No, but did you ever need to take control of another character to
set an enemy up for a combo. Like have your mage freeze them so the
warrior can shatter them? Or could you basically let the AI go on
autopilot without worrying about tactics or combinations.
If
you did not set up spell combos or other tactics in you would lose most
fights in DA:O. Conversely, in DA2, you never even thought about it
because you could let the AI go on autopilot.
speak for yourself, I was constantly setting up combos in DA2. I had a ton of fun making things brittle and then slamming my warrior into them, or making things loopy and then hitting them with a chain lightning and watchign them explode. If you weren't using effect combos then you were missing half the fun! The only thing I never got around to was "disorient" combos, I forget whether this was because the moves that set it up or the ones that took it down were lame, but it was one of the two.
The problem as a whole is that the story gets too sidetracked with
the Qunari in the second chapter. This leads to the player to ask the
question, "Is this story about the mages and templars, or the Qunari
invasion?". Thus, the plot can be confusing as to what the focal point
of the story is at times.
Fair enough, I sort of took it as a three part narative, in which the Qunari represented an outside threat, basically giving you an outside perspective on the nature of magic and control and that sort of thing, which then influenced the choices you make in Act 3. Yes, on the face of it Act 2 didn't have a lot that directly fed into Act 3, but the destablizing effect it had allowed the Templars to consolodate, which was the political implications, and then they also interacted with the player and with Hawke, in ways that should have influenced how you viewed the later actions of the Templars and Circle.
It was more or less the "Tuchanka arc" of DA2.
True enough, this is a matter of perspective, but I think it is a
fair bet to say Morrigan is the fan favorite, cannot verify it though.
This is true enough, but it doesn't really say anything bad about DA2, aside from that Morrigan wasn't in it. Some characters are bad, some are good, and some are great. Morrigan was great, pretty much everyone else in DA:O was somewhere between bad and good, most of the characters in DA2 were between good and great, but none quite at the level of Morrigan. Aside from Merrill, perhaps. But on average, even incluing Anders they were a higher calibur cast of characters than in DA:O.
the problem is nothing that's happened since DA:2 suggests
they've learned from the mistakes. Or even think they've made any
mistakes.
Which is so weird, because the community also hasn't shown that they've learned from their mistakes, either. Or even think they've made any
mistakes. You'd think by now that they might have realized that they weren't right in the first place.
And why, exactly, would they want to do that? I'm not going to
argue that Bioware hasn't had to cut corners, but that probably has as
much to do with the scope they want in their games as it does with any
deadline imposed by EA.
Yeah, the thing is, Bioware is a game company, and developing games cost money. If a game is rushed out the door, then it's because the project has run out of money and they need to start making it back. By being a part of EA, they have less need to do this, because they can tap EA if necessary, while as a standalone company they'd need to tap their own, more limited reserves. It's fair to assume that even if DA2 and ME3 were rushed from where Bioware would ideally have liked it, without EA's financial backing they probably would have been forced to release the games even sooner and less finished.
All the N7 missions were recycled MP maps. And the citadel fetch
quests were worse than recycled enviroments. ME3 is also even more
linear.
The N7 maps are indeed shared with multiplayer, but you only need to do each of them once in single player, so I would hardly call that "recycling". And the citedel fetch quests were fun. I wouldn't buy a whole game for them, but I liked the little dialog segments a lot more than when running similar quests in DA:O or DA2. I don't know how anyone could get upset about them, I'm thinking perhaps that some people did them wrong, like picked one up, ran out to find that thing, came back, ran out for another one, etc. It's much more convenient to just pick them all up, then fully explor every system out there, and then come back with all the loot and hand it out to the necessary parties.
Not to mention Mike Laidlaw saying we are not going back to what
made DA:O great because "DA:O was broken." Right in the middle of a
thread about poeople saying they wanted some more DA:O elements back.
What's unreasonable about that? Just because people say that they want more DAO elements doesn't mean that they should get them.
Now I believe I made my point. We have 2 games that the fans
did not like at all, and were very vocal about on the forums. Some are
upset to the point where some people are doubting if they will buy
another Bioware game.
And yet their last three major releases have sold in the millions. Like it or not, people LIKED all three of them. People actually thought that they were really good, and will likely buy their next games as well. Yes, a VERY loud minority is making complete jack###es of themselves all over their message boards, but there's nothing they can really do about that, so their only real option is to stay calm and carry on.
If by "how Kirkwall has changed" you mean that it remained exactly the same through 10 years, then yea, we can agree on that.
The "10 year-long" story was jsut a marketing slogan. The whoel plot could ahve happened in a couple of weeks.
that would be a very busy three weeks, given that Aveline went from newbie guard to married guard captain, Hawke went from refugee to champion, the city was razed and then rebuilt, etc.
Retour en haut
