

[daemon1129]

Seival wrote...

By dynamic I think he meant that the mobs don't just come from the horizon or from thin air, they also drop down from the sky LOL

You want details? Ok, I’ll give you details…



Reinforcement-based dynamic combat:

Dynamic combat is combat that requires a lot of movement and abilities’ usage. Damage is not the main part of such combat. Main parts of such combat are: positioning, crowd control, anti crowd control, and tactics. DA2 combat is dynamic, but only if you play on “hard” or “nightmare” difficulty levels. The lower difficulty level is – the more static the combat becomes. There are some easy encounters even on “nightmare”, but it’s ok. Not all game encounters should be equally hard.

Reinforcement-based means that enemies use reinforcements. You can’t see all enemies at the beginning of the battle and have to use your abilities carefully. If you rush, you can be placed in situation where all your characters are out of mana/stamina, all potions are on the cool-down, and you still have a lot of enemies to fight (which means death in most cases on “nightmare” difficulty level). Knowing the mechanics of reinforcements in DA2 will not give you one I-W-I-N button. You will be much more prepared to fight, BUT you still have to move and use abilities or your party will die.



Friend-rival social system:

Similar mechanics was used in other games, yes. But modification of old mechanics is also innovation. In DA2 character may be your friend or may be a rival. Neither rival nor friend will punish player for “incorrect relationship”. Rival has his own advantages, and friend has his own advantages. Each your team mate has personal feelings about your main character. And you can use friendship or hate of your team mates to have some advantage in the combat. Friend will fight better because he likes you, and rival will fight better because he just vents his rage on the battlefield.
 
 
Dialogue system (modified ME dialogue wheel):

As I already told: modification of old mechanics is also innovation. DA2 uses modified ME dialogue wheel. The wheel itself is great for dialogues. It doesn’t require a lot of space on the screen, and provides up to 10 phrases to use at the same dialogue part (“investigate” and “return” are not phrases). In DA2 wheel has noticeable usability improvement compared to ME and ME2. Icons on each phrase show you what exactly you are going to do: make an important decision, ask about something, make a joke, and so on.



Character development system with optimized atributes and upgradeable abilities:

By optimized attributes I mean attributes system where each attribute is truly useable for each class. Most existing RPGs (the ones that have classes of course) still have attribute systems where each class needs just 1 or 2 attributes out of 6 (or something similar). Other attributes’ development is just a waste of effectiveness for a character. DA2 attribute system allows you to make effective characters with all 6 attributes developed and useable for him. And at the same time you still can make effective enough characters with only 1 or 2 developed attributes if you want to.

Upgradeable abilities were in some other games, but not in the same way as in DA2. DA2 has abilities’ trees, where most abilities can be upgraded differently. At the same time, there is no “spell book” + “talent tree” (that improves “spells” from the “spell book”). The best examples of such ability system are in DA2 and Rift. Maybe in some other new games also, but still – such ability system IS innovative.

I am not trying to argue what you said, I agree with it, but I want to reinforce a few things.

I am not saying this to belittle Bioware's effort in innovating their own games, this is something any developers should do.  But I don't find them impressive at all.  If we go specifically to the genre DA2 belongs, these are new to it, but then, that doesn't mean its better.  Does the reinforcement system bring better combat to RPG?  I would say no.  It is not the first in RPGs, and it is not done well in DA2.  It might makes a bigger difference in Hard and anything higher, but I think normal mode must comes first when designing.  It is afterall, what the devs made the way game to be played.  Hard are for people looking for a challenge. 

The Friendship/Rivarly system is exlusive to Bioware games because of its made for the way Bioware handle companions.  Which is unique compare to other RPGs.  At least to my knowledge.  I think it is a right direction, and I am excitied to see something similar and improved in DA3 and beyond.

The Dialogue wheel is hardly better than ME2's.  The icon are there to indicate what kind of respond it would be, but then whats the point of the words?  Hawke would not say anything like the words, but the icons are at least accurate.  Alpha Protocol's Wheel is the best I've seen.  It is better design.

I don't want to go to much into the skill tree, character attributes and classes.  I think they are a step back more than anything.  If theres one I thing I hate the most in DA2, it would this. 

The "innovations" in DA2 are hardly anything new to the industry.  Are
we talking innovations that improves upon what past games had have? Or
by dictionary definition.  Because these are hardly improving anything
what gaming industry have seen.  But they are new to Bioware games, and to certain extent RPGs.  The
rivalry/friendship is the only one I couldn't think of something
similar that is not Bioware made.  This wouldn't be a problem for me if Bioware had put more effort and faith into the franchise, but sadly TOR and ME are their main focus, and its a shame.

[Yrkoon]

I'll respond to the rest of your long and well thought out post later, when I have more time Seival.  But for now I'm just going to focus on this part, since it's so demonstrably untrue:

Seival wrote...


Upgradeable abilities were in some other games, but not in the same way as in DA2. DA2 has abilities’ trees, where most abilities can be upgraded differently. At the same time, there is no “spell book” + “talent tree” (that improves “spells” from the “spell book”). The best examples of such ability system are in DA2 and Rift. Maybe in some other new games also, but still – such ability system IS innovative.

Upgradeable abilities and spells  are NOT  even remotely new or innovative  in the slightest, and other games, other BIOWARE games which came out a DECADE ago, have done them in a much more dramatic and dynamic fasion.


Neverwinter Nights for example  (or any cRPG that uses the D&D 3rd edition system)  have this feature.

Here's an example.  Fireball.  a 3rd level mage spell.  You  can choose to take its vanilla version.  Then later you can choose  various, and differing, feats to make that fireball  *better*.    You can take the widen spell feat to make the fireball's area of effect larger.  Or you can  take the empowered spell feat to make that fireball do more damage.   Or you can take the  silent spell  feat to make it so that you can still cast that fireball when you've been magically silenced.  And you can take the maximize spell feat to make  that fireball do maximum damage.

Oh and all those feats stack.  Thus a high level mage can toss a  widened,  empowered,  maximized Fireball for some true carnage when the need arises.

And of course this doesn't take other feats into consideration.   A mage can add Stuff like improved spell penetration and greater spell focus: Evocation to his arsenal,  both stackable, and both can be used together to make that Widened, empowered, Maximized Fireball harder to resist.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 juin 2011 - 01:45 .

[stragonar]

Is the main issue with reinforcement-based dynamic combat the way it was done? Or that it was done at all? Consider if DA2 was set in a modern timeline like the ME series and the enemies had technology to warp in as reinforcements, instead of dropping out of thin air. Would it still be a ******-off? I will say this: If the reinforcement spawns were actually random where they showed up in battle I could see the paratrooping as a somewhat justifiable evil. Still would have been annoying but then, maybe it could be considered a bit more innovative.

[orpheus333]

I've re-invented the wheel. Its really innovative. Its square.

[MingWolf]

stragonar wrote...

Is the main issue with reinforcement-based dynamic combat the way it was done? Or that it was done at all? Consider if DA2 was set in a modern timeline like the ME series and the enemies had technology to warp in as reinforcements, instead of dropping out of thin air. Would it still be a ******-off? I will say this: If the reinforcement spawns were actually random where they showed up in battle I could see the paratrooping as a somewhat justifiable evil. Still would have been annoying but then, maybe it could be considered a bit more innovative.

I think in a story-driven RPG game, or any game with a story for that matter, that having a sense of believability is important.  It doesn't have to be completely believable.  I mean, in the case with DA2, we're talking about fantasy.  But still, a part of it should be believable or it can quickly be an immersion breaking experience..  Theres nothing wrong with reinforcements, but it has to make at least some sense.  Having enemies warp in reinforcements instead of dropping in a future sci-fi would be more justifiable, but only to a certain extent.  Warp in too much, and you begin to question the logic of it.  Are the reinforcements really there to get you?  Could your foes actually could have called in these reinforcements?  Is the enemy really that bent on cutting short your existence that they would sacrifice waves upon waves of their own resources even if they constantly get their butts' kicked?  Or did the developers just got lazy and thought that by prolonging the battle via reinforcements would actually be entertaining?

[Havokk7]

Yrkoon wrote...
But for now I'm just going to focus on this part, since it's so demonstrably untrue:

So are you going to actually deomstrate that it is untrue or leave us in suspense?

Seival said that the innovation was in having one place to upgrade skills rather than two. Yrkoon then gave an example of two places rather than one. Yrkoon, you should have looked a bit further down the feats list to find an example that works.

In Dungeons and Dragons there is a feat called Two-Weapon Fighting. A warrior can take this to be able to use two weapons. She can then choose to further enhance two-weapon fighting style by taking Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or she can choose to take a completely different feat to gain a different fighting style. It is a choice of improved specialisation vs widened generalisation and it is not an innovation.

[Zanallen]

Don't bother Havokk. Yrkoon disputes all arguments with his insane troll logic and is always right no matter what. Even when he is completely wrong, he is right.

[Yrkoon]

Havokk7 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
But for now I'm just going to focus on this part, since it's so demonstrably untrue:

So are you going to actually deomstrate that it is untrue or leave us in suspense?


Seival said that the innovation was in having one place to upgrade skills rather than two. Yrkoon then gave an example of two places rather than one. Yrkoon, you should have looked a bit further down the feats list to find an example that works.

Not sure how anyone can see the meta-magic system as occuring in multiple places since it LITERALLY occurs  only within the same "place" -the spellbook - as the spell itself.  It's an upgrade system.  Just like the one used in DA2, only its far more complex and  allows for far more customization.

Oh you can split hairs and argue stuff like:  But those are feats!  (or whatever).  But feats are nothing more than part of the level-up process and  the DA2 spell upgrades ALSO  have level up requirements that must be met, and in some cases, previous SPELL requirements  that must be met (ie. you can't choose them until you spend at least x amount of points in the tree  in which they're located)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 juin 2011 - 10:35 .

[Gunderic]

Seival wrote...

By dynamic I think he meant that the mobs don't just come from the horizon or from thin air, they also drop down from the sky LOL

You want details? Ok, I’ll give you details…



Reinforcement-based dynamic combat:

No. Just... no. I really don't want to say anything else on this subject.



Friend-rival social system:

Similar mechanics was used in other games, yes. But modification of old mechanics is also innovation. In DA2 character may be your friend or may be a rival. Neither rival nor friend will punish player for “incorrect relationship”. Rival has his own advantages, and friend has his own advantages. Each your team mate has personal feelings about your main character. And you can use friendship or hate of your team mates to have some advantage in the combat. Friend will fight better because he likes you, and rival will fight better because he just vents his rage on the battlefield.
 
It's by no means entirely unique, but a nice touch ( that could use some improvements ) which I don't really mind.
 
Dialogue system (modified ME dialogue wheel):

As I already told: modification of old mechanics is also innovation. DA2 uses modified ME dialogue wheel. The wheel itself is great for dialogues. It doesn’t require a lot of space on the screen, and provides up to 10 phrases to use at the same dialogue part (“investigate” and “return” are not phrases). In DA2 wheel has noticeable usability improvement compared to ME and ME2. Icons on each phrase show you what exactly you are going to do: make an important decision, ask about something, make a joke, and so on.

It usually provides only three basic response types; the rest are often questions.

Character development system with optimized atributes and upgradeable abilities:

By optimized attributes I mean attributes system where each attribute is truly useable for each class. Most existing RPGs (the ones that have classes of course) still have attribute systems where each class needs just 1 or 2 attributes out of 6 (or something similar). Other attributes’ development is just a waste of effectiveness for a character. DA2 attribute system allows you to make effective characters with all 6 attributes developed and useable for him. And at the same time you still can make effective enough characters with only 1 or 2 developed attributes if you want to.

Upgradeable abilities were in some other games, but not in the same way as in DA2. DA2 has abilities’ trees, where most abilities can be upgraded differently. At the same time, there is no “spell book” + “talent tree” (that improves “spells” from the “spell book”). The best examples of such ability system are in DA2 and Rift. Maybe in some other new games also, but still – such ability system IS innovative.

Since when? Why would I want to spend points on other attributes when the two will suffice? The attributes have been streamlined, *effectively*streamlined to provide more direct and class-related benefits.

It does not compare at all to Origins. Rogues were able to make use, even benefited largely, from spreading your stat points out a bit. Dragon Age 2 decidedly diminishes the effectiveness of this option by:

-- making the effects of an attribute less far-reaching. Simply less variables are affected and changes made to stats when levelling up are more direct.

-- creating a basic two-stats levelling system by restricting equipment to the most predominantly useful class attributes. For example, a melee rogue in Origins could have benefited from strength as he would have been able to use certain better equipment, while a rogue in Dragon Age 2 would always benefit fully from the available gear ( and get by without any problems ) simply by investing in dexteritiy/cunning -- the two single stats required for rogue armour.

So yeah, compared to Origins or cross-classing in DnD games... yeah.

Modifié par Gunderic, 23 juin 2011 - 11:13 .

[Seival]

Gunderic wrote...
No. Just... no. I really don't want to say anything else on this subject.

I see, you just don't like dynamic combat

Gunderic wrote...
Since when? Why would I want to spend points on other attributes when the two will suffice? The attributes have been streamlined, *effectively*streamlined to provide more direct and class-related benefits.

It does not compare at all to Origins. Rogues were able to make use, even benefited largely, from spreading your stat points out a bit. Dragon Age 2 decidedly diminishes the effectiveness of this option by:

-- making the effects of an attribute less far-reaching. Simply less variables are affected and changes made to stats when levelling up are more direct.

-- creating a basic two-stats levelling system by restricting equipment to the most predominantly useful class attributes. For example, a melee rogue in Origins could have benefited from strength as he would have been able to use certain better equipment, while a rogue in Dragon Age 2 would always benefit fully from the available gear ( and get by without any problems ) simply by investing in dexteritiy/cunning -- the two single stats required for rogue armour.

So yeah, compared to Origins or cross-classing in DnD games... yeah.

Totally incorrect. Did you ever play DA:O, DA:OA and DA2 on Nightmare difficulty? I did. The most effective rogue (for example) in DA:O and DA:OA was rogue with only 1 or 2 stats developed. Especially if it's archer rogue. All other stats are rised by totally imbalanced items and fade quests, so you don't really need to develop more then 1 stat.

Here is 15 sec long "Nightmare" difficulty FINAL boss fight from DA:OA... enjoy:


If you played rogue in DA2 on Nightmare, then you should know that:

• You better develop Strength to have high fortitude (helps to evoid most CC).
• You better develop Dexterity to have high damage and crit chance.
• You better develop Cunning to have high crit damage and ability to open the locks and disable traps.
• You better develop Magic to have some magic resistance.
• You better develop Willpower to have enough stamina to use abilities in long combats.
• You better develop Consitution to evoid one-shot kills from enemy rogue-bosses.
• ITEMS and FADE QUEST will NEVER fully compensate under-developed attributes, like in DA:O or DA:OA.
• You still can make rogue with only dexterity or cunning developed but this rogue will be weak and you will have to play it EXTRIMALLY carefull.

Modifié par Seival, 23 juin 2011 - 10:42 .

[ScotGaymer]

This thread isnt about belittling Bioware's achievements with Dragon Age 2 - ie the things they did right with it. Which was actually quite a few things when you properly examine it with a logical mindset.

It is more about the fact that once again Ray Muzukya has spoken out of his backside in a form of PR speak that makes no sense. As per usual.
The man needs to either stop doing interview's, learn how to give better interview's, or sack his PR manager. Cos something is going wrong with his interviews and press releases where they more often than not say something that is poor word choice, or just blatantly untrue (Shepard is a predefined character anyone?).

Dragon Age 2 is NOT innovative. Not really. Innovation requires something new within the series, or genre. And DA2's so called innovations are plainly NOT innovations.
They are simply different ideas, approaches, and solutions that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. Doing something different is NOT innovation.

[Seival]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Doing something different is NOT innovation.

It IS innovation actually. You can do something different to improve quality, or you can do something different to decrease quality. DA2 was clearly improved compared to DA:O.

[ScotGaymer]

The dictionary definition of Innovation is as follows.

Innovation
-noun
1. something new introduced;
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.

Very little in DA2 was "new".

Okay perhaps in terms of the Dragon Age universe it is "new"; but when you compare it to other games by Bioware, or games in the genre?
Nope very little new there.

Therefore Innovation/Innovative is the wrong word to use to describe this game.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 23 juin 2011 - 11:07 .

[Gunderic]

Seival wrote...

Gunderic wrote...
No. Just... no. I really don't want to say anything else on this subject.

I see, you just don't like dynamic combat

Gunderic wrote...
Since when? Why would I want to spend points on other attributes when the two will suffice? The attributes have been streamlined, *effectively*streamlined to provide more direct and class-related benefits.

It does not compare at all to Origins. Rogues were able to make use, even benefited largely, from spreading your stat points out a bit. Dragon Age 2 decidedly diminishes the effectiveness of this option by:

-- making the effects of an attribute less far-reaching. Simply less variables are affected and changes made to stats when levelling up are more direct.

-- creating a basic two-stats levelling system by restricting equipment to the most predominantly useful class attributes. For example, a melee rogue in Origins could have benefited from strength as he would have been able to use certain better equipment, while a rogue in Dragon Age 2 would always benefit fully from the available gear ( and get by without any problems ) simply by investing in dexteritiy/cunning -- the two single stats required for rogue armour.

So yeah, compared to Origins or cross-classing in DnD games... yeah.

Totally incorrect. Did you ever play DA:O, DA:OA and DA2 at Nightmare difficulty? I did. The most effective rogue (for example) in DA:O and DA:OA was rogue with only 1 or 2 stats developed. Especially if it's archer rogue. All other stats are rised by totally imbalanced items, so you don't really need to develop more then 1 stat.

Here is 15 sec long "Nightmare" difficulty FINAL boss fight from DA:O... enjoy:


If you played rogue in DA2 on Nightmare, then you should know that:

• You better develop Strength to have high fortitude (helps to evoid most CC).
  
• You better develop Dexterity to have high damage and crit chance.
  
• You better develop Cunning to have high crit damage and ability to open the locks and disable traps.
  
• You better develop Magic to have some magic resistance.
  
• You better develop Willpower to have enough stamina to use abilities in long combats.
  
• You better develop Consitution to evoid one-shot kills from enemy rogue-bosses.
• ITEMS and FADE QUEST will NEVER fully compensate under-developed attributes, like in DA:O.
• You still can make rogue with only dexterity or cunning developed but this rogue will be weak and you will have to play it EXTRIMALLY carefull.

[/list]

How do the bolded points apply differently to Origins then?[*]
I haven't played either games in a while, but if my memory serves me right, Dragon Age: Origins' attributes enhance most of those derived statistics you mentioned which are present in Origins too( or alternatives thereof ) and more.

This list shows just how class-specific statistics are designed to function in Dragon Age 2. There are about three
derived statistics affected by the Strength attribute that affect all classes; the rest are
class-specific.

I don't really remember how overpowered equipment was in Origins, but I won't deny that now. I'd say that's more of a problem with the cookie-cutter gear you'd find in DLC's and can even get a hold of at the start of the game, rather than the levelling system. I'm having a hard time believing that Dragon Age 2 does not suffer from the same problem, however. The fact that class-specific gear does not enhance anything
other than the primary two class-specific attributes ( and derived stats ) isn't exactly a very compelling argument that a more intricate levelling plan is required for creating cookie-cutter builds. 

And no, I didn't play the game on 'Nightmare'. I played Dragon Age: Origins on 'Nightmare', but I finished Dragon
Age 2 on 'hard' -- as I was specifically and oh-so-dearly instructed to.

Modifié par Gunderic, 23 juin 2011 - 11:19 .

[Seival]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Nope very little new there.

Argree, but "little new" =/= no innovations. DA2 is not a "totally innovative" game but it has innovations. There is only one totally innovative fantasy RPG (ok, MMORPG actually, but still true RPG) and it's still in development: http://www.guildwars2.com/en/

[Seival]

---> "How do the bolded points apply differently to Origins then?"

As I already told: All other stats are rised by totally imbalanced items and fade quests, so you don't really need to develop more then 1 stat in DA:O.

Don't really want to argue about the rest of your post. I don't like to repeate my points of view too often. You can always read my posts above.

[Cornelius119]

The only new thing, (that worked) is that they walked away from the common hero vs. evil story and made a more political fantasy which I loved. And I hope they stick to that in the future DA games

[andraip]

stoicsentry2 wrote...

I am tempted to feel offense at comments that DA2 was "innovative", considering it took place in such a small location compared to the original, re-used maps over and over, dumbed down combat, took away choice and borrowed the set in stone character style of ME.

So other than the 3rd person storytelling (a story with no ending, mind you!), what was "innovative" about DA2?

And here I thought that re-using maps over and over, taking away choices and setting the main character in stone was very innovative for Bioware.
If not then I humbly request enlightning, and would be grateful if anyone could tell me of another Bioware game that did this.

[Gunderic]

Seival wrote...

---> "How do the bolded points apply differently to Origins then?"

As I already told: All other stats are rised by totally imbalanced items and fade quests, so you don't really need to develop more then 1 stat in DA:O.

Don't really want to argue about the rest of your post. I don't like to repeate my points of view too often. You can always read my posts above.

No, I was referring to the levelling system, not the gear. My point was that the character levelling itself in Dragon Age 2, ignoring the gear, is just a more streamlined system of Dragon Age: Origins' own design. 

I'd like to know those items that compensate for stat imbalances in Origins, assuming that you're not being dishonest with me when you said you don't need more than one attribute to invest in when playing the game. I'm sure there are items which may be considered pretty imbalanced, though I've seen none that rendered building up more than two of your stats useless at level-up ( which would be quite odd ). Also, is there a specific optimal/peak attribute number that you have to reach in Origins that makes further point-spending useless? I'm fairly sure stats like Strength or Dexterity will always be beneficial to a dual-wielding rogue.

As for the Fade mission, the bonuses you can get from there didn't seem anything more than minimal since just a single stat point is increased per find.

Modifié par Gunderic, 23 juin 2011 - 11:42 .

[Zanallen]

When I played Origins, I only used two stats, same with DA2. For my two-handed warrior, I put the vast majority of my points into strength and willpower. I didn't need constitution at all and cunning was useless if you max Coercion. Dexterity was useful, but I barely needed to put any points into it. With DA 2, it was strength and constitution with a point into cunning or willpower every so often. Once I hit the constitution level needed for the best armor, I scrapped it and focused on strength and willpower while still putting a couple points into cunning now and then.

[Gunderic]

As for enemy waves, regardless of how I feel about disrupting my unit positioning, there are just too many of them. Nothing's exciting about having to fight the same guards/henchmen thrice, as if this game didn't have enough guards/henchmen/mercenraies to fight without tripling their numbers from thin air.

Modifié par Gunderic, 23 juin 2011 - 11:48 .

[Dial_595]

I think the folks trying to argue in favour of an "innovative" DA2 are really grasping at semantic straws here. There was to the casual observer NOTHING remotely innovative in DA2.

I thought Oblivion was innovative, and believe me, I really hated that game. I thought Planescape: Torment was innovative in a lot of ways, even though I understand it did not appeal to the broad mass.

I don't care if they'd stolen and adapted other people's ideas - whether folks like it or not, Blizzard are clearly setting an industry standard, just as Valve has with some of its creations - and their games have major innovative functions surrounding them, whereas DA2 may have had altered mechanics, that is not a front-end innovation that will appeal to many players, especially not the group they're trying to target - the casual gamers. If they want to do that, it'll take something far more radical.

Believe me, I thought the original vision sounded pretty awesome - I was thinking an RPG with combat mechanics something akin to God of War (but hopefully not as OTT) or a fighting game where I'd have to respond to the opponents action using different combinations in a strategic manner.

Pressing the square button for 34,5 hrs in a row is not innovation, nor is it instantly gratifying.

I look forward to seeing the THQ game Space Marine released in September. Maybe/Hopefully there'll be some stuff in there that Bioware can steal, adapt and use in order to innovate and improve upon for DA3.

But for the love of god - decide which way you want to go - Action-RPG or Strategic? Skyrim's probably going to beat DA2 in a thousand ways in the area it was looking to gain a foothold in, just like the witcher 2 - so if that's the way they're determined to go for whatever statistical research reason they've used to make that decision, then they'd better TRY HARDER or do a full turnabout and dedicate themselves to a single concept rather than this diluted offspring that doesn't know what it wants.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

 I think DA2 could have been innovative. On paper, it sounded like a very good sequel to DA:O (thus the blind preorder).

- Story that takes place over a decade.
- A less epic, more politics-centric storyline.
- Framed narrative.
- Imported saves.

But I really don't think there was anything in the actual game that I'd label innovative. You only techically play through three years, and neither the game nor the story seem to recognize the time skips. Hawke and all his/her companions are still wearing the same armor, the city hasn't changed. The storyline was all over the place. The framed narrative added absolutely nothing, and neither did the imported saves.

I'm not quite sure what the reps and devs are referring to when they say "innovative" because I don't see evidence of it anywhere. On the contrary, I personally think DA2 represented one of the biggest about-faces in the genre for quite some time.

[CaolIla]

It was certainly innovative to have a mass of choices but none of those made any difference.

And it was also new for me to have a game where half of it is missing, never had that before.

Oh and I can't remember a game where I could go to the same place twice or even more often and every time there was a "different" dungeon, well it was one of the two they have in the game, but it certainly had a different name.

And a framed narrative like in Drakensang River of Time was certainly something new.

[TEWR]

Gunderic wrote...

As for enemy waves, regardless of how I feel about disrupting my unit positioning, there are just too many of them. Nothing's exciting about having to fight the same guards/henchmen thrice, as if this game didn't have enough guards/henchmen/mercenraies to fight without tripling their numbers from thin air.

Well, DA:O used the same character design for enemies too. The mooks all look the same unless they're a specific character.


Anyway, I agree with your point. Fighting waves is likable when you know you're going to be fighting waves of enemies. Like the Darkspawn in Origins. When I went to the Deep Roads, I knew I would be fighting droves of Darkspawn. And I did. But I also fought some other enemies mixed in (spiders and deepstalkers).

Then there was the siege of Denerim. More darkspawn en masse, but I knew I would be fighting the horde.

But fighting generic thugs? I don't understand how I'm fighting 30 enemies in 6 different sections.