848 réponses à ce sujet

[CaribWarrior J]

NO.  Inquisition >>>>>> Origins > Dragon Age II

[Akka le Vil]

Although despite everything they seem to be doing well, so I wouldn't expect a return to Origins anytime soon.

 

Not sure. They seem to have disappeared from the top sales, and there is the same huge disparity between "critics" ratings and "users" ratings than with DA2.

[Cyonan]

Not sure. They seem to have disappeared from the top sales, and there is the same huge disparity between "critics" ratings and "users" ratings than with DA2.

 

There is nowhere near the disparity that there was on DA2. Most of the bigger complainers around here are the ones who are just upset they didn't get Origins 2.0

 

Plus they've actually said the game is doing fine on sales. It's most likely nothing ground breaking otherwise EA would have been bragging about it, but it doesn't seem to be shaping up all that badly.

[Remmirath]

I don't believe that conclusion follows. I find that I have more variety in DA2 with rogue and warrior builds than I have in DA:O -- what I lose in different weapons I more than recover in the ability trees. Obviously this wouldn't work as well for you since you don't like a lot of the stuff on those ability trees.

Yeah, that's probably true. I end up disregarding at least half of the stuff on the ability trees, especially for rogues, in DA II and DA:I. Variety is great, but could we have variety with more realistic abilities, at least?
 

I didn't have an issue with roleplaying two characters; I found it refreshing. But I understand perfectly why so many people didn't like it. It certainly could feel weird at times.

I prefer playing more than one character, actually, or at least having the option to do so. It's much better for replayability, to me; once I run through all the combinations of different NPCs, it starts feeling a bit weird to take around the same ones that I did for a different character.
 

There's a separate question as to whether or not DAI and DAO succeed with their own combat, whether the mechanics are better than DAO, and whether the UI is better in DAO. I need to add the caveat that I've only played DAO on nightmare (aside from my first PT ages ago) and I'm not yet done my first DAI play through, and haven't played it on nightmare yet. Also, I power-game, so that strongly colours my feelings about what RPG combat ought to be like.

I agree, those are all entirely separate questions, even though people often do end up lumping them all together into one. Personally, I am inclined to say that both DA:I and DA:O succeed with their combat for what it is supposed to be, but I prefer DA:O's combat and don't feel that DA:I's combat is a good fit for an RPG. The UI, in my opinion, was vastly superior in DA:O; DA:I's UI feels both clunky and out of place to me, and has quite a few annoying features (especially with regards to selecting things).

I also tend to power-game, although that may of course lead me to very different conclusions. I haven't played DA:O on anything but nightmare in a long time, so I don't remember too well what it's like on easier settings. DA II I turned down to normal because the combat felt much more frustrating and boring than interesting, and I just wanted to get through it; DA:I I'm nowhere near done with yet.

I don't know about the mages, since I tend not to pay as much attention to the NPCs as to my character, but for the other two classes there are very few decisions to be made about character skills at all (excepting equipment, which to me, really doesn't fill the gap). For a warrior, you're pretty much going to want to take the skills from either the two-handed or the sword-and-shield tree, plus those that are useful from the others. You can't even choose whether to go for a strength-based, agility-based, or constitution-based build any more (again, aside from equipment), since the abilities decide that for you and are tied in to the class. Same for rogues, really.
 

I play mages. And I found mages in DA2 and DAI far superior, with my favourite mage gameplay coming in DAI.

The mage gameplay may very well be superior in DA:I. I hardly ever play mages as my only character in a game, so I'm basing my assessment of the combat on what I do play the most of -- primarily warriors, and to some extent rogues. From the times I've controlled one of the NPC mages in DA:I, I can say that many of the things that annoy me about combat for the other two classes aren't present for mages (they aren't constantly having to twitch around to keep the line of attack, and all their abilities are spells, so there's no problem of strange and unbelievable abilities).
 

In DAO, mages were broken in two ways. Some abilities were so OP (like Mana Clash) that they made the game pointless. And others were so **** that they only existed to eat up ability points to get to the good stuff. There was only one stat that mattered in DAO for mages: magic. Even as a BM, constitution really only mattered as buffed by items. Each level up was just dump 3 points in MAG or built suboptimally.

Yeah, mages were certainly the least interesting of the three classes in DA:O, I'd say.
 

For my play style, the tactical camera and action mode work well because I prefer a mix of WASD and click to move depending on the circumstances. I hate aspects of the tac UI with a passion, especially that I can't multi-select and that I can't rote or zoom out the camera properly, but overall it works for me. I don't mind moving the camera with WASD because that's how I moved my characters.

Not being able to multi-select is one of the largest problems with the tactical mode. It's almost certainly a bug, but the clicking to move hasn't worked reliably for me, either. The camera is also annoying to me -- I very much prefer to move it with the mouse, and the difficulty with rotating it makes it even more bothersome that it won't zoom out much at all -- and for that reason, I've mostly been playing in the action mode (although I keep trying to get tactical mode to work well for me).
 

DAO and DAI control very similarly for me. WASD to move, low angle zoom on the camera because I don't care for top down, I need field of view in the distance. So I would always be one scroll flip below pure isometric and angle the camera into the distance.

They control very similarly for me when not in combat as well, but in combat, I always clicked to move in DA:O, and made a good deal of use of selecting multiple people (I also find it annoying that you can't get the party to hold pior to entering combat, although that could also be a bug).
 

I'm sorry, are you telling me that the ridiculous combat animations with mages pole-dancing around their staff are closer to DAO than DA2 ? 0_o
No auto-attack ? Using the attack button makes you flail stupidly at the air instead of making you close in the mob ? Tac-cam even more useless than in DA2 ? Even more "streamlined" (read : dumbed down) party control ? Even more consolized interface ? Even more pointless leveling up ?

Indeed.
 

DAI is just a vaguely tweaked DA2 that goes even further in the same direction than its predecessor went compared to DAO. The only two things they fixed are the rehashed caves and at least the two-handed weapons feel they have some weight and aren't made of paper. I struggle to see anything that can reminds someone of DAO instead of DA2.

In terms of mechanics, I agree -- it all feels more like DA II than DA:O. Aside from that (and the bloody paraphrasing), however, the rest of the game feels closer to DA:O than DA II to me. Granted, mechanics are a huge part of the game, but the story/places to go/companion interaction side of things does feel more akin to Origins than II to me.

As an aside, the two-handed weapons are too slow, again, unless you're talking about the huge mauls -- the speed's fine for those. Greatswords should be faster, though. They were much too slow in DA:O. DA II sped everything up a bit much, but that wasn't the problem I had with it.

[Riven326]

The amusing part is that despite the heavily cut down tactics menu, I actually have to control my party in Inquisition more than I did in Origins.

 

Having less control over the AI directly results in having to control the party manually more often. Did you not expect that outcome?

[Cyonan]

 

Having less control over the AI directly results in having to control the party manually more often. Did you not expect that outcome?

 

The point is that people talk about how Inquisition is "dumbed down" when in Origins I had the game pretty much playing itself.

[Riven326]

The point is that people talk about how Inquisition is "dumbed down" when in Origins I had the game pretty much playing itself.

The depth of the tactics that we saw in Origins was dumbed down in Inquisition. You see it as a positive and others see it as a negative.

[tmp7704]

I'm sorry, are you telling me that the ridiculous combat animations with mages pole-dancing around their staff are closer to DAO than DA2 ? 0_o

I'm saying the *speed* of the animations was reduced to be more like it was in DAO. Meaning less of swinging huge 2 hander swords around as if they're piece of cardboard and such.

While animations remain flashy like they were in DA2 they're not *more* so, thus overall this is bringing things closer to DAO in my eyes, than taking it even farther than DA2.

No auto-attack ? Using the attack button makes you flail stupidly at the air instead of making you close in the mob ?

How do these amount to 'farther in DA2 direction'? DA2 didn't do anything with these compared to DAO, iirc.

Tac-cam even more useless than in DA2 ? Even more "streamlined" (read : dumbed down) party control ? Even more consolized interface ? Even more pointless leveling up ?

Party control and the interface weren't "consolized" in DA2 so again I'm not seeing how these are "taking it even farther". The tactical camera is indeed pretty poor, that's about the only point where I can see where you're coming from.

DAI is just a vaguely tweaked DA2 that goes even further in the same direction than its predecessor went compared to DAO.

Well, given out of the whole list I'd agree with maybe one thing, our mileage here obviously varies.

[Akka le Vil]

Party control and the interface weren't "consolized" in DA2

 

Wait... What ?

Interface in DA2 wasn't consolized ?

 

 

[tmp7704]

Wait... What ?
Interface in DA2 wasn't consolized ?
 

It was?

I played DA2 with m+kb and can't really remember it feeling different from DAO. The aesthetic of UI was different (they went for the modern/streamlined look instead of the 'ye olde RPG' of DAO but that's not "consolizing" to me, just questionable appearance choice (one you can find in other, older PC games, too)

[Akka le Vil]

In terms of mechanics, I agree -- it all feels more like DA II than DA:O. Aside from that (and the bloody paraphrasing), however, the rest of the game feels closer to DA:O than DA II to me. Granted, mechanics are a huge part of the game, but the story/places to go/companion interaction side of things does feel more akin to Origins than II to me.

 

Well, the thing is... what made DA2 terrible was the terrible, boring, over-the-top fighting gameplay, the interface, the dumbing down of tactical usefulness, making classes so restricted, having to fight every five seconds and the rehashed environment. It was pretty okay or good when it came to dialogue, the personal story and companions.

 

So the environments is the only thing that was bad which DAI actually fixed. The rest is either as bad, worse, or not a problem in DA2 already. So it's not just that mechanics are a huge part of the game (even if, considering the godawful amount of fighting we have to deal with, a painfully atrocious fighting is certainly a deal-breaker on its own), it's also that nearly nothing that made DA2 bad was actually corrected, despite the years of Bioware saying they had learned their lesson. What a joke.

 

 

As an aside, the two-handed weapons are too slow, again, unless you're talking about the huge mauls -- the speed's fine for those. Greatswords should be faster, though. They were much too slow in DA:O. DA II sped everything up a bit much, but that wasn't the problem I had with it.

Err... Sorry ? My warrior is slashing across the battlefield every second with his sword. It's not as ridiculously fast as DA2, but it's still plenty fast (and much faster than DAO, in which, I admit, two-handers were excessively slow).

[AlanC9]

The depth of the tactics that we saw in Origins was dumbed down in Inquisition. You see it as a positive and others see it as a negative.

I thought the point was that "dumbed down" isn't a very sensible phrase to describe this. Unless "dumbed down" is now just an all-purpose insult?

[dreamgazer]

Unless "dumbed down" is now just an all-purpose insult?

It's up there with "rushed" and "breaks immersion", yeah.

[In Exile]

I thought the point was that "dumbed down" isn't a very sensible phrase to describe this. Unless "dumbed down" is now just an all-purpose insult?

Pretty sure that's what it always was - a pejorative to say a game or mechanic is beneath you. This is particularly the case in this situation, where e.g. BG2 would be dumbed down because it has no tactics (instead you have to micromanage).

[nelly21]

Honestly, this game felt like the most direct descendant of BG in the franchise. Huge maps covered by fog of war that you slowly uncover to find interesting side quests that may have nothing to do with the story. Honestly, sometimes I feel like the people that go out of their way to cite BG have never played it.

 

DAO felt like a shade of BG but never fully scratched the itch for me. The maps were alright and the pause and go combat was was cool. But I always missed that sense of discovery.

 

DA2 felt like it was trying to imitate BGII but fell short. Kirkwall was interesting enough but due to tech limitations felt like a ghost town. The characters were great however and the combat was more fun than I thought it would be. But the repetitive areas and forced ending was a downer. The DLC was a definite bright side that made me remember DA2 positively.

 

DA:I is BG 2014 effectively. Huge open areas with things to discover? Check. Running into an enemy that I'm not high level enough for? Check. Tense combat that REQUIRES (not as an option) micromanagement? Check. Interesting story? Check. Interesting characters? Check. 

 

DA:I is literally copying what worked in BG I and updating the graphics. The flashy spells and exploding corpses? That was all in BG. I even understand reducing the tactics option. They want your input in combat. They want you engaged the same way we were in BG. Honestly guys. Go back and play BG. Inquisition is far more representative of those classics that DAO was.

[Akka le Vil]

Honestly, this game felt like the most direct descendant of BG in the franchise. Huge maps covered by fog of war that you slowly uncover to find interesting side quests that may have nothing to do with the story. Honestly, sometimes I feel like the people that go out of their way to cite BG have never played it.

 

DAO felt like a shade of BG but never fully scratched the itch for me. The maps were alright and the pause and go combat was was cool. But I always missed that sense of discovery.

 

DA2 felt like it was trying to imitate BGII but fell short. Kirkwall was interesting enough but due to tech limitations felt like a ghost town. The characters were great however and the combat was more fun than I thought it would be. But the repetitive areas and forced ending was a downer. The DLC was a definite bright side that made me remember DA2 positively.

 

DA:I is BG 2014 effectively. Huge open areas with things to discover? Check. Running into an enemy that I'm not high level enough for? Check. Tense combat that REQUIRES (not as an option) micromanagement? Check. Interesting story? Check. Interesting characters? Check. 

 

DA:I is literally copying what worked in BG I and updating the graphics. The flashy spells and exploding corpses? That was all in BG. I even understand reducing the tactics option. They want your input in combat. They want you engaged the same way we were in BG. Honestly guys. Go back and play BG. Inquisition is far more representative of those classics that DAO was.

 

Yeah right, BG had an interface made for gamepad, required you to keep one key pressed at all times or your character stopped attacking, had the characters attack the empty air while being unable to close on their foe, had the camera slammed against the floor, you could only select one character at a time, they stopped doing what you asked as soon as you gave an order, they were limited to 8 abilities, your mages were breakdancing around their staff and your rogues were doing backflips while attacking...

 

Yeah, as you say, it seems that people invoking BG never played it

[AlanC9]

Yeah right, BG had an interface made for gamepad, required you to keep one key pressed at all times or your character stopped attacking, had the characters attack the empty air while being unable to close on their foe, had the camera slammed against the floor, you could only select one character at a time, they stopped doing what you asked as soon as you gave an order, they were limited to 8 abilities, your mages were breakdancing around their staff and your rogues were doing backflips while attacking...

So it's like BG1 in the important ways and unlike BG1 in the trivial ways?

[Realmzmaster]

Yeah right, BG had an interface made for gamepad, required you to keep one key pressed at all times or your character stopped attacking, had the characters attack the empty air while being unable to close on their foe, had the camera slammed against the floor, you could only select one character at a time, they stopped doing what you asked as soon as you gave an order, they were limited to 8 abilities, your mages were breakdancing around their staff and your rogues were doing backflips while attacking...

 

Yeah, as you say, it seems that people invoking BG never played it

 

I assure you I have played it and I am still playing it.  The series never leaves my hard drive. 

Both BG1 and DAI have semi open worlds.

Both have non-regenerating health

Both have limited healing in both potions and spells.

Neither allow for manipulation of attributes in game. 

Emphasis is proactive damage mitigation.

8 abilities are about the same that you find in BG1 characters that can only rise to the 7-8th level

Baldur's Gate has no camera and therefore only one view.

Select only one character at a time is not a problem for me. The companion AI worked for me. I am able to switch when necessary. This also means keeping an eye on all the characters

The reason that mages in BG cannot pole dance around their staffs or rogues do backflips was because of the limitations of the hardware.

The D & D ruleset allows for rogues back flipping or cartwheeling out of danger. In fact D & D rules allow for the acrobat. Swashbuckler is defined as part acrobat, part swordsman and part wit all rolled into a single class. That is straight from the BG 2 manual page 90.

[Akka le Vil]

So it's like BG1 in the important ways and unlike BG1 in the trivial ways?

 

Oh so the core controls, general feeling and the interface are trivial and the gibbing corpses are important. Okay. I see.

[In Exile]

Oh so the core controls, general feeling and the interface are trivial and the gibbing corpses are important. Okay. I see.

The core controls aren't different. Play DAI only in tactical camera and use ONLY the top down default of the tactical camera. It will be effectively identical aside from the issues you get into with ceilings.

Complete lack of detailed tactics AI? That was BG1.
Poor pathfinding for anything beyond your immediate FOV? Pure BG1. Gibbed corpses? Actual gameplay feature in BG1 (can't revived gibbed characters; my Paladin gibbed 2/3 enemies with his 18.95 STR).

Multiple selection is missing and the inventory is bad in different ways, but you're honestly the one who sounds like you haven't played BG1.

BG1 had a lot of poorly implemented features that were OK for its time. DAI has those same features for some inexplicable reason when it is no longer OK for its time.

But particularly for tactics the criticism is pure bonkers. DAI has AI tactics far more advanced than BG1 or BG2 since you don't have to micro ability use.

[In Exile]

Yeah right, BG had an interface made for gamepad, required you to keep one key pressed at all times or your character stopped attacking, had the characters attack the empty air while being unable to close on their foe, had the camera slammed against the floor, you could only select one character at a time, they stopped doing what you asked as soon as you gave an order, they were limited to 8 abilities, your mages were breakdancing around their staff and your rogues were doing backflips while attacking...

Yeah, as you say, it seems that people invoking BG never played it

It sounds like your entire complaint is that the game is not 2D (or hex based) and has a z-axis.

[Remmirath]

Well, the thing is... what made DA2 terrible was the terrible, boring, over-the-top fighting gameplay, the interface, the dumbing down of tactical usefulness, making classes so restricted, having to fight every five seconds and the rehashed environment. It was pretty okay or good when it came to dialogue, the personal story and companions.
 
So the environments is the only thing that was bad which DAI actually fixed. The rest is either as bad, worse, or not a problem in DA2 already. So it's not just that mechanics are a huge part of the game (even if, considering the godawful amount of fighting we have to deal with, a painfully atrocious fighting is certainly a deal-breaker on its own), it's also that nearly nothing that made DA2 bad was actually corrected, despite the years of Bioware saying they had learned their lesson. What a joke.

I agree, for the most part. I did have some problems with other aspects of DA II as well, which were fixed (at least to some extent) in Inquisition -- for example, only being able to talk to the companions when you had a quest for it, which they did at least go back from, even if you still can't do so in the field. Being able to choose anything other than a human again is also good. I also found the personality-tracker much more of a hindrance than a help, and I really disliked the Friendship/Rivalry system. There were a few story-related things that were, to me, a bit iffy in DA II as well (mostly with regards to the ending), but I haven't finished DA:I yet, so there could be similar problems.
 

Err... Sorry ? My warrior is slashing across the battlefield every second with his sword. It's not as ridiculously fast as DA2, but it's still plenty fast (and much faster than DAO, in which, I admit, two-handers were excessively slow).

They were very excessively slow in DA:O. I consider this a minor complaint, since it's mostly a visual thing, and I find that far less important than just about any other aspect of the game -- but at least from what I'm seeing, they're still too slow, which is to say that they're noticably slower than one-handed swords. Two-handed swords are really not that heavy. They're fairly fast weapons. Now, given that they are (I believe) using the same animation set for two-handed swords, mauls, and axes, at least one of those weapons is going to end up not quite right in the speed department.

I suppose it's not so much the speed that's the problem in DA:I, it's the way they swing as far and wide as possible with practically every stroke and then have some recovery time, which makes it look slower. Eh. I'm probably never going to be satisfied with in-game combat animations, so I shouldn't worry about it.
 

Honestly, this game felt like the most direct descendant of BG in the franchise. Huge maps covered by fog of war that you slowly uncover to find interesting side quests that may have nothing to do with the story. Honestly, sometimes I feel like the people that go out of their way to cite BG have never played it.

Much more likely, people have different things that they really liked about Baldur's Gate. I'm actually in the middle of a run through Baldur's Gate right now, and I usually play the game once a year, so I'm thinking I probably remember it pretty well.
 

DA:I is BG 2014 effectively. Huge open areas with things to discover? Check. Running into an enemy that I'm not high level enough for? Check. Tense combat that REQUIRES (not as an option) micromanagement? Check. Interesting story? Check. Interesting characters? Check.

Yeah, but here are a few examples of differences...

In BG, if you do manage to kill that enemy who's a good bit higher level than you, you get some cool stuff out of it. In DA:I, you probably can't use that stuff, because it's level-scaled.

In BG, micromanaging the party is easy, partly because it's inherently easier to do so from a top down view and partly because you can do things like multi-select and reliably click to attack. In DA:I, both combat modes (at least to my mind) have some fairly serious issues.

BG has neither activated abilities for non-casters (aside from a few special things in Throne of Bhaal) nor cooldowns. Minor complaint for some people, I know, but it's a major annoyance for me.

I will also add that there are other things that I think Inquisition does very well, but only a handful of them are things that I would consider mechanical. The exploration is great, yeah. The greatly reduced level scaling is very welcome, as is the lack of health regeneration. Tense combat is good, but the heaps-o'-health way to achieve that does not work for me, that just makes it feel kind of dull. If I fight a dragon, for example, I want the difficulty to come mostly from not dying long enough to kill it rather than just slogging away at it long enough to kill it. Honestly, at least at this point in the game, if you were to simply map everything else about DA:I onto a different combat/character building/dialogue system (not necessarily DA:O's, but that one would work), I'd be quite happy with it. Heck, even just a different combat control scheme.
 

DA:I is literally copying what worked in BG I and updating the graphics. The flashy spells and exploding corpses? That was all in BG. I even understand reducing the tactics option. They want your input in combat. They want you engaged the same way we were in BG. Honestly guys. Go back and play BG. Inquisition is far more representative of those classics that DAO was.

What worked to you, I suppose -- and that's great. The inclusion of the dialogue wheel and paraphrase system, if nothing else, will make it definitely not feel anything like Baldur's Gate to me. The lack of anything I consider a functional tactical mode will not make it feel like that (though it's possible I simply haven't managed to acclimate myself to it yet or have something set up poorly about it), as will the cooldown-based combat (particularly with some of the more outrageous abilities present). Not being able to assign ability scores is also a problem for me (I actually prefer not to increase them at level-up, but I strongly prefer to be able to roll and/or assign them to begin with), and so forth.
 

The core controls aren't different. Play DAI only in tactical camera and use ONLY the top down default of the tactical camera. It will be effectively identical aside from the issues you get into with ceilings.

I'll really have to try to get that working right again, because if this is so, it would make the game much more enjoyable for me. So far, however, I've only ended up having to fight the camera to consistently see what's going on whenever I try tactical mode.

[In Exile]

I agree, for the most part. I did have some problems with other aspects of DA II as well, which were fixed (at least to some extent) in Inquisition -- for example, only being able to talk to the companions when you had a quest for it, which they did at least go back from, even if you still can't do so in the field. Being able to choose anything other than a human again is also good. I also found the personality-tracker much more of a hindrance than a help, and I really disliked the Friendship/Rivalry system. There were a few story-related things that were, to me, a bit iffy in DA II as well (mostly with regards to the ending), but I haven't finished DA:I yet, so there could be similar problems.


They were very excessively slow in DA:O. I consider this a minor complaint, since it's mostly a visual thing, and I find that far less important than just about any other aspect of the game -- but at least from what I'm seeing, they're still too slow, which is to say that they're noticably slower than one-handed swords. Two-handed swords are really not that heavy. They're fairly fast weapons. Now, given that they are (I believe) using the same animation set for two-handed swords, mauls, and axes, at least one of those weapons is going to end up not quite right in the speed department.

I suppose it's not so much the speed that's the problem in DA:I, it's the way they swing as far and wide as possible with practically every stroke and then have some recovery time, which makes it look slower. Eh. I'm probably never going to be satisfied with in-game combat animations, so I shouldn't worry about it.


Much more likely, people have different things that they really liked about Baldur's Gate. I'm actually in the middle of a run through Baldur's Gate right now, and I usually play the game once a year, so I'm thinking I probably remember it pretty well.


Yeah, but here are a few examples of differences...

In BG, if you do manage to kill that enemy who's a good bit higher level than you, you get some cool stuff out of it. In DA:I, you probably can't use that stuff, because it's level-scaled.

In BG, micromanaging the party is easy, partly because it's inherently easier to do so from a top down view and partly because you can do things like multi-select and reliably click to attack. In DA:I, both combat modes (at least to my mind) have some fairly serious issues.

BG has neither activated abilities for non-casters (aside from a few special things in Throne of Bhaal) nor cooldowns. Minor complaint for some people, I know, but it's a major annoyance for me.

I will also add that there are other things that I think Inquisition does very well, but only a handful of them are things that I would consider mechanical. The exploration is great, yeah. The greatly reduced level scaling is very welcome, as is the lack of health regeneration. Tense combat is good, but the heaps-o'-health way to achieve that does not work for me, that just makes it feel kind of dull. If I fight a dragon, for example, I want the difficulty to come mostly from not dying long enough to kill it rather than just slogging away at it long enough to kill it. Honestly, at least at this point in the game, if you were to simply map everything else about DA:I onto a different combat/character building/dialogue system (not necessarily DA:O's, but that one would work), I'd be quite happy with it. Heck, even just a different combat control scheme.


What worked to you, I suppose -- and that's great. The inclusion of the dialogue wheel and paraphrase system, if nothing else, will make it definitely not feel anything like Baldur's Gate to me. The lack of anything I consider a functional tactical mode will not make it feel like that (though it's possible I simply haven't managed to acclimate myself to it yet or have something set up poorly about it), as will the cooldown-based combat (particularly with some of the more outrageous abilities present). Not being able to assign ability scores is also a problem for me (I actually prefer not to increase them at level-up, but I strongly prefer to be able to roll and/or assign them to begin with), and so forth.


I'll really have to try to get that working right again, because if this is so, it would make the game much more enjoyable for me. So far, however, I've only ended up having to fight the camera to consistently see what's going on whenever I try tactical mode.

You raise a number of excellent mechanical points about the difference between BG1 and DAI. I do disagree with you but I need to fire up BG1 and get a sense right now for the combat to articulate my points with examples.

I will say one thing: Vancian magic is a terror and I am very glad it is not part of DA. Mechanically it turns magic into item use.

[AlanC9]

Oh so the core controls, general feeling and the interface are trivial and the gibbing corpses are important. Okay. I see.

Huh? I was talking about the core exploration gameplay and so forth. And yeah, "general feeling" is pretty important when I'm trying to decide if one game is "like" another game. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an important factor?

[UniformGreyColor]

Dear Bioware,

 

           Just make Origins 2.

 

 

sincerly yours,

 

Unhappy fan

 

FTFY

 

Edit: You know what, it still doesn't look too intelligent said this way either.