130 réponses à ce sujet

[Paromlin]

maikanix wrote...

I agree with most of what you've said. I especially hate level scaling. It's insulting to the players, in my opinion. Part of the fun is knowing that certain areas are more difficult than others, and trying them at a lower level, etc. Level scaling is a horrible idea that only sounds good on paper. I really, really, don't know what they were thinking when the RPG makers decided to do that.


 

That's how I feel about it, yes. I agree with the rest of your post as well.

[ChickenDownUnder]

I must give the OP props for writing out his opinion in a way that doesn't involve excessive use of capital letters, l33t speak, or a massive amount of cusswords. In fact, I even agree on several points. And anyone complaining about the length of the first post really should consider that they just played a game that had about 9 novels worth of writing... but I digress.



Despite all the game's problems, I still find myself enjoying it. There is no such thing as perfection, after all. The true test of a game's mettle is whether it can rise above any flaws and still be an enjoyable experience. For me at least, it does. Bioware just has to keep those bug-fixing patches coming out.



And what's this? No mention of the mage hats?

[Sabrestrikealpha]

General Stuff


- The origin stories are really cool. The part I liked best is that they got me to roleplay a character in a way different than I usually do. Normally, I'm mister nice guy, and I have a hard time picking the choices that make me a jerk (I was always a Paragon in Mass Effect). In DA though, the origins got me in "character" much more. After playing the Dwarf Noble origin for instance, I was completely condescending to anyone lower of the social ladder than my character (which was just about everybody).

- Game has the best random party banter ever! (Sten: You think I should remark upon the weather before I cut off a man's head? Allister: Never mind.)

- I understand that voice acting all of the main characters would have been too much work given the number of origin stories, but I miss the tonal choices of Mass Effect. They kept the flow of conversation going and I could go on autopilot in terms roleplaying rather than needing to read through each choice.

- More information on what exactly some skills do would be nice. I know that you don't want to open the hood entirely, but some things should be in the skill descriptions or tooltips. For instance, what does Mabari Dominince do? It takes an annoying amount of effort to open up the character screen and compare before/after when the specific effect could just go in a tooltip. This also has application when leveling up. You don't get so many levels that you can afford to waste too many choices on subpar skill/spells. I am in the habit of saving before every level up so I can go back and change things later, but it sometimes takes awhile to judge how worthwhile a choice was.


Tactics

I've read forums where people rave about the capacity of the tactics system to work wonders, but I found myself so frustrated with it that I eventually turned it off. I was surprised by this given that I played the hell out of FFXII and loved the whole "gambit" system, which was somewhat similar.

I eventually concluded that although tactics allows me to automate some of my groups tasks, it couldn't do many of the things I wanted it to. In other cases, it wasn't specific enough for my tastes. For instance, I found that the thresholds for defining when I wanted my characters to heal was too broad. Personally, I think there is a huge difference between 50% (it can wait) and 25% (too late). I found myself wanting a compromise value 35% or so. Also, I found it odd that we get conditions like "Health > 50%" but not the other way around. I'm much more concerned with my health below a level rather than above it.

I'd also like to see more positional tactics than are currently available. Having the general strategy define if a character stands their ground or runs seems needlessly limiting.


Combat

- I really like the pace of combat overall. Battles are quick enough that if I die it's not usually a marathon to get back to that point. On the other hand, they are not so frantic that I find myself scrambling to control my characters.

- Stuns/disables are currently way to powerful. It is quite easy to stun lock an enemy group into oblivion. There needs to be either diminishing returns or temporary immunity after being stunned.

- I'd like to see tooltips for buffs/debuffs up by the character portraits rather than by the skill bar. Given that there are not always obvious graphical effects when one of my party members is buffed/debuffed it is a pain to have to click on each individual character to see it. Also, some sort of icon on enemies that have a buff/debuff on them so I know not to waste extra effort/spells on an enemy that is already hit by something would be nice.

- I really want a way to change group formation via a button, which I currently need to do manually. When I come up against  a mage I find myself having to take a frustrating amount of time carefully positioning my group to avoid getting nuked by a single fireball.  I know this is a "strategic" game and there are some people who undoubtably enjoy this aspect of gameplay, but I'd rather just have a button that says "spread out" and be done with it.

- Some people seem to like the level scaling and others loathe it. I'm kind of indifferent to it. I certainly don't want the game to get too easy (and some of the patches are already starting to nerf if IMO), but at level 20 it seems strange that a group of wolves could in any way threaten my party.  I wouldn't mind seeing a Mass Effect style system where only the bosses are scaled. This seems to me to be a nice balance between feeling powerful enough to wade though hordes of lesser beasties while keeping the challenge of bigger fights. Maybe only scale the yellow and above creatures?

[Varenus Luckmann]

Cool story, bro.

[Elanareon]

People want a non-linear game with no level scaling.... HUWOW! If it didn't have level scaling wouldn't you be forces to go down a path according to your level? So at that point it would be linear. Then people would start ranting about "ITS TOO LINEAR!!!". hehehe =D

[metatrans]

i really do think this is a troll post. not a troll in the sense of someone with nothing to say who's just trying to spread grief. the OP is not that sort of troll.



however, the post was not written in a manner that gave any respect whatever to the people who might try to read the post. it is insulting both the Bioware and to other members of this community. the tone alone makes this a troll post.

[Paromlin]

I said to myself I'd ignore posters like Badesumofu, who'll manage to go through the disclaimer filter and start flinging **** and "discover" supposed logical fallacies (OMG point 1a and 5b cannot coexist because you used "or" instead of "and"!!), but I can't resist biting a bit since many responses were very positive and I must say I'm surprised. This being the Bioware bastion of fans and all..  

Badesumofu wrote...

There's a lot in that OP is that flat-out wrong. You can get high tier weapons and armor at low levels. Aodh particularly comes to mind. Then, some of the complaints are just bizare - not all attributes are equally good for all classes? Huh? When is that ever the case, and more importantly, why would you want it to be?

So a few exceptions make the difference? Good to know. I thought a party of 3-4 would need more than an Aodh, but hey, I must be flat out wrong because you said it. Does the material of unique items scale? I can't remember exactly.

Who said that all attributes should be equally good for all classes? Please, it's not healthy for a healthy discussion to flat-out lie. I said that the general (again: GENERAL) usefulness of certain stats is much higher than of certain other stats.

The combat is a bit ubalanced, but bare in mind this is a single-player game. It's balanced enough for what it is, although certain spells and talents do need work.

A "bit" imbalanced? I can just roll my eyes to this.

The level scaling is mostly pretty well implemented, I think. There are certain scenarios in the game that mean some scaling is needed. It's not always possible to decide that the area you're in is too hard and go somewhere. Often, it's either not possible, or not practical, or doing so would be massively immersion-breaking and nonsenical. You never see anything like level 20 rats, or pushover Dragons. There *is* a feeling of gaining power, as some monsters just never become that powerful, no matter how high level you get.

There are no scenarios what so ever in whatever game that "need" whatever type of level scaling.

Why would be immersion breaking to face a challenge too difficult for you and seek fortune elsewhere, to come back later when you're stronger? LOL It's certainly not immersion-breaking for me.

There's no feeling of getting powerful by levelling (yes, broken dexterity does make you very powerful when you pump it to the extreme).. but I hope you will somehow manage to understand the point. I'm talking about the relative power, power in relation to your opponents.

Also, I don't need to see level 20 rats to dislike level scaling.

It's only the quality of random drops that scales with your level (except for a certain armor set, and it irritates me that that set scales). Nearly all named items are fixed in power. I got Alistair to 42 armor at level 8, and let me tell you armor is not a terrible stat. He barely takes any damage at all, and it's not because of his defence rating.

"Only random drops". That's what, 99% of the items in teh game? LOL You say nearly all named items are fixed in power? Oh, so there are exceptions there as well? Might it be Aodh?

Really? Alistair takes no damage? I remembered having that dwarf in my party (forced in) with tons of armor and he was being damaged heavily and died fast in the deep roads, while my dex fighters lasted much longer and dealt more damage.
You need to rethink this position about armor being useful I believe. (Yeah, "useful" against enemies that are easy anyway.)

Not being hit > Armor in DA. Remember this, it will help on your next playthrough.

Your grasp of mathematics is not quite what it could be, either. A D100 is not any more or less random than a D20. It changes the scale. As I said before, there are balance issues in this game, but they aren't nearly as bad as you make out. If you played through the game with 2 rogues and one mage, then you can hardly expect great balance. Strength isn't as bad as you make out, either. As you pointed out, it contributes a lot to damage, and indirectly to armor (which is not useless).

Ah, this was expected. An angry biofan commenting my grasp of xy. I could insult you back now and say that your "grasp of words" is not quite what it could be, but I won't.
You missunderstand my point, I didn't mean to imply that a D100 is less or more random than a D20, I meant to say that on such a large scale small numbers don't matter. And the *scale* is larger so it's harder to balance.
Let me explain this to you in a simple way. When you level up in DA you can get only 3 points in defense, that's +3% defense. In D&D you can get on a level up, with a feat or stat, + 1 in defense which  actually *means* something, unlike the miserable 3% (and that only if you spend all points on this single stat).
You see, the difference is noticeable only much later in the game; when, parallelly, nothing can hit you anymore. Funny.

And how does it matter if I had 3 characters? It would matter if I said OMG this game is so hard.. please make it easier! Then you'd have the right to point out I could use another character.

Imporant point: armor is not useless!!

Again; wrong. Useless against anything that poses a threat.

Enemies will rarely have more AP than you have armor, which means that each point of armor youhave will reduce the damage from each hit from between 0.5 and 1. Mitigation is always important for a tank, because burst damage is what gets a tank killed. Mitigation is a more even damage reduction than avoidance, and so is crucial to preventing death. People who say armor is useless don't really understand how things work.

Oh yeah, it works great in practice. Haha
You absorb 15 damage and get 20 every 0,5 seconds. LOL

There is no need for an action queue. This is a fully realtime combat system. There are no combat rounds. The tactics system is your action queue, and it works better than a simple action queue as there was in kotor.

When you control a character, you know, the tactics system doesn't work for that character. That's when, you know, the action queue would be very useful.

You don't like that the in game cultures are based on real world cultures. Okay... so what, they are meant to invent accents that are not based on real ones? Right. This complaint makes no sense.

This comment makes no sense. I don't think they should invent new accents, but they shouldn't link accent + names + history and pack it all in a country that resembles a real world one.
But if they want Thedas to be a big real-world culture pot with all the accents from French to German to Italian to Spanish... so be it. But I find it dumb.

This game does have flaws, balance is probably the biggest issue for me. A lot of your complaints either don't make sense, or are factually incorrect, or just demonstrate that you just don't understand certain game mechanics.

I'm glad I helped you with this post to understand things you didn't previously understand very well (or at all). Stay well.

Modifié par Paromlin, 17 décembre 2009 - 06:54 .

[Paromlin]

metatrans wrote...


however, the post was not written in a manner that gave any respect whatever to the people who might try to read the post. it is insulting both the Bioware and to other members of this community. the tone alone makes this a troll post.

Oh, sorry if I didn't excuse myself 10 times and asked for forgivness before making any negative comments.

Would something like this be better:

"Ok, this is a fabulous game, beyond anything ever invented on Earth and elsewhere, but I dislike this one thing a bit. Well, I don't really dislike it.. it's just that I think it could have been done a little differently, you know. Just a lil' bit. No, no, sorry, you're right, I was a fool, it's almost prefect! No, no, not almost. Purely perfect! Sorry for the negative opinion, I hope I haven't hurt the sensitive sensitivities of Bioware and their fans! Sorry again!"

Wouldn't that be perfect?

(It's not a caricature, it's how many posts here actually sound.)

[Survalli]

best review i've seen on these boards in a long time. while Dragon Age is the best RPG we have seen since Mass Effect. Im afraid im going to have to tuck this one right next to Neverwinter Nights2...generic, linear, uninspiring combat, formulalmatic character design and plot, and the worst itemization ever in an RPG.

Modifié par Survalli, 17 décembre 2009 - 07:06 .

[Mordaedil]

Nothing like a good review of bile to ruin an otherwise perfectly good, cold day.



Is this really it? This is your list of complaints to make you think Dragon Age is a bad game?



Okay, whatever buddy.

[GeorgeZip]

I only skimmed the op because I didn't want to read any spoilers. That said I'm about halfway through playing the game and I really like it. The combat is fun, there seems to be a decent amount of skills to customize your character (kind of D&D lite which is ok), the story is good, not up there with BG2 or the Witcher, but good; the companions are mostly interesting, and the game in todays standards is HUGE. I did try Oblivion and quit at level 30ish. The scaling in that game was annoying (everything about that game annoyed me). In this game I really didn't notice scaling. I think this is because of how you progress thru the game. You aren't forced to tread the same ground over and over, so new area = challenging fight. That's how it should be. Old areas with respawns that are now your current level is where Oblivion got annoying.



So I'd have to disagree if you're saying this is not a good game. There's always room for improvement but it's pretty solid from what I've seen so far.

[ejikvkaske]

The OP obviously wants a BG3. Unfortunately for him, this is DA:O. It's not perfect, but it's still quite enjoyable.

[Survalli]

ejikvkaske wrote...

The OP obviously wants a BG3. Unfortunately for him, this is DA:O. It's not perfect, but it's still quite enjoyable.

nothing wrong with wanting BG3,  in my heart though i know that no company will ever put in the amount of effort into game play+content  that we saw in the earlier BG's and Fallout's, and even Planescape...those days are long gone.  The talent and origninality of thinking has been replaced by lifeless design tools, outsourced artists, outsourced coders,  and publically traded stock.   

so yeah, im content to put down my 49.99 ,  this is the best im going to get in this generation of console focused gaming. 

[Aidunno]

[quote]it definitely wasn't engaging enough to counter-balance all the drawbacks of this game and make me awe before the story alone. Or replay it. Namely, the story itself was ok and interesting at certain points, but that isn't sufficient to thoroughly enjoy a game in my book, at all.[/quote]
Personal preference here. I found the story quite engaging and wanted to complete it. There are some "slow" bits but I find that it most books as well. How many people struggle through Lord of the Rings through the second book ?

[quote]Everything level scales....[/quote]
The scaling happens within an area "floor" and "ceiling". Go somewhere too soon and you find yourself out of your depth with the first engagement. Once you go to an area the encounter levels are "fixed" meaning coming back to the area later at a higher level you will see the advantages to your character progression. I don't see any better way to provide a challenge at all levels for a game which doesn't direct you through a fixed story path which I for one do not like. Swings and roundabouts and personal opinions again. DA:O does it far better than Oblivion for example.

[quote]When you finish the linear part of the game, i.e. after the battle of Ostagar, you're already about level 5. From there you can go to several places on the world map. Main quest locations on the world map consist of several areas. These places could have been intelligently designed to contain low level monsters in the initial area(s) (around level 5) and then would advance in levels as you get deeper in said area cluster. ....
See, it can be done. Non-linear exploration *and* set levels.[/quote]
To a degree they have done this but it is not "obvious" which is an indication of good design. True, loot doesn't scale but the game doesn't appear to have the focus on loot. This is actually a good thing as it means you have to pick and choose equipment rather than having all the best equipment. It makes a very nice change.

[quote]Lets start from the base; they decided to use a d100 as the combat die[/quote]
Many of my favourite roleplaying games are based on D100 and do not suffer because of it. I'm never a fan though of "class" and "levels" in a roleplaying game although this is something the majority do.

[quote]Weapon damage vs bonus damage from attributes. ...
Weapon damage should be considerable and important compared to your
attribute bonus so you can actually ENJOY finding better weapons.
[/quote]
I do notice differences although you are right in the attribute modification being too great. Then again in real life a wimp wielding an iron bar does far less damage than someone who knows how to use that strength. Using an iron bar or a silver bar doesn't enhance damage. Comes back to why you are playing.. As a powergamer or as a character in a story.

[quote]Armor. Useless.
...
Defense (=dexterity) >>> Armor
Dex (attack *and* defense) >> Str
[/quote]
Never really played with Dex vs Armor but then I wasn't trying to "beat" the system I was trying to play the game. Dual wield at the moment is, in my opinion, overpowered as a whole but then again I have also heard the complaint that mages are overpowered. For reviewing purposes I can see where you are coming from.

[quote]Attributes. On one hand we have stats which are completely ignored like constitution or willpower (w. for non-mages at least) because they're objectively not even close in usefulness to some other stats, and on the other hand we have a stat like dexterity which is absurdly overpowered.[/quote]
Most RPG gaming systems have this problem. Runequest and Pendragon (I know they are old) had a system with high stats in one area impacting others negatively though secondary attributes modifying skills. Large size for example would allow you to cause more damage but would negatively impact sneaking. There are always "key" stats though which are more useful than others. This is even more noticable in class based RPG's.

[quote]Disables/stuns...What we got in DA are ridiculously long stunning spells which utterly imbalance an already imbalanced combat system to the point of making most fights trivial. Although, they've acknowledged this mistake (at least one) and somewhat reduced the absurdly long stuns in the last patch.[/quote]
One I have to agree with although bear in mind how many people also found the combat really difficult.

[quote]Some spells, talents, specialisations and skills are utterly useless while others are incredibly overpowered. I wonder who in their right mind would spend any skill points on combat tactics for example?[/quote]
Me.. Not having to micromange every character was very useful. Have to agree about some spells/talents/skills etc but at the end of the day, this is a new IP. Every RPG adapts and gets modified as it goes forward.

[quote]AI is atrociously bad. Why are players able to pick enemies one by one? Why don't enemies act as a group if they stand next to each other? It's BASIC AI.[/quote]
Never noticed this. Normally you can quickly get over your head if you rush in. Luring is possible although I had a nasty suprise in the ome building when engaging one group caused another group to attack from another direction. This may be scripted behaviour though.

[quote]No action queue! Why?? Come one.. give me a break.[/quote]
Because that is what tactics for.. you know that skill you didn't want to use.

[quote]No combat log[/quote]
Hardly a big deal. You are provided enough information but not too much. Maybe I'm in a minority but if they had a combat log I for one would want it optional. I'm not in it to beat the system, I'm playing for fun.

[quote]- Combat is too chaotic and fast for my taste. ...
Something that's way weaker and less enjoying than a ruleset that was not even conceived as a computer game system; D&D
[/quote]Combat to me was paced about right with the ability to pause being very useful for some fights. Other times I could simply let my party fight without micromanaging due to the tactics set. What version is D&D at ? OK never tried 4.0, but certainly version 3 had major faults. It's also a refreshing change from something like D&D.
 
[quote]Forest design.
Now, this is not about graphics. It's about a "blockbuster" game being in development for 5+ years and yet has forests with vegetation levitating above ground on every corner. [/quote]
Never noticed it in game, probably because I wasn't looking for it. Had trouble finding it in your slideshows although did notice it in one or two shots. Hardly "on every corner".

[quote]The overall feel of the world.[/quote]
Like it.. personal preference. I prefer to have some people around but not too many people slowing the system down for no reason whatsoever other than as simple "decoration". As for Zevran being Italian I looked at him more as being like Antonio Banderas (spanish I believe). You make your own preconceptions and read into it what you will.

[quote]Dialogs.[/quote]
There's a reason the Turing test for AI where you talk to a computer and person with the goal being not to be able to tell the difference has never been done. Even with people using text the tone and context can easily be lost. It's one of the common problems with forums as well.
 
[quote]Side (quest) content. The difference between main quest content and side quest content is abysmal - in quality, quantity, detail. I expected some areas on the world map to be completely side quest related (and at least bigger than Flameth's hut), but no much luck.[/quote]
Whilst I agree I expected larger side quests (and I don't want to even mention my dislike for DLC) I found some cases (hut mentioned) a nice experience enhancing the game enjoyment considerably.

To sum up my views... There are quite a few things I do not like about DA:O but I am overall very impressed with the game on the PC. For the start of a new IP they are going in the right direction and look forward both to user developed content and enhancements they will do to the gameplay itself and also the setting. Key things which I liked about it include that it is not an RPG FPS or a Diablo wannabe but a true RPG and the fact that they have concentrated on the single player experience.

Modifié par Aidunno, 17 décembre 2009 - 08:58 .

[Beechwell]

A question about the proposed workaround to scaling: I don't see how the OP's system is any better than the current one. Personally I would say it sounds much worse. It practically forces the player to abandon all the mid-game parts to "level up" to access the later parts and resolutions. And that is just terrible for storytelling (and thus immersion). The alternative is to accept huge difficulty oscillations (along the mandatory storyline) that I just don't see as fun (and I believe most players wouldn't either).



What I also don't understand is your example for bad dialog. You have three options: "You are a friend" - "You are not a friend" - "You are more than a friend". I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that "You are not a friend" can mean "I love you" rather than "You are more than a friend". Unless you really want to find a fault here.



Some other points I agree with to an extent. But none of them I find to be a big issue. In particular such minor things as ocasionally floating grass.

[Faerell Gustani]

I agree with the OP on all of the game mechanics and game balance issues.

However, I disagree about immersion. I found the story to be the redeeming quality. Not the main story, nor the world.

Yeah, it's a medieval Europe knockoff fantasy world (and very blatantly so) with direct real world equivalents. At least they bothered to shuffle the geographical locations of the countries unlike say...7th Sea (AEG can be horribly unoriginal, but let's not compare DA to that for originality. It's like saying you're smarter than a preschooler.).

The thing that made immersion possible was the companion storylines and the high quality of voice acting. On my second run through I'm noticing that the only truly redeeming parts of this game involve the companions.

Even the main storyline is very cookie cutter.

[Wolfva2]

Is liverwurst and headcheese on rye really a good sandwhich? Is blood pudding really a good sausage? Is boiled lamb's' head really a nice delicacy? Is it really helpful to ask questions whose answer depends on the personal preferances of those asked?



Is DA a good game? I like it. A lot of other people do also. And, a lot of other people don't like it. Stop worrying about what other people like and play it, see if YOU like it. If you do, then great! If you don't, then you know better then to buy another RPG of this type.

[Gracchio]

I honestly do disagree with your view on the scaling thing. It keeps things interesting and while static enemies might work too, i'd hate to go to an area and find myself with enemies who don't require any skill or tactics to kill because of a fairly large level gap.

Also the level design... I didn't even notice the slightly floating trees and such until you mentioned it . Yes this does seem a little sloppy but it's hardly noticable most of the time and doesn't influence the game a lot, though it should probably be fixed at some point.

As for the game mechanics, this should be top priority in my opinion and i'm sure bioware is working very hard on it right now. As it is, Ohgren is rather useless, not so much as sten tho compared to most party members. Also I specced leliana as an archer and a ranger. The result was her dying every 10 seconds and virtually NO damage output although her spec is fine and she has t7 stuff. Then there's shale and dog. Not quite useless but not very good either considering both have almost no armor tweakability and dog doesn't have any real dialogue tho he does crack me up from time to time. Sadly enough he's pretty useless in combat.

Myself playing a 2h warrior, alistair is needed as the tank, wynne as healer and morrigan as ranged damage/backup healing in order to be able to play smoothly. This is ok for my first playthrough, but I'd rather have a very different party on my 2nd.

Once mechanics are fixed and hopefully there will be a tome to reset all talents later, this game will be one of the best gaming experiences of the decade.

Modifié par Gracchio, 17 décembre 2009 - 10:48 .

[Gracchio]

Paromlin wrote...

Something I forgot.. who misses houses you can actually enter? Houses not just for scenery..

Oooh yeah that sounds great! Then put people in the house who are shocked by your intrusion and you can kill them.

And then the guards chase you shouting HALT LAWBREAKER!

[Edelwolf]

It's either this, or replaying one of the oldie rpgs for the millionth time.

[dreadnoughtjs]

Despite thinking DA is a great game (perhaps because of the lack of decent RPG's being released lately), im gonna have to agree with the op on a lot of the points. DA fell short in quite a few areas imo.

[nicodeemus327]

I personally liked the combat. Sure maybe some classes and abilities were stronger then others but it was a pretty diverse system.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 17 décembre 2009 - 02:16 .

[TheRealIncarnal]

Meh, All I can really say is that I completely disagree with you, but you can think whatever you'd like about it. I just wonder why you would bother putting so much effort into a game you don't like.

[Soretooth]

Paromlin wrote...

Disclaimer: content may cause severe shock and hysteria among Bioware toadies. If you're part of the aforementioned group, you're advised not to read.

No, I don't think DA is a good game and I'm glad I didn't spend any money on it. 
 

What is your definition of a "toadie?"  I really wish you'd answer this so we can better understand where you're coming from with your ranting.  To start a post in this manner is completely dismissive, since you chose to disrespect the DA:O community from the start, whether we agree with you or not.

You claim to have not spent any money on the game, so that can be interpreted in several ways.  I intrepret it in this way: you haven't played the game.  Or if you did, then it wasn't a complete game, because your time line doesn't jive with having played through the game and then waiting  a month before writing your review (your word).

Sure, DA:O has its problems.  Not any game is perfect.  But for you to dismiss it is an insult, again, to the gaming community who voted it as Best RPG of the Year and Best PC Game of the Year, despite what you may feel about that!  Plus, DA:O won two music awards.

So, despite what you have to say, I dismiss you.  I'm not going to call you a "toadie" or anything else, because my "anything else" would probably get me banned.

One thing you should keep in mind: Disrespect breeds disrespect.

For those of you reading this post and haven't yet decided to "buy" DA:O, get it!  It's an award-winning, outstanding RPG with award-winning music.  You'll enjoy it.