337 réponses à ce sujet

[RussianSpy27]

Stanley Woo wrote...

"Streamlining" can be defined as removing some features that a certain class of players "prefer to not do." Many like to categorize themselves as the few, the proud, the elite while cursing the mainstream as "kiddie" or unsophisticated. This kind of classism doesn't make for constructive discussion, so let's please try to avoid it. Thank you.

Stan, thanks for replying to so many of fans' posts including mine about lard and vodka. I hope one day to have a shot of vodka with you, or a glass of beer (in the worst case scenario ). 

Here comes the key question: how do you know that those who "prefer to not to" (in the case here where we're specifically dealing with removed features from DA:O) happen to be the mainstream and the majority? 

Maybe those who want some old features back are indeed the "many and the proud"? As you probably know from my posts, I like most DA2 features, but having been on the forum long eough and seen player reviews accross the net, I am not sure that those who "prefer not to" are indeed the majority. 

[Yrkoon]

uberdowzen wrote...
Combat:

I'm going to counter this one word at a time

Ditto.

Craptacular: Purely subjective, dismissed.

If we were to  'dismiss' everything subjective, then  this thread would only be half a page long, and contain exactly none  of your posts within it.

Consolized: consolized implies changes made to PC focused gameplay.....

Like removing the  ISO-view camera.
 

Uber-flashy: so the combat is automatically bad because it's flashy? It might not be your cup of tea but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

Aah.  Someone here is attempting to burn a straw man.  Let me put a halt to your efforts.   Flashy combat animations can be fine.   Great, even.   Decaptitations, immolating foes, turning people  into blocks of ice, and sticking your sword into someone's midsection then pulling it out as they fall to the ground, are, literally, Flashy animations.  Flashy animations that won DA:O tons of immense fan approval, and an almost Cult-like exchange of  fan-contributed screenshots when the game came out. 

But there's a HUGE difference between  rare finishing moves (these things don't happen with every kill), and the   over-the-top insanity we see *constantly* in DA2, where even a standard AUTO attack sees your mage gyrating in place like a friggin pole dancer, or your rogue hopping around the battle field like a  cricket.

Could I also point out that a lot of magazines, blogs and people on boards have also praised the combat (PC Gamer,

Right.  PC gamer.  The magazine that gave DA2 a 94 and called it the best RPG of the decade.      Is  it My turn now to yell:  "dismissed!"?    I don't think I've met a single person that would honestly claim that PC gamer was being objective here (let alone accurate).  Well, except for maybe you.


 

PC Format, Gametrailers and PC Powerplay to name a few) so your argument doesn't really hold water when it comes to ruling out that I'm not being objective.

Where are you going with this line of  debate?  Is it your contention that  a professional review is an Objective thing?  Ever?     It never is, even if  one agrees with everything  being said.  Playing a game, then publishing your thoughts on it is, by definition, an exercise is subjectivity. 

And what's wrong with the storytelling?

I don't recall claiming that there was anything wrong with the story-telling, just that  it wasn't "some of the best story telling in any game ever".

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

You guys are still talking about Dragon Age 2? Didn't that game suck?

[Reno_Tarshil]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

You guys are still talking about Dragon Age 2? Didn't that game suck?

Not even sort of kinda.

It's one of my favorite new games of 2011. It took DA:O the game that got me into this IP and made way more stylish and fun to play.

[Everwarden]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

You guys are still talking about Dragon Age 2? Didn't that game suck?

Well, compared to Origins it did.

Coming up with creative ways to express just how poor Dragon Age II was as a follow-up to Origins is amusing to me. 

[Sabariel]

Persephone wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

Orly? Enemies were stll exploding all over the place (fantastically, I might add.) when I rolled out a Hawke to play MOTA.

Patch 1.03 should have fixed that. It did for me and now only occurs VERY rarely. 

Huh. I guess that patch didn't work for me as enemies still explode the majority of the time.

[Joy Divison]

In Exile wrote...

Bioware said DA2 looked different than DA:O but (especially on the PC) played like DA:O under the hood. Which it does. 

Someone has never tried the zoom-out feature on DA:2 I see.

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
Someone has never tried the zoom-out feature on DA:2 I see.

The isometric camera is it's own debacle, which Bioware first confirmed as being out, then promised  a free-roam camera, then never followed up. But the isometric camera doesn't have very much to do with DA2 being an RPG, unless you're going to say that KoTOR wasn't an RPG? 

[Joy Divison]

In Exile wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Someone has never tried the zoom-out feature on DA:2 I see.

The isometric camera is it's own debacle, which Bioware first confirmed as being out, then promised  a free-roam camera, then never followed up. But the isometric camera doesn't have very much to do with DA2 being an RPG, unless you're going to say that KoTOR wasn't an RPG? 

I had this feature when I played Pool of Radience on my amiga home computer in 1991.  How this is not included 20 years later is an unforgivable sin.  And if only because of that makes *any* casual references that DA2 plays the same on pc ridiculous.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 16 octobre 2011 - 05:23 .

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Someone has never tried the zoom-out feature on DA:2 I see.

The isometric camera is it's own debacle, which Bioware first confirmed as being out, then promised a free-roam camera, then never followed up. But the isometric camera doesn't have very much to do with DA2 being an RPG,

It does, however illustrate  that contrary to what Any developer has said, DA2 does NOT, in fact, play the same as DA:O under the hood.

There are other major differences, as well. Finishing moves are gone (good luck finding any dev who ever mentioned that before DA2's release); You can no longer miss your opponent in combat. (mentioned. And still a huge difference under the hood);   You can no longer dualwield full sized weapons, and your warrior can no longer dual-wield at all.  (mentioned.  Turned people off from the getgo.)  Dodging blows is now   based  on the player's real-life dexterity, rather than any in-game statstic (mentioned. And one of the first things I point to when I claim that combat has been dumbed down). Then we've got the semetrical level scaling; the removal of spell combos; and the various stupid rules that govern boss battles (oh no, despite the fact that you spent the entire game meticulously building your party for maximum powergaming combat effectiveness, we cannot allow you to inflict more than 20% of a boss's health bar with one hit.)

To name just a few. Seriously, look under the hood of DA2 and DA:O, and you'll notice they're about as different as a Ferrari and a pickup truck.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 octobre 2011 - 05:53 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
I had this feature when I played Pool of Radience on my amiga home computer in 1991.  How this is not included 20 years later is an unforgivable sin.  And if only because of that makes *any* casual references that DA2 plays the same on pc ridiculous.

What? I... it's... 

So... if DA:O didn't have an isometric camera but otherwise was the same game, it wouldn't be an RPG? Because DA:O for the 360 didn't, and now all of a sudden I'm curious as to where you are from and if your people come in peace. 

Let's go with a better one - if someone suddenly doesn't use the isometric camera, does that magically turn DA2 into an RPG? 

The mechanics are, at the very least, closely related on the PC. If you're going to actually base your argument on the isometric camera, I think it's time for me to bow out. 

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
It does, however illustrate  that contrary to what Any developer has said, DA2 does NOT, in fact, play the same as DA:O under the hood.

I'm suddenly seriously worried no one understands what hoods are. 

"Under the hood" says superficially different, but mechanically similar. 

The camera angle falls under visually different.

There are other major differences, as well. Finishing moves are gone (good luck finding any dev who ever mentioned that before DA2's release)

It's almost like the entire animation was swapped for DA2. If only there was some kind of marketing campaign that talked about this. They could use words like "Hot Rod Samurai" and "Awesome". 

You can no longer miss your opponent in combat. (mentioned. And still a huge difference under the hood);

I know! It's not like Peter Thomas explained how a glancing blow radically reduced damage vs. difficulty (like how DA:O increased defence) and everything was tightly controlled for DPS and balance, making everything nothing more than a damage tweak. 

Man, if only those things I say were real things that happend.

Dodging blows is now a skill governed by the player's real-life dexterity, rather than any in-game statstic (mentioned. And one of the things about combat that I disliked).

Yes, dodging is terrible. It would have wrecked DA:O if you could get out of the way of an Ogre's thrown stone, for example. 

You're right, though. This is a mechanical difference (a good one, given the game is real time and not hex-based squares). But ignoring that, 1) it was advertised; and 2) dodging (i.e. misses) are still in and a function of your defence %. Real time dodging prevents seeker attacks, like the Ogre's telekinetic punch. 

Then we've got the semetrical level scaling, the removal of spell combos, and the various stupid rules that govern boss battles (oh no, despite the fact that you spent the entire game meticulously min-maxing your party for maximum powergaming combat effectiveness, we cannot allow you to inflict more than 20% of a boss's health bar with one hit.)

It's not like DA:O level scaled or DA2 added in cross-class combos over spell combos. That would be silly. 

And you're absolutely right about the 20% hit of the health bar. Because in DA:O, we had so many attacks that caused 21% of a boss's health bar, that this change in DA2 made the game play totally different.

To name just a few. Seroiously, look under the hood of DA2 and DA:O, and you'll notice they're about as different as a Ferrari and a pickup truck.

Only if you're blind. 

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

And you're absolutely right about the 20% hit of the health bar. Because in DA:O, we had so many attacks that caused 21% of a boss's health bar, that this change in DA2 made the game play totally different.

Agreed!  Don't know about you, But on one of MY playthroughs of DA:O I managed to one shot Gaxxkang  (for example).  Gave me a feeling of power and satisfaction that's pretty difficult to describe to  someone who measures  the "difficulty" and "awesomeness" of boss battles by how many times he gets to mash  the attack button.   Then there's the Ser Cauthriene battle.  Kill her quickly and  you avoid  the  complete headache that the   battle can be when it gets drawn out.     Ditto with the the Brood mother.  I've done 50% damage to her with a spell combo.  Felt great.  Felt like my party was finally reaping the rewards for all the intense, geeky min-maxing I did to get them to the  power level they are.

 But lets take all that away, now, in favor of some  unimaginative,  lazy, limiting, ham-fisted attempt at game balance.

It's almost like the entire animation was swapped for DA2. If only there was some kind of marketing campaign that talked about this. They could use words like "Hot Rod Samurai" and "Awesome". 

You're almost there!  I believe the  preferred term currently being used is "streamlining".  Now EVERY move is like  a finishing move!   Remember...  when you press a button, something awesome has to happen.

I know! It's not like Peter Thomas explained how a glancing blow radically reduced damage vs. difficulty (like how DA:O increased defence) and everything was tightly controlled for DPS and balance, making everything nothing more than a damage tweak. 

Right right.  The difference, of course, even beyond the fact that a glancing blow is still a hit  with damage, rather than a miss with none (nice try though!),  is that unlike defense in DA:O  (where you could actually SEE the effects), Glancing blows in DA2 did not have their own animation.  They COULDN'T have their own animation, because  it would go against  "teh awesome" to swing your huge colorful sword and just  slightly nick your opponent's shoulder guards..

Yes, dodging is terrible. It would have wrecked DA:O if you could get out of the way of an Ogre's thrown stone, for example. 

Because   DA:O was all about Ogres and their Boulders.  There were no other enemies in the game.  Right?  Therefore, lets   render  the entire  confusing dodge statistic redundant for the sequel,   And  instead, lets allow even the most non-dextrious mage  to be able to get out of the way of  ANY enemy's physical attack,  in melee, any time he wants by simply  moving around.   Derp.

It's not like DA:O level scaled

Not symetrically no.  It did level scaling in a much more creative and varied manner.

 or DA2 added in cross-class combos over spell combos.

You mean DA2 INCREASED cross class combos.  I remember a very useful cross class combo  in DA:O, don't you?  However, I'm wracking my brain trying to think of even 1 spell combo in DA2.  Oh wait, I know why I can't think of one.  Because there  isn't any!  they took them all out.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:22 .

[Stanley Woo]

RussianSpy27 wrote...
Stan, thanks for replying to so many of fans' posts including mine about lard and vodka. I hope one day to have a shot of vodka with you, or a glass of beer (in the worst case scenario ).

Thank you, but I'm a teetotaler. I don't drink at all, but I would be happy to share a beverage.

Here comes the key question: how do you know that those who "prefer to not to" (in the case here where we're specifically dealing with removed features from DA:O) happen to be the mainstream and the majority? 

Maybe those who want some old features back are indeed the "many and the proud"? As you probably know from my posts, I like most DA2 features, but having been on the forum long eough and seen player reviews accross the net, I am not sure that those who "prefer not to" are indeed the majority. 

There are all kinds of maybes, and nothing is ever certain. All we can do is look at whatever data we need to and make a best guess, based on what we've done in the past, what's going on in the present, what's likely to come up in the future, and what kinds of things we want to do in our game. Remember that we are (and have to be) the ultimate arbiters of what we put into our game, and while we try our best, there's no way we can please everyone with every game.

[Stanley Woo]

KilrB wrote...
We are either all, those who liked DA2 and shelled-out for the dlc and those who didn't, part of the Bioware "community" or we're not.

If all of us ARE, then you cannot make the blanket statement that "they were well received by the community".

Of course they were "well received" IF you don't count all of us who refused to buy them.

If you EXCLUDE us from the "community".

If you had said well received by those who like DA2 I could understand.

But you didn't, tou said "community".

I consider, or maybe considered now, myself a member of the BioWare "community".

I personally introduced 4 fellow gamers who never played rpg's to DA:Origins.

Like myself, they are still playing it.

None of us liked DA2.

Of course we didn't buy any of the dlc.

You say we're part of the "community".

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

Yet insist you have the authority/right to exclude those of us who didn't like DA2 and purchase the dlc from said "community" when used to justify your statements.

If you mean the BioWare "community" as a whole, or even just the
Dragon Age "community" then I question the truthiness of your statement.

Or were you talking about some exclusive "DA2 lovers only community"?

If you mean the BioWare or Dragon Age "community" then ... you can't have it both ways Stan.

Either we're ALL part of the "community" ALL the time, and have to be treated and counted as such ...

... or we're not part of the "community", period.

(Edit for grammar.)

If that's the way you're going to play, KilrB, then I will respectfully bow out. You seem to be fixated on this exclusion thing, and I would prefer not to let you entangle me in your semantic games. Thanks all the same.

[Everwarden]

Stanley Woo wrote...
 Remember that we are (and have to be) the ultimate arbiters of what we put into our game, 

True, but the choices you make on what to put into said game will determine whether or not it's actually a game people want to play. Bioware seems to be hard-lining on certain fairly unpopular decisions. You have the right to do that as a company, but don't be shocked if sales aren't strong. 

To give a couple examples of unpopular decisions that have been confirmed to be set in metaphorical stone:

1. Not being able to talk to your companions except during their quests. Mr. Gaider has made it perfectly clear that the 'cinematic presentation' of companion interaction isn't possible unless scripted, and thus in a particular pre-set location. He also made it clear that this style is going nowhere. Not a dealbreaker, but I don't think many people outside of Bioware prefer this method. 

2. Companion armor being fixed for 'stylistic' reasons. Granted, this isn't something I personally care about at all, but I've seen a lot of dislike over this decision. 

3. The art direction. More specifically, the art direction regarding elves and darkspawn. I'm sure -someone- out there likes the changes (that someone is likely a Bioware employee), but I can't remember ever seeing anything positive regarding these changes from a non-Bioware employee. Yet Bioware is sticking to its guns on this and refusing to admit that the style shift might have been a mistake.

[Foolsfolly]

KilrB wrote...

Yet insist you have the authority/right to exclude those of us who didn't like DA2 and purchase the dlc from said "community" when used to justify your statements.

If you mean the BioWare "community" as a whole, or even just the
Dragon Age "community" then I question the truthiness of your statement.

Or were you talking about some exclusive "DA2 lovers only community"?

If you mean the BioWare or Dragon Age "community" then ... you can't have it both ways Stan.

Either we're ALL part of the "community" ALL the time, and have to be treated and counted as such ...

... or we're not part of the "community", period.

All I'm going to say is this, how can your opinion matter about the current state of series (which is the DLC since there's no DA3 yet) when you haven't played it?

If I decide to not play DA3 because of whatever reason, then it comes out, and I come in here and start spouting that DA3 is the worst game ever because the last game was disappointing. My opinion doesn't ring true about DA3.

So while my opinion matters for a game I have played (and I have nifty icons to show which ones those are) I can't be counted upon to matter for games I haven't played.

If you haven't played the DLCs then you have no opinion on the DLCs. And all Stan was saying here was that of those who did play the DLCs, they generally like them.

Stop being so elitist for a moment. There's no grand conspiracy where BioWare trying to ****** in your cereal.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

In any case, I'm fairly certain they have all of that data: # of people who bought the game vs. # of people who went on to buy the DLC. I think they've approached this well, by tackling some up-front issues people had with the base game and then trying to correct some that are immediately correctable. I also like that they've had a feedback thread after both releases.

I can say that I've already checked myself out of supporting DA2 any further. I greatly disagreed with the changes that were made, so I won't be buying the DLC for it. There's only so much that can be changed in an add-on, and not enough to win me back until I see what BioWare's cookin' up for DA3. I really, really hope they give me an excuse to support the cause again, since I've had absolutely no problems doing so in the past. (If we're gonna be pointing out those nifty icons.)

Modifié par Shadowlit_Rogue, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Morroian]

Everwarden wrote...

2. Companion armor being fixed for 'stylistic' reasons. Granted, this isn't something I personally care about at all, but I've seen a lot of dislike over this decision. 

They've compromised on this at least they've said they will.

Everwarden wrote...

3. The art direction. More specifically, the art direction regarding elves and darkspawn. I'm sure -someone- out there likes the changes (that someone is likely a Bioware employee), but I can't remember ever seeing anything positive regarding these changes from a non-Bioware employee. Yet Bioware is sticking to its guns on this and refusing to admit that the style shift might have been a mistake.

We're still not at a point where they would be willing to outright criticise the game, however given the rushed nature of DA2 must have been at least in part due to devoting resources to coming up with the new art style I'd think its reasonable to leave it as is and devote resources to making sure they fix the bigger issues with DA2 and work on the gameplay.

[bEVEsthda]

Everwarden wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
 Remember that we are (and have to be) the ultimate arbiters of what we put into our game, 

True, but the choices you make on what to put into said game will determine whether or not it's actually a game people want to play. Bioware seems to be hard-lining on certain fairly unpopular decisions. You have the right to do that as a company, but don't be shocked if sales aren't strong. 

I have already written the epitah: 'DA3 - the game that "constructive criticism" made.'
~70,000 copies sold.
This will also appear in the obituary over the Dragon Age franchise (Dragon Age: a Game remade by EA's Advertisers), and the future articles: 'EA closes Bioware - What went wrong?', and 'New record loss for EA makes it a question of survival.'
('Course, those last articles will mostly focus on the failure of making a re-skinned WoW clone, just as all the world's players who where ever interested in playing a game like that had grown bored, and the collapse of subscription financed MMO market as a whole, but some space can be left to DA.)

Yes,  I'm all Doom & Gloom today.
I'm going for a walk, maybe I'll feel better later.

[Satyricon331]

Stanley Woo wrote...
In this particular instance, since you have removed yourself from the group of people who have played Legacy and/or Mark of the Assassin and posted a review of it, yes, in this particular instance, when I say "well received by our community" I am excluding those who have not played and reviewed those things.

You are still part of the BioWare Social Network, you still have opinions and ideas regarding Dragon Age II, and you are part of the "community" when I discuss how Dragon Age II was received. But when I say something like "Dragon Age II was received okay by our community," I am not saying that each and every community member likes it okay. I am, in that case, averaging the totality of the discussions I have seen posted here and generalizing the sentiments I have seen posted by individuals.

If you wish to disagree with me, you are free to do so. This is a forum where we encourage people to share ideas. if, on the other hand, you wish to be disingenuous by taking what I say out of context to fuel your righteous indignation at a game you dislike, then I would encourage you to please try a different tactic. I prefer sincerity, just as I believe you would prefer it from me.

I'm late to the game and I don't mean to comment on KilrB's posts.  I just want to point out that the post I've quoted seems to hint at methodological problems.

The people who haven't purchased the DLCs (myself included) may very well not have an opinion to offer, as Foolsfolly suggested above, but they may have collected enough information (say, from friends, here, or youtube) to form an adverse judgment about the DLC, and some of those people will have collected enough information and assessed it well enough to form correct adverse judgments ("correct" being relative to the enjoyment they would have had if they had played the DLC).  A lot of people won't purchase the DLCs because they don't like what they hear about them.  There's a big selection bias if Bioware is only considering the opinions of the people who decided to buy the DLCs.  Just considering the "community" as you've defined it there will paint a misleading picture (even if the overall conclusion would remain the same, all things considered).

It wouldn't be worth pointing this banal idea out (you are making a semantic rather than methodological point there) except your semantics seem suggestive and I don't have high confidence you guys analyze these data very well.  (I don't mean to sound inflammatory.)  It's just that Laidlaw had interviews earlier in the year where he talked about how many people stopped playing DAO upon reaching Ostagar and how they viewed this as a problem, and I had a post or two that said that interpretation made sense if you guys had other market data saying that outcome was bad relative to other games (in DAO's peer group, at least).  Then wider market data came out that contradicted, or at least undermined,* that idea; it said game completion rates were pretty low in general.  DAO's completion rate really wasn't that bad by comparison; I remember thinking it looked good, especially considering how long the game was.  So it's possible (I'm not saying it happened) you made a mistake there and are making another one here.  It's just I haven't seen anything to disconfirm that idea, so consider this post a bit of an effort to find disconfirmatory info.  My impression though from dev comments is that you guys analyze this information in a sort of casual way without much caution about biases or other interpretation issues.


*The qualification is that it's possible RPGs are very atypical, and the general information belies info you have that DAO performed badly compared to other RPGs.  In this case, you guys could have even hard data that supported your earlier concerns and the information I have is misleading. 

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
Agreed!  Don't know about you, But on one of MY playthroughs of DA:O I managed to one shot Gaxxkang  (for example).  

You mean you used mana clash on Gaxkang really fast, before he had a cast to cast any spells. Removing Mana Clash does not change what DA:O is. 

Gave me a feeling of power and satisfaction that's pretty difficult to describe to  someone who measures  the "difficulty" and "awesomeness" of boss battles by how many times he gets to mash  the attack button.   

It's true. It's far better to evaluate battles on ''broken mechanic" and ''exploit''. This, of course, ignores that only 1.04 capped Assasin damage, and at release there was no cap. 

Then there's the Ser Cauthriene battle.  Kill her quickly and  you avoid  the  complete headache that the   battle can be when it gets drawn out.     Ditto with the the Brood mother.  I've done 50% damage to her with a spell combo.  Felt great.  Felt like my party was finally reaping the rewards for all the intense, geeky min-maxing I did to get them to the  power level they are.

You can kill any boss in DA2 'quickly'. The damage being capped in no way changes this.  

But lets take all that away, now, in favor of some  unimaginative,  lazy, limiting, ham-fisted attempt at game balance.

.... And here we have it. 

You're almost there!  I believe the  preferred term currently being used is "streamlining".  Now EVERY move is like  a finishing move!   Remember...  when you press a button, something awesome has to happen.

Which, of course, goes back to that whole thing you do when you don't tell the truth and pretend Bioware is doing something else so you can rag on DA2. Like with the companion armour thread. 

Right right.  The difference, of course, even beyond the fact that a glancing blow is still a hit  with damage, rather than a miss with none (nice try though!),  is that unlike defense in DA:O  (where you could actually SEE the effects), Glancing blows in DA2 did not have their own animation.  They COULDN'T have their own animation, because  it would go against  "teh awesome" to swing your huge colorful sword and just  slightly nick your opponent's shoulder guards..

Ah, here we have the not being truthful thing.

First, in DA:O, there is no difference in animation between missing and hitting. That's falseshood #1. 

Second, in DA:O you know your attack stat, and your defence stat, but you don't know the defence stat of any mook, making it - as it turns out - impossible to know what your chance to hit is. DA2 actually corrects this by giving you your hit % for all classes of enemies. 

Because   DA:O was all about Ogres and their Boulders.  There were no other enemies in the game.  Right?  Therefore, lets   render  the entire  confusing dodge statistic redundant for the sequel,   And  instead, lets allow even the most non-dextrious mage  to be able to get out of the way of  ANY enemy's physical attack,  in melee, any time he wants by simply  moving around.   Derp.

And... we're back to the falsehoods. 

1) In DA2, only physical attacks are frontloaded in this way. Arrowsauto-track and depend on your dodging. 
2) You said: ''Dodging blows is now a skill governed by the player's real-life dexterity, rather than any in-game statstic '' about DA:O, which isn't true. The melee hits were reworked on proximity. So we don't have the most nimble rogue run away from an Ogre's punch and get hit with telekinetic damage. 
3) ''Derp'' somehow means that not getting hit by a sword when you're not next to it is stupid? Certainly, you've set the bar high for things that make sense. 

Not symetrically no.  It did level scaling in a much more creative and varied manner.

All of which amounts to a different way of handling the difficulty and goes to balance. 

You mean DA2 INCREASED cross class combos.  I remember a very useful cross class combo  in DA:O, don't you?  However, I'm wracking my brain trying to think of even 1 spell combo in DA2.  Oh wait, I know why I can't think of one.  Because there  isn't any!  they took them all out.

You often do this ''make up things the other person said to prove a point'' so we can let this one slide, but I obviously mean DA2 replaced spell combos with cross-class combos. Mages not combo'ing off themselves and doing so with the rest of the party is not some significant change to the mechanics. 

Modifié par In Exile, 16 octobre 2011 - 01:44 .

[Nyreen]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Perhaps the restaurant starts serving "lard-and-vodka" less often and replaces it on those days with bacon-and-beer. I mean, it's one thing to say that Ukrainian youths no longer like something. it's something entirely different (and far more compelling) if the restaurant ends up with entire tubs of lard-and-vodka left over at the end of the night. But the restaurant isn't only serving youths. It serves families, seniors, couples and even has a "plumbers welcome" sign on the front door. That lard-and-vodka dish would have to be generally disliked by a bunch of those different folks before the restaurant spends time and effort in coming up with a new dish. In the case of the Dragon AGe II "buffet restaurant," we have addressed some of the...

What...is this thread?

[Everwarden]

Celestina wrote...

What...is this thread?

The best thread in the history of this forum. Period. 

Well, other than the unjustly locked exclusive Dragon Age 3 preview I wrote.

[Saintthanksgiving]

Can we get back to discussing Tacos? Unlike DA2, Tacos most certainly do not suck.