The combat resembling DA2 is mighty fine with me. The slow paced combat in DA: O wasn't very entertaining in the least. The design of the combat encounters however, could've used some work.
Not looking at sales comparisons from DAO to DA2, it isn't.
Not looking at sales comparisons from DAO to DA2, it isn't.
Indicating that a lot of people bought DA:O and found they didn't like the gameplay?
I, for one, loved Origins combat. Even more so in Awakening. I loved the mechanics of armor, defense, armor penetration, etc. It all made so much more sense than the way D&D did it in Neverwinter Nights. Hell, I had a blast.
Weren't the console ports of DAO particularly poor? The first game probably managed to leave plenty of people uninterested in a sequel all on its own.
Seems about right to me. It took me a second playthrough before I started being actually engaged in DAO's combat. I initially slogged through the combat because I enjoyed the story and the role playing. All my friends who played DAO and DA2 (not very many, so, yes, this is anecdotal) got into DA because of Origin's story, but enjoyed DA2 more for the faster combat. Or, as you suggest, they never beat DAO, so they never bothered with DA2.
Armour penetration was worthless. But it was a good idea in theory.
And its in the game this time around as well.
Perhaps, but DA:O was the type of game better played on PC anyway. Like The Sims or KotOR.Weren't the console ports of DAO particularly poor? The first game probably managed to leave plenty of people uninterested in a sequel all on its own.
Of course it is.
Still not good of BioWare to deliver a lackluster port to the main audience for AAA games when trying to launch their new IP.
It is when you look at the pathetic DA:A figures.
Interesting point given I frequently argued on the DA2 forum that a large factor of the decrease in DA2 sales compared to DAO could have been due to those who bought DAO and didn't like it.
Okay, so here's how I feel about a few things.
The Reassuring:
The Concerning:
Interesting point given I frequently argued on the DA2 forum that a large factor of the decrease in DA2 sales compared to DAO could have been due to those who bought DAO and didn't like it.
The problem with this is that the DAO sales continued to climb as time went by. As opposed to DA2's sales, which started off well and dived off a cliff as word spread.
I'm fine with most of the changes. Nothing overly bothers me about them.
Things change you have to understand that and get used to it . Adapt or Move on.
I'm fine with most of the changes. Nothing overly bothers me about them.
Things change you have to understand that and get used to it . Adapt or Move on.
change for sake of change is bad. And not to mention that all these unnecessary changes leads to the DA franchise having no real identity in its gameplay.
change for sake of change is bad. And not to mention that all these unnecessary changes leads to the DA franchise having no real identity in its gameplay.
True but I don't see the changes to DA:I being 100% bad. There's only 1 or 2 thing'd id personally change but they aren't big enough to warrant the game being a *Failure* in my eyes.
My guess is the "we" you are talking about here is much smaller than you imagine
Let's be honest, DA2's encounter design was atrocious. It's not fun to face waves after waves of mooks, or bosses with either 1) a brickwall of health, 2) gimmicky instant kill abilities, or 3) both.
In terms of encounter design, DA:I seems at the antipodes of DA2 in fact. They place a big emphasis on scouting, planning tactics, and not only getting through the fight but also not using too much ressources in the process. I'm much more in favor of that one personally. Really the only change that I think was not a good idea is the 8 ability limit, because it will probably force you into getting bread and butter spells or discard situational ones. Plus it makes further talent points much less worth it once you've got and upgraded the batch you want.
And its in the game this time around as well.
That's cool. Do we know how it works?
Interesting point given I frequently argued on the DA2 forum that a large factor of the decrease in DA2 sales compared to DAO could have been due to those who bought DAO and didn't like it.
The problem with this is that the DAO sales continued to climb as time went by. As opposed to DA2's sales, which started off well and dived off a cliff as word spread.
It's not a problem at all. You're confusing someone buying the game with someone liking the game. DA:O has solid word of mouth. If, say, 1 in 10 people who bought it loved it, and 9/10 disliked it but not anywhere near enough to go on the internet and hate, then the overall internet vibe will be "DAO is awesome". If DA2 had 1 in 5 people love it, and 1 in 5 people hate it, then you'll get a much more polarized reaction.
This, of course, is assuming both games are equal. They're not. DA2 has a lot of downright strange decisions that are totally intolerable and it deserved to be critiqued (although I liked it well enough).
You can't infer who liked the game from who bought the game.
It's really hard to say unless you get into the game yourself. I've watched hours of game play for months now. I still couldn't tell you what it feels like to play the game and how the controls work or anything else that matters to me when playing.
I remember the major experience of coming into DA2 from DA:O/A and it was a world of difference playing all classes. The graphics and storyline were different, but the mechanics blew me away. Mage and archer roles were dramatically improved. I'm thinking things might feel different all over again in DA:I. From what I've seen, things look a lot more challenging and tactical, but it might not interfere with a smooth game play through.
Once again graphics have been improved. Another story has been implemented with past game elements involved. Mechanics have been improved. Additional crafting methods have been made. Mounts have been added. Character creation has been upgraded. World space has been expanded. And so much more. What's not to like? o.O
Gameplay =/= Lore.
You silly sods.
On Topic, I'm alright with the changes. That's pretty much it.
Show don't tell. If lore isn't gameplay then it doesn't exist. If you say a class can do or not do something in lore and then contradict that in gameplay, the lore was wasted effort
Ridiculous. Concessions must be made for gameplay otherwise the game ceases to be fun.
Wait what? O.o
You have armor, helmet, gloves, boots, weapon, shield, rings and amulet right? The new crafting system would be pretty pointless if your crafting options (excluding jewelry and weapons) would only allow you to customize 2 armor items/slots.
Retour en haut