281 réponses à ce sujet

[Targaryen2009]

SLPr0 wrote...

Before any respondants instantly go into fanboi mode, please at least read the points of the post before flaming them, I will be presenting them in quite a reasonable and easy to understand fashion.

I should also, because I'm well aware how much work has gone into this and how onerous unconstructive forum posts can be for moderators and other players alike, I suppose, cover the things about the game that are absolutely uncontestably awesome.

I agree with some of your points, but those are of minor importance to me. I think the game's strong points overwhelms its few flaws and do not really detract from the playing experience. I consider DA:O to be one of the best CRPGs I've ever played.

[SLPr0]

Targaryen2009 wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Before any respondants instantly go into fanboi mode, please at least read the points of the post before flaming them, I will be presenting them in quite a reasonable and easy to understand fashion.

I should also, because I'm well aware how much work has gone into this and how onerous unconstructive forum posts can be for moderators and other players alike, I suppose, cover the things about the game that are absolutely uncontestably awesome.

I agree with some of your points, but those are of minor importance to me. I think the game's strong points overwhelms its few flaws and do not really detract from the playing experience. I consider DA:O to be one of the best CRPGs I've ever played.

I don't disagree with your statement at all I do think its a great game. And its strong points really do overwhelm the issues that are in my personal opinions, flaws or failures in the game dynamic or just outright bugs in how things function.

Theres no doubt this is an incredible experience, as games go. I just feel like a pivotal opportunity to have the game more adaptive and open ended has been lost.

Who knows, maybe some of my points are points they can refine or improve via DLC expansion or sequels. We shall see....in oh, possibly under a decade.

[lazorexplosion]

DA:O has the best party based RPG combat ever.

Since you seem to think normal is hard, I'd say there is substantial room for you to improve how you play, and I think you'll enjoy the game much better if you do. If you get into the mentality of being frustrated and blaming the game when you fail instead of using every loss as an opportunity to re-evalutate the tactics you're using to try and improve, then you won't improve and you'll miss the satisfaction of learning and doing better. Have you read any tactics hints and tips posts?

Modifié par lazorexplosion, 08 novembre 2009 - 08:07 .

[Targaryen2009]

SLPr0 wrote...

I don't disagree with your statement at all I do think its a great game. And its strong points really do overwhelm the issues that are in my personal opinions, flaws or failures in the game dynamic or just outright bugs in how things function.

I think many dissatisfied people tend to whine and complain in an unreasonable and disrespectful way, which isn't very helpful for the developers. However, I think your comments were far more constructive and balanced, even though we disagree about the overall quality of the game

[SLPr0]

lazorexplosion wrote...

DA:O has the best party based RPG combat ever.

Since you seem to think normal is hard, I'd say there is substantial room for you to improve how you play, and I think you'll enjoy the game much better if you do. If you get into the mentality of being frustrated and blaming the game when you fail instead of using every loss as an opportunity to re-evalutate the tactics you're using to try and improve, then you won't improve and you'll miss the satisfaction of learning and doing better. Have you read any tactics hints and tips posts?

I have read quite a bit of them and experimented with them pretty heavily last night during several play sessions.

As stated in an earlier reply I found that while setting behaviors did alleviate certain gripes about tactics not seeming to work, they opened up entirely new and confounding bugs where characters set to any other behavior but default would simply stop following the group after a battle or even at times just stand there and do nothing while set to :"aggressive".

So as I stated my initial assessments of tactics were based in a marginal lack of understanding of the behaviors drop down but, also, using said behaviors drop down exposed more problems that I didn't experience in my first play through at all.

So I am standing by my statement that tactics are not a reliable method of effective play. In theory they should be, but in practice, for the newer player they won't be at all and for someone thats got their head around the tactics screen now to see party members completely non-reactive when tactics rules are set quite succinctly to ensure they are reacting simply re-establishes my assessment of the tactics system not working.

That also doesn't address the crafting/skills system being more or less tacked on and lacking much importance beyond 3 - 4 key skills.

It also doesn't address the frustration of dealing with a click to attack method of play which is just patently frustrating when its quite obvious they could have simply written a "select nearest target" function and allowed you to bind it to a key then allowed you to bind another key to attack. These two elements are almost ridiculous in their absence in this game. And would make gameplay in third person mode a lot more effective...which is where I prefer to play it because its more immersive than top down view.

[Derengard]

I haven't played the game yet, but I'll give this a go:
This game is designed by the standard of Baldur's Gate 2, with some natural differences and improvements. Party-based, tactical combat with a pause function. The pause function is the equivalent of waiting for the other play in a tactical game to make his turn. It reduces the chaos and makes it controllable. It is certainly not any greater inconvenience to frequently hit the pause button than any other button. If you don't want to rely on this type of gameplay, then you have to omit party-based gameplay and make it more action-oriented. But this is neither deeper, better, nor objectively more enjoyable.
The criticisms you mention are mostly minor design or balance issues, and sometimes just based on your subjective interpretations of the design intentions or your preferences of gameplay (hotbar doesn't infer an obligation for action-based gameplay).
Anybody who enjoyed games in the line of Baldur's Gate will certainly find the gameplay of DA a successful variation. The superficial inconveniences of the tactical menus don't impede the fundamental workings of this gameplay.

Modifié par Derengard, 08 novembre 2009 - 08:27 .

[Xalm Grey]

Derengard wrote...

I haven't played the game yet, but I'll give this a go:
This game is designed by the standard of Baldur's Gate 2, with some natural differences and improvements. Party-based, tactical combat with a pause function. The pause function is the equivalent of waiting for the other play in a tactical game to make his turn. It reduces the chaos and makes it controllable. It is certainly not any greater inconvenience to frequently hit the pause button than any other button. If you don't want to rely on this type of gameplay, then you have to omit party-based gameplay and make it more action-oriented. But this is neither deeper, better, nor objectively more enjoyable.
The criticisms you mention are mostly minor design or balance issues, and sometimes just based on your subjective interpretations of the design intentions or your preferences of gameplay (hotbar doesn't infer an obligation for action-based gameplay).
Anybody who enjoyed games in the line of Baldur's Gate will certainly find the gameplay of DA a successful variation. The superficial inconveniences of the tactical menus don't impede the fundamental workings of this gameplay.

I am still suprised how the BG type vets are sloooooow to recognize that yes BG and BG2 were great but that Bioware also made alot of games since then. Those "other" obviously minor titles ( since they mean nothing here if they aren't BG and BG2 ) don't mean much i guess. It astounds me to see people pointing out this is fine and not even considering the other playerbase that this company obviously built but ignored when making this.

[sophee]

SLPr0 wrote...
<junk removed>

Good post, nice to see you giving it a lot of thought. Unfortunatly, most of you gripes seem to be due to a lack of gaming competence. Go away, play the game a few more days. Bye.

[SLPr0]

sophee wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Good post, nice to see you giving it a lot of thought. Unfortunatly, most of you gripes seem to be due to a lack of gaming competence. Go away, play the game a few more days. Bye.

Lack of gaming competence. That is a hilariously inaccurate statement. And a completely unnecessary flame.

Most of my gripes are founded in a depth of understanding of game dynamics that most people (you for example) don't have....because game dynamics are what I do to put money in my bank account and what you personally pay money out of yours to figure out.

There are broken dynamics in this game. Its patently obvious to anyone that can see past the paint job.

There are multiple character talents that simply don't work as stated. The tactics system produces bugged AI responses, the skills system is a weak addition to the game dynamic that has two critical skills in it you HAVE TO TAKE and a bunch of others of various levels of use/lack of use due to flaws in the combat dynamics/level list loot tables.

Hell theres missing textures in the PC version after the 1.01 patch, go to the Ostagar camp and look at the fire pits and tell me I'm wrong....or explain why there appear to be fire logs stacked over what appears to be a translucent portal to nowhere? And thats just an art error.

Lack of gaming competence. What you have is a lack of observational competence, its likely due to the BioWare blinders you have on and your unfettered belief that everything they do is pure gold. To which I would counter...no, its not cause NWN2 was pure garbage.

DA:O is not garbage, but to blindly ignore patently obvious flaws, oversights and broken elements of the game dynamic and defend it based on the stuff its done well alone is not a position anyone qualified to even make judgments about games or other peoples gaming competence should be doing.

[JEBesh]

Xalm Grey wrote...

I am still suprised how the BG type vets are sloooooow to recognize that yes BG and BG2 were great but that Bioware also made alot of games since then. Those "other" obviously minor titles ( since they mean nothing here if they aren't BG and BG2 ) don't mean much i guess. It astounds me to see people pointing out this is fine and not even considering the other playerbase that this company obviously built but ignored when making this.

They aren't "ignoring" anyone. If they were ignoring people who don't like BG style gameplay, they wouldn't have ME2 coming out in 2 months. DA:O has always been marketed as "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate." It's what it was meant to be, and they weren't coy about it. They're going back to their roots for one game that you don't have to play. If you want to go down this pointless road, let's say they were "ignoring" the BG fan base for years with ME, JE, and KotOR.

[JEBesh]

SLPr0 wrote...

Lack of gaming competence. What you have is a lack of observational competence, its likely due to the BioWare blinders you have on and your unfettered belief that everything they do is pure gold. To which I would counter...no, its not cause NWN2 was pure garbage.

I've refrained from commenting on any of your other comments, but I had a laugh at this one.

To which I would counter.. NWN2 wasn't a BioWare game!

Zing! What a counter!

[SLPr0]

JEBesh wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Lack of gaming competence. What you have is a lack of observational competence, its likely due to the BioWare blinders you have on and your unfettered belief that everything they do is pure gold. To which I would counter...no, its not cause NWN2 was pure garbage.

I've refrained from commenting on any of your other comments, but I had a laugh at this one.

To which I would counter.. NWN2 wasn't a BioWare game!

Zing! What a counter!

Ahh yes you're right, Obsidian Entertainment did NWN2....I didn't pay attention to the title beyond the demo, and thusly that never sunk in. I hadn't realized BioWare licensed the IP to someone else.

So that brings most of what BioWare has done back up to a gold standard and I'll retract my statement. But I'm not retracting my statements in regards to the flawed dynamics I'm stating here.

[HappyStasis]

JEBesh wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Lack of gaming competence. What you have is a lack of observational competence, its likely due to the BioWare blinders you have on and your unfettered belief that everything they do is pure gold. To which I would counter...no, its not cause NWN2 was pure garbage.

I've refrained from commenting on any of your other comments, but I had a laugh at this one.

To which I would counter.. NWN2 wasn't a BioWare game!

Zing! What a counter!

Oh?

Please enlighten me as to why they have their stamp on the franchise. I'm really quite curious to find out.

[EDIT: Never mind. Owned by my own lack of speed]
 

Modifié par HappyStasis, 08 novembre 2009 - 09:39 .

[JEBesh]

SLPr0 wrote...

Ahh yes you're right, Obsidian Entertainment did NWN2....I didn't pay attention to the title beyond the demo, and thusly that never sunk in. I hadn't realized BioWare licensed the IP to someone else.

So that brings most of what BioWare has done back up to a gold standard and I'll retract my statement. But I'm not retracting my statements in regards to the flawed dynamics I'm stating here.

I wouldn't ask you to retract your opinion. If it's not a matter of fact and you're not posting blatant misinformation, go right ahead. I enjoyed the game very much and didn't have a problem with difficulty.

[JEBesh]

HappyStasis wrote...

Oh?

Please enlighten me as to why they have their stamp on the franchise. I'm really quite curious to find out.


 

I don't recall seeing a BioWare "stamp" on NWN2, granted I don't have the case near me.

I can tell you that NWN2 was in fact developed by Obsidian, though. Any claim to NWN2 that BioWare has is through the Aurora engine and the name.

[Derengard]

Xalm Grey wrote...


I am still suprised how the BG type vets are sloooooow to recognize that yes BG and BG2 were great but that Bioware also made alot of games since then. Those "other" obviously minor titles ( since they mean nothing here if they aren't BG and BG2 ) don't mean much i guess. It astounds me to see people pointing out this is fine and not even considering the other playerbase that this company obviously built but ignored when making this.

They obviously didn't ignore this other "player base", but they took what they thought were positive features of these minor games and implemented them in DA. There are some great improvements, leading up to choice and consequences, and some essentially cosmetic differences, like cinematic dialog screen (and ingame cutscnes instead of floating texts).
But they also should make DA after a certain concept, and that may include rather appealing to an "old" player base, rather than just adapting every new game to every current player bases.

Modifié par Derengard, 08 novembre 2009 - 09:45 .

[Begarian]

I read the OP, the first five pages, and skimmed page 6 and 7. You're entitled to your opinion of course, SLPro. I happen to like the micro-managing (I turned off tactics) as it makes it more natural for me since I've gone through the Baldur's Gate series many, many times. So I will not discuss the tactics/behaviour, or the micromanaging as you got an ear full of that already.



Here's something I can tell you about crafting that, for some odd reason, you didn't pick up on your first play through: there are several vendors that sell an infinite amount of resources that you need. With enough gold, you can craft as many health and lyrium potions as you want. The vendor in the Dalish forest camp sells an infinite amount of Elfroot. The Quartermaster in the Circle Tower sells and infinite amount of Lyrium Dust. Your camp vendor then sells an infinite amount of whatever flasks/distillers you need. So. With enough gold, you can actually craft as many potions as you want. I've got 40+ greater health poultices and greater lyrium potions myself. You just need to track down the recipes and correct vendors. Finding the ingredients is just a small (and free) bonus.



I love this game and almost everything about it, but there is a few things missing that would make the game complete for me. A combat log would be nice. I like to see how close my guys are to actually hitting an enemy. Knowing my attack/damage rolls would be great to see how much more points I need to put in strength or dexterity to do some real damage, instead of just blindly putting points into them. Same thing for being able to successfully persuade/intimidate people, and the same goes for unlocking chests to. Throw us a bone here, Bioware! You guys let us see the statistical side of these things before, patch it in.



I'd also like to see Bioware patch in a better way to see what rewards you get. It gets progressively frustrating clicking on "items received" and having to go through my entire inventory just to find the one glowing item that I got. Along the same line of thinking, I'd also like to see a better tooltip for "item set bonus". I'd really like to know what the Dragon Plate set bonus is without taking off each piece and checking my stats. It's annoying.

[SLPr0]

JEBesh wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Ahh yes you're right, Obsidian Entertainment did NWN2....I didn't pay attention to the title beyond the demo, and thusly that never sunk in. I hadn't realized BioWare licensed the IP to someone else.

So that brings most of what BioWare has done back up to a gold standard and I'll retract my statement. But I'm not retracting my statements in regards to the flawed dynamics I'm stating here.

I wouldn't ask you to retract your opinion. If it's not a matter of fact and you're not posting blatant misinformation, go right ahead. I enjoyed the game very much and didn't have a problem with difficulty.

See what you and so many other people seem to lack the ability to understand is that its possible to understand the flaws in a game and still enjoy it.

You seem to assume that I'm sitting here saying DA:O sucks and I want my money back and the usual blather you get from the chronically unsatisfiable negative gamer/forum poster you get everywhere. While ignoring where I've said in multiple responses, that I think the game is fantastic on many levels.

And focusing on my explanation of my observation of difficulty levels as me saying the game is awful is dumb as well. I played it on easy because I prefer a more hands off hack and slash approach to games, thats EXACTLY what the mouse over information states for that mode I'll paraphrase here but it does state:

"This mode is for players newer to role playing games or for players who want a more hands off experience that does not require much management of party characters, friendly fire will not affect party members...." and a bit more but thats what it states.

And yes I died on Easy...thats not some kind of moral failing thats an indication that the game is challenging in whatever mode you decide to play it in.

My primary complaint is the lack of the games ability to adapt to the players preferred style of play, the constant "its the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" arguments really are like throwing cream pies at a castle as far as I'm concerned, this is the 21st century, games have moved on since Baldur's Gate and theres no reason why DA:O can't do Baldur's Gate for all the people that have been waiting for a game to replace it AND do action RPG style play as well and its my opinion that with the "easy" mode description and the ability to play in third person (in a fairly frustrating fashion but still play in it) indicates that they were trying to keep the door open for that style of player.

The rest of the stuff is technical dynamics observations that I feel are flawed and need a look.

So I wish people would stop reading this thread and flat out ignoring the fact that I've said the games positives do overwhelm the negative points I've highlighted, and realize that I do like the game quite a bit otherwise I wouldn't have tortured myself for 51.6 hours on my first run through, registered on these forums and participated in them while creating new characters and making new character runs through different origins as well while I attempt to suss out where my own misunderstandings are and where the actual flaws are.

Many of my previous observations still stand after going back in and doing several different origin run throughs and attempting to work around the stated counter arguments, some of them have changed in their overall morphology but remain at least categorically the same.

But again, I'll state, this doesn't mean DA:O is a bad game and I don't like it. I personally love it and if it doesn't get a sequel I'll be very dissapointed. While it may have been 51.6 hours of me trying to fit my action RPG square peg into the RTSRPG round hole....it was still 51.6 hours of absolutely wonderful story and well executed conceptual design and brilliant writing...and that alone makes it a good game.

Its just the actual game play, and the apparent flaws and weak spots in the dynamics presented, that drags the game down a bit in my personal opinion.

[HappyStasis]

JEBesh wrote...

HappyStasis wrote...

Oh?

Please enlighten me as to why they have their stamp on the franchise. I'm really quite curious to find out.


 

I don't recall seeing a BioWare "stamp" on NWN2, granted I don't have the case near me.

I can tell you that NWN2 was in fact developed by Obsidian, though. Any claim to NWN2 that BioWare has is through the Aurora engine and the name.

Trust me it is there, albeit on the backside right next to the Wizards of the coast logo. Anyway, I cant tell whether it was a demand from Bioware as part of any trade regarding the IP's.

[JEBesh]

SLPr0 wrote...

See what you and so many other people seem to lack the ability to understand is that its possible to understand the flaws in a game and still enjoy it.

You seem to assume that I'm sitting here saying DA:O sucks and I want my money back and the usual blather you get from the chronically unsatisfiable negative gamer/forum poster you get everywhere. While ignoring where I've said in multiple responses, that I think the game is fantastic on many levels.

And focusing on my explanation of my observation of difficulty levels as me saying the game is awful is dumb as well. I played it on easy because I prefer a more hands off hack and slash approach to games, thats EXACTLY what the mouse over information states for that mode I'll paraphrase here but it does state:

"This mode is for players newer to role playing games or for players who want a more hands off experience that does not require much management of party characters, friendly fire will not affect party members...." and a bit more but thats what it states.

And yes I died on Easy...thats not some kind of moral failing thats an indication that the game is challenging in whatever mode you decide to play it in.

My primary complaint is the lack of the games ability to adapt to the players preferred style of play, the constant "its the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" arguments really are like throwing cream pies at a castle as far as I'm concerned, this is the 21st century, games have moved on since Baldur's Gate and theres no reason why DA:O can't do Baldur's Gate for all the people that have been waiting for a game to replace it AND do action RPG style play as well and its my opinion that with the "easy" mode description and the ability to play in third person (in a fairly frustrating fashion but still play in it) indicates that they were trying to keep the door open for that style of player.

The rest of the stuff is technical dynamics observations that I feel are flawed and need a look.

So I wish people would stop reading this thread and flat out ignoring the fact that I've said the games positives do overwhelm the negative points I've highlighted, and realize that I do like the game quite a bit otherwise I wouldn't have tortured myself for 51.6 hours on my first run through, registered on these forums and participated in them while creating new characters and making new character runs through different origins as well while I attempt to suss out where my own misunderstandings are and where the actual flaws are.

Many of my previous observations still stand after going back in and doing several different origin run throughs and attempting to work around the stated counter arguments, some of them have changed in their overall morphology but remain at least categorically the same.

But again, I'll state, this doesn't mean DA:O is a bad game and I don't like it. I personally love it and if it doesn't get a sequel I'll be very dissapointed. While it may have been 51.6 hours of me trying to fit my action RPG square peg into the RTSRPG round hole....it was still 51.6 hours of absolutely wonderful story and well executed conceptual design and brilliant writing...and that alone makes it a good game.

Its just the actual game play, and the apparent flaws and weak spots in the dynamics presented, that drags the game down a bit in my personal opinion.

While I wish you could convey a point briefly, I'll address it. My two line post directed towards you seems to have sent you off on a rant filled with assumptions on what I was implying, while at the same time chastising me for assuming things that I didn't actually assume. I didn't say that you didn't enjoy the game. I was just stating my opinion of it, and while it may have seemed that my opinion must have been contrary to yours, that wasn't my intention. You seemed to be addressing your concerns with the difficulty settings and micromanagement, so I touched on my opinion of that.  I understand that you're projecting your frustration with some of the comments from other people, but try to keep in mind that I am not them before you make these assumptions.

[Sparklehorse69]

In your rush to complain you ended up proving that you didn't play the game deeply enough to really understand how it works.



As posters above me have stated, many of the things you complained about are easily avoided by learning how to play the game and about the abilities of the other classes. Using the tactics feature properly will stop ranged characters from going melee and spec a caster into the mana/stamina regen talents are just a couple of things you could have easily figured out on your own with a little more play time and a little less rushing to post a negative wall of text.

[Destinatus_Archi_Magus]

Storyline aside? Are you kidding me? That's like saying "Warmth aside, this is why it sucks wearing a coat in the winter." or "Besides the ability fly, this is why it sucks having wings."

Give me a break man. If you want substance and an engaging story line, then this game is for you. If you want  the type of combat you describe yourself as enjoying, then play a different game. It's that simple. I honestly don't even see the need to start a thread.

Modifié par Destinatus_Archi_Magus, 08 novembre 2009 - 10:16 .

[SLPr0]

Sparklehorse69 wrote...

In your rush to complain you ended up proving that you didn't play the game deeply enough to really understand how it works.

As posters above me have stated, many of the things you complained about are easily avoided by learning how to play the game and about the abilities of the other classes. Using the tactics feature properly will stop ranged characters from going melee and spec a caster into the mana/stamina regen talents are just a couple of things you could have easily figured out on your own with a little more play time and a little less rushing to post a negative wall of text.

Yes welcome to about 10 hours ago. About one page back you'll find I addressed my findings with expermentations in that area and while the stated usage of Tactical "Behaviors" does address that original issue, it also produces completely new anomolous issues that I did not experience at all in the original play through where I was having the ranged characters abandon range in favor of melee.

Anyways I could repeat myself but really, its one page back, just click the back button and find it.

[Wardawg1001]

I'm sorry to say I did read your entire post, and I have to say you are an idiot. You seemed intelligent to begin with, but it was clear by about half way through your essay, you are not entitled to rate this game (thats not to say you can't have an opinion, just dont try to pass it off as fact). Your review is based largely off design decisions that were intentional and well broadcasted in their portrayal of the game, and the fact that you would prefer other designs does not make this game worse in any way. Also, you really suck at the game and obviously didnt figure out how to use its features and systems properly, which again does not make the game bad, it just means you dont like it or suck at it.

[SLPr0]

JEBesh wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

See what you and so many other people seem to lack the ability to understand is that its possible to understand the flaws in a game and still enjoy it.

You seem to assume that I'm sitting here saying DA:O sucks and I want my money back and the usual blather you get from the chronically unsatisfiable negative gamer/forum poster you get everywhere. While ignoring where I've said in multiple responses, that I think the game is fantastic on many levels.

And focusing on my explanation of my observation of difficulty levels as me saying the game is awful is dumb as well. I played it on easy because I prefer a more hands off hack and slash approach to games, thats EXACTLY what the mouse over information states for that mode I'll paraphrase here but it does state:

"This mode is for players newer to role playing games or for players who want a more hands off experience that does not require much management of party characters, friendly fire will not affect party members...." and a bit more but thats what it states.

And yes I died on Easy...thats not some kind of moral failing thats an indication that the game is challenging in whatever mode you decide to play it in.

My primary complaint is the lack of the games ability to adapt to the players preferred style of play, the constant "its the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" arguments really are like throwing cream pies at a castle as far as I'm concerned, this is the 21st century, games have moved on since Baldur's Gate and theres no reason why DA:O can't do Baldur's Gate for all the people that have been waiting for a game to replace it AND do action RPG style play as well and its my opinion that with the "easy" mode description and the ability to play in third person (in a fairly frustrating fashion but still play in it) indicates that they were trying to keep the door open for that style of player.

The rest of the stuff is technical dynamics observations that I feel are flawed and need a look.

So I wish people would stop reading this thread and flat out ignoring the fact that I've said the games positives do overwhelm the negative points I've highlighted, and realize that I do like the game quite a bit otherwise I wouldn't have tortured myself for 51.6 hours on my first run through, registered on these forums and participated in them while creating new characters and making new character runs through different origins as well while I attempt to suss out where my own misunderstandings are and where the actual flaws are.

Many of my previous observations still stand after going back in and doing several different origin run throughs and attempting to work around the stated counter arguments, some of them have changed in their overall morphology but remain at least categorically the same.

But again, I'll state, this doesn't mean DA:O is a bad game and I don't like it. I personally love it and if it doesn't get a sequel I'll be very dissapointed. While it may have been 51.6 hours of me trying to fit my action RPG square peg into the RTSRPG round hole....it was still 51.6 hours of absolutely wonderful story and well executed conceptual design and brilliant writing...and that alone makes it a good game.

Its just the actual game play, and the apparent flaws and weak spots in the dynamics presented, that drags the game down a bit in my personal opinion.

While I wish you could convey a point briefly, I'll address it. My two line post directed towards you seems to have sent you off on a rant filled with assumptions on what I was implying, while at the same time chastising me for assuming things that I didn't actually assume. I didn't say that you didn't enjoy the game. I was just stating my opinion of it, and while it may have seemed that my opinion must have been contrary to yours, that wasn't my intention. You seemed to be addressing your concerns with the difficulty settings and micromanagement, so I touched on my opinion of that.  I understand that you're projecting your frustration with some of the comments from other people, but try to keep in mind that I am not them before you make these assumptions.

Alright, granted, you got the rocksalt essentially for a bunch of other people and you likely didn't deserve it. I apologize.

Look a short statement. I am capable of it on rare occasion.