151 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not see where you get that DA2 is Hack and Slash? If that the case is refers to all Bioware games since BG1. The only games that that term may not refer to would be turn based games like Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance.

The same mechanics are basically used in BG1 to DA2. One must separate animations from game mechanics. The animations may be over the top in some cases but the mechanics are essential the same. The speed may be different but as has been stated on this forum many thought DAO to be too slow. DA2 is thought to be too fast. The point is BG1, BG2 and NWN were faster than DAO.
All the games implement pause and play in realtime..

As far as some of skills in DA2 being over the top that goes back to DAO and the expansion Awakening. Every class in Awakening got hit with the super stick.

Normal human Hawke maybe but those normal humans can become reavers, templars, berserkers, assassins, duelists etc to the point the character is not longer an ordinary human. Templars cannot be ordinary if they are going to guard mages. The training that is undertaken makes them extraordinary.

Nothing you said was racist but the title should said action oriented (or Hack and slash) combat and left any reference to an ethnicity out.

@ Realmzmaster
yes but that is missing the forest for the tree.

I agree with you about the combat mechanics and the silly animation. We could even say that albeit not being remotely over the top as in DA:2 DA:0 animation were equally rooted  in fantasy world.

The "problem" comes from the control of the companions, the map, the  waves, the paratroopers, ACT III design. the lack of consequences and choice and the lack of customisation (talents wise) for the char and the party.

 

All that makes the combat hack and slash if you compare it to a sub-optimal party in DA:A. My play through as vanguard berserker looked more like a Severance, KoA,  a dragon knight saga or return to castle wolfenstein run than a NWN (1- or 2) or BG (1 or  2) or even a witcher (1 or 2)  run.  

Now if we are talking a run with two mages in DA:0 well almost all the comparison I used don't makes sense.
if i am honest the feature that made DA:0 combat more viable for suboptimal are not really combat related but game design related.

 

if you are used to shoot 5.56/223 you will find full bore cartridge recoil harder.
if you are used to shoot .300 WM or 7.9*68 without muzzle break, full bore cartridge is really gentle.
how much hack and slash you find  DA:2 is the same

 

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 13 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .

[Realmzmaster]

philippe willaume wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not see where you get that DA2 is Hack and Slash? If that the case is refers to all Bioware games since BG1. The only games that that term may not refer to would be turn based games like Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance.

The same mechanics are basically used in BG1 to DA2. One must separate animations from game mechanics. The animations may be over the top in some cases but the mechanics are essential the same. The speed may be different but as has been stated on this forum many thought DAO to be too slow. DA2 is thought to be too fast. The point is BG1, BG2 and NWN were faster than DAO.
All the games implement pause and play in realtime..

As far as some of skills in DA2 being over the top that goes back to DAO and the expansion Awakening. Every class in Awakening got hit with the super stick.

Normal human Hawke maybe but those normal humans can become reavers, templars, berserkers, assassins, duelists etc to the point the character is not longer an ordinary human. Templars cannot be ordinary if they are going to guard mages. The training that is undertaken makes them extraordinary.

Nothing you said was racist but the title should said action oriented (or Hack and slash) combat and left any reference to an ethnicity out.

@ Realmzmaster
yes but that is missing the forest for the tree.

I agree with you about the combat mechanics and the silly animation. We could even say that albeit not being remotely over the top as in DA:2 DA:0 animation were equally rooted  in fantasy world.

The "problem" comes from the control of the companions, the map, the  waves, the paratroopers, ACT III design. the lack of consequences and choice and the lack of customisation (talents wise) for the char and the party.

 

All that makes the combat hack and slash if you compare it to a sub-optimal party in DA:A. My play through as vanguard berserker looked more like a Severance, KoA,  a dragon knight saga or return to castle wolfenstein run than a NWN (1- or 2) or BG (1 or  2) or even a witcher (1 or 2)  run.  

Now if we are talking a run with two mages in DA:0 well almost all the comparison I used don't makes sense.
if i am honest the feature that made DA:0 combat more viable for suboptimal are not really combat related but game design related.

 

if you are used to shoot 5.56/223 you will find full bore cartridge recoil harder.
if you are used to shoot .300 WM or 7.9*68 without muzzle break, full bore cartridge is really gentle.
how much hack and slash you find  DA:2 is the same

 

phil

What you are talking about has little to do with Hack and Slash. You are refering to game design. The map is no different from the map used in DAO. You have a city map and a world map same as DAO. Both use fast travel. The waves were over done in DA2, but that started in DAO with several of the side quests. The wave mechanic could have been used better which is what happened in Legacy and MoTA. Paradroping enemies just shows bad design of the spawn points not that it is Hack and Slash.

Act III end battles should have been done better. If you are Pro-mage the one with Orsino should not have happened. What should have happened is that Hawke gets to see revenge on Orsino or let him live.

Choice and consequence is debatable. I felt that the choices Hawke made on a personal level did have consequence. The letters that came in reflected the consequence or lack thereof. What you chose to do with Feynriel has consequence. Not world changing but consequences nevertheless. If Hawke turns him over to Torpor he becomes an unstoppable abomination. If Hawke kills him in the Fade, he is tranquil. If Hawke helps him master himself he goes on to help others.
The choices and consequences occur on a personal level which I fine more satisfying, but YMMV.

[Cimeas]

I preferred the DA2 combat. DA1 you also used the same tactics in every fight, but it was even more boring because some of the dungeons were an incredibly huge grind and each fight took like 10 minutes.

[Realmzmaster]

Faerunner wrote...

I firmly believe that game mechanics should go toward the desired theme or aesthetic. If you have a game that takes place in a fantasy medieval setting, with characters that dress in fantasy medieval clothes/armor and wield fantasy medieval weapons, then the combat should look like fantasy medieval people fighting each other. (Swinging swords, thrusting daggers, firing arrows, casting ye olde mage spells.)

Few things pull me out of the experience quite like having a consistently slow "medieval" theme only to have a fast, explosive action scene that looks like it belongs in a different genre. DA2 combat looks more like a cross between one of those Japanese street fighter games you find in a pizza arcade and a gun fight you'd find in a modern warfare or sci fi shooter. Bianca (the crossbow) sounded more like a Gatling gun for crying out loud! Replace the arrows with bullets and it's the exact same thing. It's just too much.

Bianca is a gatling gun! That is it purpose. It is the only rapid fire crossbow in existence. So therefore it is unique. I find it amusing that gamers are willing to accept mages shooting fire balls, arrows of frost and fire with plus two to damage, scattershot, bursting arrow, frightening visage but a rapid fire crossbow cannot happen? Legacy (assuming you take Varric with you) gives more backstory on Bianca and its creator. The gamer finds out that Bianca was the only one the creator could bet to work.  Also the design of a repeating crossbow dates back to ancient Rome where Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century) created the Polybolos which was a repeating ballista. The Chinese also created a repeating crossbow which dates from then 4th century BC.

So the repeating crossbow was invented long before medieval times. Many here are going on their impression of medieval times and not what was actually available and can be used as material in the game.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 octobre 2012 - 06:41 .

[Overlord_Mephist]

HOUSE MDD wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

It seems we can all agree that OP doesn't actually play any Japanese games and is simply being racist. Sadly it's not uncommon to see people on BSN bemoaning anything Japanese.

I find that really hard to belive. if you read any of my posts in relevance to this thread. on he subject of racism i find it extremley offensive for u to say that and that your definition of the term to be slighly odd, the fact im half japaneese ( on my fathers side ) and would never insult a race especially 1 that is half my own. not that i have to justify myself to you. it seems the title was mis-inturpreted, as what it meant was the action style combat of jag's dmc etc does not suit DA2. but i couldnt fi all that into the title. that fact you think that is of your own assumption and i have no time for assumptions.

I'm sure you're female, gay, muslim, etc.. when the situation demands too...

Its hard to take it any other way then some kind of prejudice since in these forums:

You can't criticize Bethesda for being unable to write a story(or make a decent game) because it makes you a self-hating weeaboo
You can't like anime, or videogames from japan(which is most of em) because it makes you a self-hating weeaboo
It feels  like I'm in a CoD/MoH forum with extra lowbrow at times

Why else would you bring up "japanese action game style"?  God of War, prince of persia, darksiders, etc... all had a DMC style combat.  They're all well known too.  As I said earlier, Its hard to take it any other way then some kind of prejudice.

[philippe willaume]

Realmzmaster wrote...

SNIP

What you are talking about has little to do with Hack and Slash. You are refering to game design. The map is no different from the map used in DAO. You have a city map and a world map same as DAO. Both use fast travel. The waves were over done in DA2, but that started in DAO with several of the side quests. The wave mechanic could have been used better which is what happened in Legacy and MoTA. Paradroping enemies just shows bad design of the spawn points not that it is Hack and Slash.

Act III end battles should have been done better. If you are Pro-mage the one with Orsino should not have happened. What should have happened is that Hawke gets to see revenge on Orsino or let him live.

Choice and consequence is debatable. I felt that the choices Hawke made on a personal level did have consequence. The letters that came in reflected the consequence or lack thereof. What you chose to do with Feynriel has consequence. Not world changing but consequences nevertheless. If Hawke turns him over to Torpor he becomes an unstoppable abomination. If Hawke kills him in the Fade, he is tranquil. If Hawke helps him master himself he goes on to help others.
The choices and consequences occur on a personal level which I fine more satisfying, but YMMV.

For the hack and slash
That was king of my point.  Fundamentally DA:2 is not hack and slash, like Severance or Diablo is. Regardless of that My run of a vanguard berserker felt like a hack and slash just like Severance . (and a two mages party in DA:0 fells the same).See enemy => select talents=>finish off mook for stamina repeat and rinse. I had to think harder in London Hell gate or Return to castle Wolfenstein.What i am getting at is that it does not matter if the game was designed as an H&S, if the way it plays makes it feel like it is.

I totally agree with you on the combat because what made the combat tactical in DA:0 was not the combat design. it was the fact that you could 
make you companion stay somewhere without them following you.
make your companion stop what they were doing immediately and do what you ordered.
The dungeon map  i.e. the battle area had a bigger usable space.
You had two weapons specialisations
You could use choke points meaningfully
You could detect you enemy from far away (skill or scouting)
(and the AI path finding usually spread the enemy arrival.)

all that is gone IN DA:2. So I end up playing the same flavour of vanguard berserker as the rest of the world.and it is always the same thing from there.  (again like playing two mage party in DA:0).

Now if you did not have to use that to prevent your DA:O party to get slapped silly at each encounters and you compare DA:2 to what ever H&S well yes the tactical scripts (much better in DA:2 than in DA:0) , the crafting gives you a flexibility that you will not find in a H&S game. so in that respect DA:2 is light years away.

Waves or paratrooper are perfectly fine in small doses. In fact they could be a nice tactical challenge.but used all the time, it becomes quickly boring. and yes legacy and Moat where an improvement.but for me,  it does not change the repeatedly boring linear end result of DA:2 combat game play .

For the consequences,
I meant game play wise i.e. siding with the mage or the templar does not change how the game played it changes only the epilogue.however siding with the werewolves or the elves does, peeing or not in Andrade ashes does.and all those are side line in the DA:2 stories.Regardless of who you choose you will get either the elves or the werewolves as troops for the final battle. but whomever you get is a consequences of what you did.
ie i would expect that the way i resolved issues with the different faction would affect how the chantry, mage, templar saw me. ie like it happens with the Arishok.

if we talk about character level i would say that DA:2 is the same as DA:OIn both game you had the option to deal with enemies/situation  a different ways that matters at a character level. (for example the barmaid in Redcliff in DA:0 or your example in DA:2)
Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 13 octobre 2012 - 08:09 .

[philippe willaume]

simfamSP wrote...

The "problem" comes from the control of the companions, the map, the waves, the paratroopers, ACT III design. the lack of consequences and choice and the lack of customisation (talents wise) for the char and the party.

That does not make it a 'hack n slash.' The term is fundemental to the combat.

If you choose to limit your understanding of term to that definition, you will miss the point that people are trying to make.  What i am getting at is when people call DA:2 hack and slash, they  know that it is a not a H&S design but it feels like it when you play.
That felling is not due to the design of the combat per se, though it is obvioulsy part of it, it is a result of how the game plays compared to your references.

Combat system do not exist in vacuum, they are or should be integrated to the game supporting them.

I fully agree that it is not a hack and slash game per design but when you play it coming a sub-optimal party in DA:0. it sure as hell feels like it.  Just like it probably does not if you come from a run in Diablo perspective.

It is exactly like why some of us find DA:0  very tactical, and for me it is as tactically as good as Silent storm or
X-com, it is not because of the combat system. it is because of the very things you quote.

Or to put it an other way, if you play DA:O with two mages in the party, it is pretty much the same play style as in DA:2.

The difference is that in DA:2, you can't use the thing that made DA:O tactical and  despite that the tactical aspect of DA:2 that is more elaborated than your average hack and slash game it is far behind  what  you can do in DA:0.


In DA:0 you had a tactical situation through skills or scouting,  you could position your mages to control choke point  (or created them artificially with traps or using the grease barrel and a fire based spell), put
 you archers  to get  a good enfilade position and so that he can support the mage if need be ,what
you do with your  warrior and/or  rogue would depends of what the situation is. 
 

In DA:2 move forward see enemy, engage vanguard berserker,
kill a mooks to get stamina. rise and repeat.  (i.e. the same as fire storm +tremor and the rogue and warrior finishing off the rest in DA:0 when playing with two mages)
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 octobre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Astranagant]

Japanese style? I asume the OP is a Japanophobe who simply slaps the label of "japanese style" on anything he doesn't like, because no Japanese game has ever played like DA or DA2. Devil May Cry played like Diablo when you were juggling enemies in the air with dual pistols, but that's about it.

[philippe willaume]

Astranagant wrote...

Japanese style? I asume the OP is a Japanophobe who simply slaps the label of "japanese style" on anything he doesn't like, because no Japanese game has ever played like DA or DA2. Devil May Cry played like Diablo when you were juggling enemies in the air with dual pistols, but that's about it.

Well I think the OP was referring to BFS and over the top animation that are common anime and  JRPG.
I suspect that the endless mincing for stupid amount of damage on 10^9 hit point did have FF whatever reminiscence as well
(  )


what he meant was DA:2  combat  felt more like  final fantasy and DA:O combat more like Valkyria chronicle. (yes i know it is turn based but we are talking about the feel of the play) and really nothing on the overal quality of JRPG of which some are good and some are bad.

I would have said that  it is just as borderline disingenuous to take it a japanophobe comment as it is to take it as meaning that JRPG are all about H&S but to be honest it really depends on your experience with DA:0 and DA:2 and JRPG.

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 octobre 2012 - 11:20 .

[Raging_Pulse]

I'm not much into fantasy genre (not just video games but in general), and even I know that DA2 is not an "action game". Just playing the Demo was enough for me to realise that.

I honestly don't know where that myth of DA2 being "hack and slash" and "action" game came from. It plays esentially exactly the same as DA:O, as far as I can tell. You can bash your keyboard like a hamster on LSD, but that won't make your character in game swing his sword any faster -- it is entirely dependant on distribution of attributes, equipped items, active spells, etc.

How can a game in which combat is based on character's autoattack even be considered to be a "hack and slash" or "clickfest" ffs? 

[Akugagi]

The animations in DA2 were awesome. There was some proper impact with the Two handed sword, rather than the lazy slashes of DA:O, also the Mage staff animations for basic attack were incredibly great, even though everyone did the same coreography and it looked kindof funny if there were 2 or more mages in the party (for example if your Hawke is a mage and you are doing some companion mission for Anders).

I don't understand the button mashing? Is it some console thing? For me, I just click on an enemy and let the guy auto-attack the enemy. You don't have to re-click him to attack him every time lol. Sure, you have to click again if you use skills, but that's exactly the same way it was in DA:O.

Modifié par Akugagi, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:41 .

[nuclearpengu1nn]

Hawke: Oh no, a Dragon!!
*A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A
Hawke: Hah! I win!

[MichaelStuart]

Just to be clear, you can't actual button-bash in Dragon Age 2.
You press A, character does a attack. Doesn't matter how many times you press the A button, the character won't attack again until it done its attack.
For example, I can press the A button six times in the same time it takes the character do one attack with a great sword. The Character is still only going to attack once.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Realmzmaster wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Androme wrote...

Good.. Good! Keep up the selfhating of everything Western and the glorifying of anything non-Western, also, keep defending the use of JRPG-like combat mechanics in a Western-RPG!

On a more serious note; No more JRPG combat indeed, PLEASE BioWare.

I agree I prefer Western RPGs. JRPGs are too linear for me.

What makes you think that western crpgs are any less linear? Games from BG1 to now are linear. The only ones that may give the impression of not being linear are Elder Scroll games and other open world games. The main plot in those games are extremely linear. OPen world games are based on exploration. Story based games (which Bioware makes) then to be more linear because they have to be to tell the story. As far as westen crpgs go what about Diablo or Dungeon Seige which are very linear.

I just meant that I  like to make choices that impact the Story. I know some things must be linear in order to tell a story I just like making decisions and making my mark on the world. DAO did this all the while telling a great story. So did The Witcher 2. It had a lot of things that could be considered linear but you could make choices that impact the story.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

HOUSE MDD wrote...

Imho the combat cheapend DA2 turning it into a button spamming action game, rather than the technical gameplay of its predecessor. i hear from various interviews you are going back to your DAO roots with combat and character customisation. which is good as i hated having a bag full of items that i couldnt equip on my allies, though i hear the collecting and customisation will play more of a role towards the story this time which sounds interesting,

I have to agree. I am not a big fan of "Button Awesome". I also didn't like the fact that enemies pretty much always came in three waves. It would have been okay if it had happened a little less often.

The animations were often goofy, whether they were made by the PC, Party Members, or attacking foes. My most hated were Dwarven rogues who do circus backflips and then disappear in a puff of smoke, the way Hurlocks mosied when they walked, slain enemies falling apart as chunks of meat, and the two-handed sword power jumping power attack I have dubbed the "Bumbah Leap". I'll take what BioWare considered to be stale and repetitive animations from the first game (with the occasional random decapitation throw in for good measure) over Button Awesome, and pretty much everything associated with it any day.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

hobbit_of_the_shire wrote...

I agree that the animations were too cartoony. Mages waving around staves like nun-chucks, warriors swinging around a sword 4X their weight as if it was plastic and rogues moving like a Star Trek transporter beam.

Dragon Age is fairly cartoony in a lot of ways to begin, by I see what you're saying. I think the mage nun-chucks was an attempt to allow mages to wade into combat so that they wouldn't just be support characters in the way they were in the first game. Your mileage may vary on how successful BioWare was at that...

In the absence of Arcane Warrior specialization (it's a lost tradition, no reason for it to exist beyond the Warden's adventuring party from DA:O), I can understand why they wanted to redo the mages the way they did, especially with the more action-oriented combat system they developed for DA II.

I dislike a lot of the batttle animations, but in all honesty I am a little more on the fence about the mages and their staves in DA II. It is pretty fun to flourish a mage staff while running around and exploring. :happy:

[AppealToReason]

Honest question,

how many of you bashing "press the A button" are aware that in DA2 auto attack was under the options menu?

[Realmzmaster]

philippe willaume wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

The "problem" comes from the control of the companions, the map, the waves, the paratroopers, ACT III design. the lack of consequences and choice and the lack of customisation (talents wise) for the char and the party.

That does not make it a 'hack n slash.' The term is fundemental to the combat.

If you choose to limit your understanding of term to that definition, you will miss the point that people are trying to make.  What i am getting at is when people call DA:2 hack and slash, they  know that it is a not a H&S design but it feels like it when you play.
That felling is not due to the design of the combat per se, though it is obvioulsy part of it, it is a result of how the game plays compared to your references.

Combat system do not exist in vacuum, they are or should be integrated to the game supporting them.

I fully agree that it is not a hack and slash game per design but when you play it coming a sub-optimal party in DA:0. it sure as hell feels like it.  Just like it probably does not if you come from a run in Diablo perspective.

It is exactly like why some of us find DA:0  very tactical, and for me it is as tactically as good as Silent storm or
X-com, it is not because of the combat system. it is because of the very things you quote.

Or to put it an other way, if you play DA:O with two mages in the party, it is pretty much the same play style as in DA:2.

The difference is that in DA:2, you can't use the thing that made DA:O tactical and  despite that the tactical aspect of DA:2 that is more elaborated than your average hack and slash game it is far behind  what  you can do in DA:0.

Feeling and being are to different points. Feeling is subjective. Being is objective. When feelings are brought into an objective definition it simply clouds the issue. Hack and Slash refers to the combat which DA2 is definitely not. Nowhere near the level of Diablo III or Dungeon Siege which are Hack and Slash. Witcher 2 and Skyrim  is closer to Hack and Slash than DA2 will ever be.
Player reaction time skills play apart in both Witcher 2 and Skyrim. When to roll, when to dodge, how to aim are left at the mercy of player reaction time. 

DAO is tactical to some gamers but in comparison to what? If you compare it to DA2 maybe. I do not think so. Compared to other crpgs I have played DAO is not as tactical as say Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance (turn based games). In fact DAO is not as tactical as either BG1 or 2.
There are certain skills and talents that were available in DAO. I simply adapted my tactics and strategy to what each companion brought to the table in DA2. Maybe it because I have a background in wargames where the equipment and manpower you are given is the same as the historical event. So you have to make the strategy and tactics fit the available equipment and manpower (or in DA2's case the companion's skills, arms and armor) . 

[Uccio]

Yes for DAO style, No for DA2 style.

[philippe willaume]

[quote]simfamSP wrote...

[quote]If you choose to limit your understanding of term to that definition, you will miss the point that people are trying to make. What i am getting at is when people call DA:2 hack and slash, they know that it is a not a H&S design but it feels like it when you play.
That felling is not due to the design of the combat per se, though it is obvioulsy part of it, it is a result of how the game plays compared to your references.[/quote]

Feeling and being are two different things. The latter is objective and the former is subjective; if DA2 'feels' like a hack n' slash, it is entierly to the individual's taste.

[quote[The difference is that in DA:2, you can't use the thing that made DA:O tactical and despite that the tactical aspect of DA:2 that is more elaborated than your average hack and slash game it is far behind what you can do in DA:0.[/quote]

Not to me, I played DA2 on hard, I found it challenging on occasions, no more than I found DA:O challenging. Things become easier the more you do them.

[quote]
In DA:0 you had a tactical situation through skills or scouting, you could position your mages to control choke point (or created them artificially with traps or using the grease barrel and a fire based spell), put
you archers to get a good enfilade position and so that he can support the mage if need be ,what
you do with your warrior and/or rogue would depends of what the situation is.


In DA:2 move forward see enemy, engage vanguard berserker,
kill a mooks to get stamina. rise and repeat. (i.e. the same as fire storm +tremor and the rogue and warrior finishing off the rest in DA:0 when playing with two mages)
phil[/quote]

No. In DA2 if I did that I would have been slaughtered in seconds. It took Varric, me [mage] Fenris and Aveline to get anywhere. In occasions where I didn't bring somebody due to RP reasons, it was even more difficult.

For example: The Deep Roads were a **** because my Hawke didn't want to deprive Aveline of her duty to the guard, so she didn't take her and Fenris acted as Tank. It took a lot of 'changes' to get that part sorted.

Even so, if you find the game simple, it means you're either very good at it, or just playing it on a very low difficulty. I found The Witcher 2 a peace of cake in my second go on Dark Mode. The game is hard, because I've heard many people complain about it. But to me it isn't because I'm good at it.
[/quote]

That is the point i am trying to make mate. yes it is a relative abstract felling.if you have not played DA:0 with a suboptimal team, this thread is not likely to make sense.
Saying no you can't fell that way because technically it is not a hack and slash, despite being 100% true is missing the point that is being made. 

For DA:2
no i am not especially good and I played in nightmare,except for  bosses, because it was too long and too much of the same thing that it makes witling or watching paint dry interesting. 
Now i played a vanguard berserker (basically you are getting a very fast attack rate), as a warrior you get stamina back each time you kill some one. so you never run out of juice and if you potion up a little you will be fine. (and 1 use injury kit because Isabella or Fenris are going to get decked every two fights or so).

to be honest I think I understand where you are coming from. My first run at DA:2 was with suboptimal char and the deep road was a very very unpleasant experience. the ARW was particularly painful.

In the vanguard berserker, it was much quicker and almost interesting because it was over before becoming tedious. 

But you should try it (use the ultimate build) that is what I did in DA:2 when someone told me that their DA:0 run was like my DA:2 run (and they were right).

I agree with you about the Witcher, it is more a
matter of getting used to the way it works. though it is harder run  for me than DA:2 

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:54 .