330 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

[quote]batlin wrote...
I'm not sure what's so imaginary about the ways DA2 fails in comparison to DA:O.[/quote]
Everything

[quote]Less character options? Check.[/quote]
Why is having less options objectively worse? It's not. This is your opinion, masquerading as fact.

[quote]Less equipment options? Check.[/quote]
See above.

[quote]Less tactical combat? Check.[/quote]
How is it less tactical? Is pre-programming your characters attacks not a tactial decision? Is timing your attacks to take advantage of cross-class combos not a tactical decision? Is crafting grenades and potions not a tactical decision? Where exactly does DA2 fall down in this regard?

Furthermore, why is "tactical" combat objectively preferable to "non-tactical" combat. You have to provide actual proof, not just the opinions of people who happen to agree with you.

[quote]Worse graphics? Check.[/quote]
Prove that they are worse. Several people on this forum who have art degrees and work in the gaming industry disagree with you and are capable of making foot-long posts explaining why.

[quote]Less quests? Check.[/quote]
So? Again, the onus is on you to explain and prove why having more quests is objectively better.

[quote]Shallower NPCs? Check.[/quote]
I disagree with this point absolutely and always, always will. The only shallow one is you, dismissing characters like Isabela purely because of her appearance with absolutely no regard for the actual content of her character.

[quote]Abusive DLC practices? Check.[/quote]
How are they abusive? In what manner has Bioware's DLC injured or assaulted you or anyone else? Verbally? Physically? Sexually?

[quote]Less environments? Check.[/quote]
Again, the onus is on you to prove that more environments is objectively better.

[quote]Less enemies? Check.[/quote]
Again, the onus is on you to prove that more enemies is objectively better.

[quote]Quite frankly the only way DA2 is objectively better than DA:O is that the combat positioning has been resolved. Otherwise it's almost universally worse.[/quote]
The only thing that is objectively true here is that you have no clue what the word objectively means.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:14 .

[DarthLaxian]

sorry to say it like that (am i really? ^^):

suck up

yes, DA:O is very good (i agree with most you (the OP) say about it) but DA2 does not address problems, it IS A PROBLEM (nuff said, or does anyone want another angry rant about this piece of...sorry, i am stopping, i did not come here to rant)

as for looking into the future with excitement:

well, not so much (yes, i am interested in DA:I - but i am very very cautious (like when handling live grenades/mines) because i do not want to be punched in the guts again like with ME3 (at least i felt like punched..the whole game was a MESS...it was LINEAR (which no ME-Game was before), it felt unfinished, it felt like they left so many things out and then came the ENDING (my reaction was to almost demolish my screen by ramming my keyboard into it...really bioware, was that necessary...well, i have my answer with extended cut, which fixes minor plotholes but does nothing else!)...sorry, i want to trust the guys at bioware, but after 2 really bad solo-player games and an MMO that didn't deliver on its hype (SWTOR) i am frustrated!

greetings LAX

[batlin]

Wow, you're quite literally arguing that less is better.

Are you seeing this, Bioware? This is the kind of person that likes DA2.

And to point out a couple details,

How is it less tactical?

No tactical camera, enemies drop down from the edges of the map in waves rather than being positioned in strategically-advantageous spots, characters can only ever use one type of weapon, many abilities are character-specific (Anders is the only one with two heal spells), really long ability cooldowns are conducive to hack-n-slash combat...need more?

Prove that they are worse

https://dl.dropbox.c...age/methzev.jpg

I disagree with this point absolutely and always, always will. The only shallow one is you, dismissing characters like Isabela purely because of her appearance with absolutely no regard for the actual content of her character.

The content of Isabela's character is making lame sex jokes at every possible opportunity.

How are they abusive?

Unless you yourself play a rogue archer, you cannot use bows in the vanilla game. All those weapons you get can only be put to use if you shell out $8 for Sebastian.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Why is DA 2 less tactical?

Generating and maintain threat (aggro) is significantly easier, while the game places a heavy emphasis on kiting. Character build diversity is also simplified as essential attributes that could benefit other classes have become class-restricted, and replaced with similar benefits from the 'primary attributes' of a class. To clarify, let's take the Strength attribute (from the wiki):

Dragon Age Origins -





Strength
Warriors

• Increases damage from all weapons except staves and crossbows
• Increases attack in melee by 0.5 per point above 10
• Increases physical resistance by 0.5 per point above 10

• Prerequisite for most weapon talents and higher-level armor and weapons
• Prerequisite for crossbows
• Bows (longbows and shortbows) get strength-based damage bonus
• Increases intimidation effectiveness
• Also needed by rogues without Lethality, if intending to engage heavily in combat

Dragon Age 2 -



Strength

• Increases basic attack damage for warriors by 0.5 per each point above 10.
• Increases damage for warrior abilities.
• Increases attack for warriors
• Increases fortitude
• Increases force for warrior abilities/attacks.

I think the only boss battle that didn't require you to kite was the rock wraith, which had nothing to do with how you built your character anyway.

[addiction21]

batlin wrote...



No tactical camera, enemies drop down from the edges of the map in waves rather than being positioned in strategically-advantageous spots, characters can only ever use one type of weapon, many abilities are character-specific (Anders is the only one with two heal spells), really long ability cooldowns are conducive to hack-n-slash combat...need more?

Not having a different camera angle does not make it less tactical.

I'd argue that having to deal with reinforcments mid battles adds a need to shift positions and tactics in battle and I am no fan of how the waves were used in DA2.

Soldiers generally only have one weapon (maybe a backup) so I guess all battles are fought with out tactics?

Unique abilities tied to a single character does not make it less tactical. On the flip side it adds to the strategical depth.

DA2 wasn't a hack and slash. No really it is not.

I doubt very much you know what the words you use mean and I am done here.

[rapscallioness]

krul2k wrote...

am drunk but a fat lol on the err effort

oh, you. you don;t even share....

[Plaintiff]

batlin wrote...

Wow, you're quite literally arguing that less is better.

I'm arguing nothing of the kind. I'm simply demanding that you either a) provide actual proof to support your opinion or stop pronouncing it as fact.

No tactical camera,

What is a tactical camera?

enemies drop down from the edges of the map in waves rather than being positioned in strategically-advantageous spots,

So what?

characters can only ever use one type of weapon, many abilities are character-specific (Anders is the only one with two heal spells), really long ability cooldowns are conducive to hack-n-slash combat...need more?

These limitations suggest to me that players are required to put more thought into who they bring with them and which abilities they use, not less.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27628818/dragon%20age/methzev.jpg

Wow. You literally do not know what "proof" means.

The content of Isabela's character is making lame sex jokes at every possible opportunity.

Thank you for proving my point.

Unless you yourself play a rogue archer, you cannot use bows in the vanilla game. All those weapons you get can only be put to use if you shell out $8 for Sebastian.

So in order to stop "abusing" players by "forcing" them to buy Sebastian, DA2 should've removed all bows from the vanilla game and screwed over everyone who might've wanted to play a rogue archer?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:28 .

[batlin]

addiction21 wrote...

Not having a different camera angle does not make it less tactical.

Not being able to see the battlefield is not conducive to tactical gameplay.

I'd argue that having to deal with reinforcments mid battles adds a need to shift positions and tactics in battle and I am no fan of how the waves were used in DA2.

Shift positions? Enemies always come from the sides. The "correct" position to be in is always in the middle of the area.

Soldiers generally only have one weapon (maybe a backup) so I guess all battles are fought with out tactics?

What? My problem is that, for instance, Fenris can never use anything other than a 2h. Isabela can only ever use 2 daggers. Rogue Hawke can't use swords. Etc.

Unique abilities tied to a single character does not make it less tactical. On the flip side it adds to the strategical depth.

More strategical depth does not entail less party options. al it does is tie your hands behind your back.

DA2 wasn't a hack and slash. No really it is not.

Yes, it really was.

[Plaintiff]

batlin wrote...
More strategical depth does not entail less party options. al it does is tie your hands behind your back.

By that logic, Chess is not a tactical game because it limits the options for moves by imposing arbitrary restrictions on the different pieces.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:30 .

[SweQue]

"I never cared about the recycled maps"

I doubt you speak for many here. I think its great that you (... and others) express their gratitude to the develoeprs, but others have to be honest about big flaws without being seen as "haters" on this forum. And sometimes I find the opposite to the "haters" just as bad. When people on certain forum say they have no issue with framerate issue, recycled textures etc I honestly just doesnt believe them.

When someone found dragon age2 to be seriously flawed they didnt do it because they hate dragon age or the developers, most do it because they are worried about Dragon Age3, some bioware developers/forumers doesnt seem to understand that

I mean, for me Dragon Age was 9.5 and Baldurs Gate 2 the same, yet I found Dragon Age 2 to be at best 8.0 or even 7.5

Modifié par SweQue, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:43 .

[batlin]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm arguing nothing of the kind. I'm simply demanding that you either a) provide actual proof to support your opinion or stop pronouncing it as fact.

Humor me. Explain to me exactly why less environments, equipment options, etc. would ever be preferrable to more.

What is a tactical camera?

A camera you can move independent of the characters.

So what?

So practically every fight plays out in the exact same way. Group the mages in the middle, warrior taunts, rogue DPSes the tank's target. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. 

These limitations suggest to me that players are required to put more thought into who they bring with them and which abilities they use, not less.

More thought how? All the rigid class identities mean is you'll only ever have one loadout of party members that works best. You play an archer? No need to ever bring along Varric or Sebastian. You play a mage? No need to ever bring along Merril, Anders or Bethany. You play a tank? So long, Aveline.

Wow. You literally do not know what "proof" means.

Unless you happen to be blind DA2 clearly has worse graphics than DA:O.

Thank you for proving my point.

Alright, shed some more light on her for me beyond that.

So in order to stop "abusing" players by "forcing" them to buy Sebastian, DA2 should've removed all bows from the vanilla game and screwed over everyone who might've wanted to play a rogue archer?

No, but they should still be useful. The closest DA:O ever cmae to that territory was Shale's crystals, but Shale was a free character with a new purchase of the game.

By that logic, Chess is not a tactical game because it limits the
options for moves by imposing arbitrary restrictions on the different
pieces.

If DA:O is chess, DA2 is chess but you only get one rook, one knight, and one bishop (for an extra $8), queens can only move diagonally, knights can't jump over pieces, and your opponent just sends waves of pawns at you the entire game.

Modifié par batlin, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:46 .

[JimboGee]

We need more of these posts. I enjoyed reading that.


Typical of some people on this forum to rip the guys post to peices. Jerks.

Modifié par JimboGee, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:51 .

[SweQue]

What he ask for is basically a mass effect with elfs and dwarfs.
the whole sale point of DA was going back to the roots of Baldurs Gate and trying to refresh old-school rpgs in a more modern way.

[batlin]

JimboGee wrote...

We need more of these posts. I enjoyed reading that.


Typical of some people on this forum to rip the guys post to peices. Jerks.

I'm so sorry if some critiques are ruining your mood.

[SweQue]

batlin wrote...

JimboGee wrote...

We need more of these posts. I enjoyed reading that.


Typical of some people on this forum to rip the guys post to peices. Jerks.

I'm so sorry if some critiques are ruining your mood.

I have to agree with this guy a bit...

when TC wrote that he doesnt mind recycled textures and in fact like it, and how he actually cried over the dragon age 2 storyline it made me wonder if he is trolling or not.

You can finish pretty easily Dragon Age2 on normal without pausing / swapping characters, in Dragon Age 1 I doubt it very much. Which speaks much about how casual Dragon Age 2 was. I mean, Batlin has a great point about "drop in" enemies. Clearly in DA1 that would be huuuuge issue but since DA2 was just a mindless hacknslash it made sense to have enemies just pop in from the sky. And also have like 3-4x as many mobs on screen since it wasnt about strategy but the action.

[ScarMK]

 For those of you who keep saying hacknslash.. This is an example of a hacknslash game.  Da2 was mindless, but not a hacknslash.

[SweQue]

You can finish DA2 without strategy, thats the diffrence.

I mean, I just kited any enemy when I was hurt and run in circles away from them.
Thats my great "hidden secret" to finish the game?!
Thats hardly much to be impressive over for a WRPG.

Modifié par SweQue, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:28 .

[addiction21]

SweQue wrote...

You can finish DA2 without strategy, thats the diffrence.

I mean, I just kited any enemy when I was hurt and run in circles away from them.
Thats my great "hidden secret" to finish the game?!
Thats hardly much to be impressive over for a WRPG.

The difference to what?

[SweQue]

addiction21 wrote...

SweQue wrote...

You can finish DA2 without strategy, thats the diffrence.

I mean, I just kited any enemy when I was hurt and run in circles away from them.
Thats my great "hidden secret" to finish the game?!
Thats hardly much to be impressive over for a WRPG.

The difference to what?

Dragon Age 1.
If I didnt pause and control other members, I would 100% die in tougher fights,

[In Exile]

SweQue wrote...

You can finish DA2 without strategy, thats the diffrence.

I mean, I just kited any enemy when I was hurt and run in circles away from them.
Thats my great "hidden secret" to finish the game?!
Thats hardly much to be impressive over for a WRPG.

In DA:O the hidden secret is fireball. The game is a joke difficulty wise and pretending it had "tactics" is comical.

In DA2 at least you actually have to switch your targets around in an encounter on nightmare like with mages and assassins - in DA:O it was impossible to die in a regular encounter unless you were bad at the game.

[XX-Pyro]

In Exile wrote...

SweQue wrote...

You can finish DA2 without strategy, thats the diffrence.

I mean, I just kited any enemy when I was hurt and run in circles away from them.
Thats my great "hidden secret" to finish the game?!
Thats hardly much to be impressive over for a WRPG.

In DA:O the hidden secret is fireball. The game is a joke difficulty wise and pretending it had "tactics" is comical.

In DA2 at least you actually have to switch your targets around in an encounter on nightmare like with mages and assassins - in DA:O it was impossible to die in a regular encounter unless you were bad at the game.

Ahahahaha so true. I had forgotten. I really need to replay DAO. Fireball was the auto win spell. Decent damage, DoT, and a knock-back. Wonderful 

[In Exile]

XX-Pyro wrote.
Ahahahaha so true. I had forgotten. I really need to replay DAO. Fireball was the auto win spell. Decent damage, DoT, and a knock-back. Wonderful 

Rolll 3 mages and you can fireball everything into oblivion, and for everything you can't, there's cone of cold (and the 1-st level lightning and frost spells).

[elfdwarf]

i never use strategy in origins but in da2 use strategy on non-DLC and DLC bos

Modifié par elfdwarf, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:02 .

[Daerog]

Eh, I'll add that I am also looking forward to DA3. I've always liked the DA team, at least those who have popped in on the forums time to time. Other teams are cool, too, but I've always enjoyed the DA boards more. Sure, things have gotten darker, as all the zombie kittens have probably died off by now (so sad...), but I'll stick around to see how things fare when April comes around with more DA3 info.