The problem is you are all arguing semantics, fact of the mater is that DA2 IS an RPG, and it IS NOT a decline in the genre or anything new either.
If its not an RPG then neither is ANY game made by Square, Enix, or any other company that makes games resembling them, you seriously cannot argue that RPG's require meaningful desision making because almost no RPG does. You also cannot argue that RPG's require a character maker, because that too would exempt several that won RPG of the year titles.
I'm sorry if you guys think you can redefine what the term RPG means but you can't.
I don't know who you're referring to, but I've never said it wasn't an RPG, I'm simply saying it isn't a classic RPG in the style of it's predecessor. Instead it's an action RPG and in my own opinion, that is indeed a decline...not in the genre since we've always had action RPGs, but in the DA series and perhaps in Bioware itself. Tho I guess we'll have to wait and see on that last bit.
Saying its a decline implys that its following some sort of pattern, Action RPG's are not a new thing, and infact the style they represent has been around for a long time. The reason I disagree is because I see no trend, I don't see Action RPG's starting to take over the genre and traditional RPG's being pushed aside, game makers are making both types of games.
You're totally missing the point, are you reading what I'm saying at all? I haven't said anything what you're saying. Please read what I'm saying and stop trying to infer your own meaning onto it. I am stating a simple opinion, DA:O was a traditional classic RPG in the spirit of Baldurs Gate. DA2 is a departure from that and like someone else said, switching styles like that in the same series is jarring at the least. I'm not talking about the genre. I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about DA and also what we've come to expect from Bioware.
In most ways i find myself agreeing with the OP,and rather pleased someone brought this out,as i didn't want to start a thread over it,though had been tempted..I found DA a toning down,just as previously [i never tried either of the Mass Effects] i found Neverwinter Nights a joke..remember the stupid camera angles? The ones reminding hack n slash games? Which despite this,were somehow meant to 'impress'? the overly light settings? the cartoonish approach to charcters leaving out that baroque style of Baldur's gate toons? The slow but constant walking away from hit dice mechanics? You didn't have to understand DCs to play NWNs..and i could go on,and on..yes considering what trash had been out i guess they were good in themselves,but had not with them 2 Bioware already dumbed a genre down? Next time i bothered with them,it was DA..i stopped in the 3 rd area,where you get to 'meet' that redhead,i forget her name now. Totally uninspiring..what story? a linear walkthrough it was,nothing else..they stole Bethesda's 'trick' of allowing players to add modules to make it the extra semester in the grind of time and thats it..even more bright cartoons,even more light colours,even less gloominess..what the happened to RPGs that were glomy,spooky and a pain in the butt to navigate when in tight places? What happened to a game feeling it took a new twist because you took a chaotic allignment? Why leaving those out? Why fooling me by insinuating i could pick a class and reroll when i could have all classes in my group from the first time,and nothing would change? With no allegiances,no personal character hero stories,no choice to deviate from the Bioware's idea of linear story (and we chain you to it), did it matter if i did a tutorial as mage or scout? By the time i was at that first area camp,i could have all classes in my group,play as each..a one time,one way attempt at making some money,no more. Tbh, the more time goes by,and info keeps coming in,the more i feel inclined to edit previous statements i've made in this forum,as i doubt i will be holding my breath for SWtor..especially since that last dev comment someone linked here,regarding how one "must be stupid not to follow Blizzard's example"..right..add this to what in their lack of imagination in what they want to call "story", [wanna see you all enduring the vid scenes every 5 mins in your 3rd and 4th alts,stories as linear and as unchanging as in previous games they made] and i'm already running away..DA2 falls exactly in that same category,havent even bothered,neither will i. It was in fact the combination of DA news and SWtor news that showed me this was a road they meant to have taken,no accident or delineation,and a road leading to even 'less'. Couldn't care less for their 150 million was it? project, if all it means is extra shiny wrapping on yet more of their past ways.
FYI, console game piracy is at least as big as PC game piracy. Many, many business have been borned out of the modded consoles.
Not really. I can't be bothered to look it up right now, but there have quite some articles and news items over the years that console games of the same games sell a lot better than their PC version. For the gap between PC and console games, piracy is named, which is far larger and more widespread for PC than for console games.
Originally posted by Laughing-man
RPG- Role playing game, you are taking on a role of a character with an established back story and you are playing through a storyline as if you are acting in a play.
So yes, DA2 does fit RPG EXACTLY to a T.
Please stop trying to redefine things.
Edit: After reading the article I begin to wonder how long the reviewer has played RPGs, back when the genre was first getting its major titled like Final Fantasy 7 and Chrono Trigger you didn't get to create your own character or get to make many decisions on how the storyline played out.
Sounds like someone's crying wolf while screaming about the sky falling. Goodness...
I'm willing to bet that those who dislike action RPG's also dislike J-RPG's as the Final Fantasy series.
Seems to me that just as it is with MMORPG's, the taste and preferences of those people only contains the subgenre of classic RPG's and want to declare this one as being THE one and only RPG genre, while in truth there are various subgenres of RPG that are all still RPG games.
Limited preferences, and an unwillingness to accept other sub genres of games within 'their' genre.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The problem is you are all arguing semantics, fact of the mater is that DA2 IS an RPG, and it IS NOT a decline in the genre or anything new either.
If its not an RPG then neither is ANY game made by Square, Enix, or any other company that makes games resembling them, you seriously cannot argue that RPG's require meaningful desision making because almost no RPG does. You also cannot argue that RPG's require a character maker, because that too would exempt several that won RPG of the year titles.
I'm sorry if you guys think you can redefine what the term RPG means but you can't.
redefine? isnt it your definition that is at fault, RPG is not a limited choice linear game, its about role playing, not following a prescripted pathway. the more a game takes away freedom of choice, and the less able you are to enact a role that YOU define, the less the game is a role playing one, and the more it becomes just an interactive story. quite frankly im getting sick and tired of games that continually push out more and more cutscenes, their immersion breaking, and they add nothing in terms of role playing. so, do i think DA:2 represents a decline in the RPG game... YES. and i for one won't be buying it or any more of that kind of rubbish.
The problem is you are all arguing semantics, fact of the mater is that DA2 IS an RPG, and it IS NOT a decline in the genre or anything new either.
If its not an RPG then neither is ANY game made by Square, Enix, or any other company that makes games resembling them, you seriously cannot argue that RPG's require meaningful desision making because almost no RPG does. You also cannot argue that RPG's require a character maker, because that too would exempt several that won RPG of the year titles.
I'm sorry if you guys think you can redefine what the term RPG means but you can't.
I don't know who you're referring to, but I've never said it wasn't an RPG, I'm simply saying it isn't a classic RPG in the style of it's predecessor. Instead it's an action RPG and in my own opinion, that is indeed a decline...not in the genre since we've always had action RPGs, but in the DA series and perhaps in Bioware itself. Tho I guess we'll have to wait and see on that last bit.
Saying its a decline implys that its following some sort of pattern, Action RPG's are not a new thing, and infact the style they represent has been around for a long time. The reason I disagree is because I see no trend, I don't see Action RPG's starting to take over the genre and traditional RPG's being pushed aside, game makers are making both types of games.
You're totally missing the point, are you reading what I'm saying at all? I haven't said anything what you're saying. Please read what I'm saying and stop trying to infer your own meaning onto it. I am stating a simple opinion, DA:O was a traditional classic RPG in the spirit of Baldurs Gate. DA2 is a departure from that and like someone else said, switching styles like that in the same series is jarring at the least. I'm not talking about the genre. I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about DA and also what we've come to expect from Bioware.
Yes... let me highlight what you said since you apparently don't remember saying it.
Now, do you see how what I said directly responds to what you said?
No?
You later talk about how you are specifically speaking on Bioware, just now, how am I suposed to comment on things you have yet to say?
Bioware has made another game that is VERY similar to KOTOR 1 and 2, extremely similar, this is NOT unusual for them the game they made is exactly on line with what they have been making since 2003.
Edit: Again the game plays identically to games they have made for over 8 years now, if that is a decline I'd love to see how you define Decline.
The problem is you are all arguing semantics, fact of the mater is that DA2 IS an RPG, and it IS NOT a decline in the genre or anything new either.
If its not an RPG then neither is ANY game made by Square, Enix, or any other company that makes games resembling them, you seriously cannot argue that RPG's require meaningful desision making because almost no RPG does. You also cannot argue that RPG's require a character maker, because that too would exempt several that won RPG of the year titles.
I'm sorry if you guys think you can redefine what the term RPG means but you can't.
I don't know who you're referring to, but I've never said it wasn't an RPG, I'm simply saying it isn't a classic RPG in the style of it's predecessor. Instead it's an action RPG and in my own opinion, that is indeed a decline...not in the genre since we've always had action RPGs, but in the DA series and perhaps in Bioware itself. Tho I guess we'll have to wait and see on that last bit.
Saying its a decline implys that its following some sort of pattern, Action RPG's are not a new thing, and infact the style they represent has been around for a long time. The reason I disagree is because I see no trend, I don't see Action RPG's starting to take over the genre and traditional RPG's being pushed aside, game makers are making both types of games.
You're totally missing the point, are you reading what I'm saying at all? I haven't said anything what you're saying. Please read what I'm saying and stop trying to infer your own meaning onto it. I am stating a simple opinion, DA:O was a traditional classic RPG in the spirit of Baldurs Gate. DA2 is a departure from that and like someone else said, switching styles like that in the same series is jarring at the least. I'm not talking about the genre. I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about DA and also what we've come to expect from Bioware.
Yes... let me highlight what you said since you apparently don't remember saying it.
Now, do you see how what I said directly responds to what you said?
No?
You later talk about how you are specifically speaking on Bioware, just now, how am I suposed to comment on things you have yet to say?
Bioware has made another game that is VERY similar to KOTOR 1 and 2, extremely similar, this is NOT unusual for them the game they made is exactly on line with what they have been making since 2003.
Edit: Again the game plays identically to games they have made for over 8 years now, if that is a decline I'd love to see how you define Decline.
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
All these people whining about DA2, and not a single one of them has actually played through the game.
Get over it, people dont want to play bloated and overly complicated games, thats why the RPGs you love are "dumbed down" compared to the games that came before them.
Want to play D&D? well better go playu the very first release, since everyone after that has been "dumbed down".
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
First off I just wanted to say my first post was not speaking directly to you, it was actually directed at the OP and the article.
I know you were not talking on the whole genre, I listed off other games that Bioware has made back in 2003, Bioware, the makers of DA:O. The reason I mention that specific series of games is because they are extremely similar in their gameplay apsects.
If you are saying that the gameplay degraded in some way from DA:O to DA:2 then my point in bringing up KOTOR 1 & 2 is because they have extremely similar gameplay elements to the series. If you are speaking specifically on the things the OP is, the fact that you are playing a character that is set in stone what you are and the game is linear and the choices don't seem to really effect the outcome, well he might as well be speaking on KOTOR 1 & 2, they had the same problems.
Bioware has a trend in their new RPG's to make them this way, I'm not sure why the person who wrote the article was suprised by these game elements.
As for the gameplay combat changes, if the removal of auto attack and addition of hitting A to attack is game breaking then I don't know what to say, but it doesn't change the nature of the game, nor does the talent trees, or the fact that you spend a lot of time in one spot in the story line. I just do not find anything you have said to be game breaking or game changing, I've read all of your posts several times now and I honestly think you are just crying wolf, the game play is the same.
Edit: added color.
Edit 2: I forgot to cover the redux on casting time and the speed up of combat pacing by making your character jump at a monster rather than sluggisly walk up to them, turn, face them, and then start auto attacking. Fantastic changes that ultimately improved the pace of combat, but yet did not change the dificulty or nature of it.
I totally agree with you here. It's not that DA2 will necessarily be a bad game, it's just that it's such a departure from the original. The playstyle is so different and the sense of immersion just isn't there. It's not the classic RPG that DA:O was, it's more in line of what we see in Diablo 3. Despite the story it's devolved into a simple action RPG. If that's what we wanted, we have Blizzard for that.
I wouldn't go that far regarding your last statement.
The Diablo games were fun but I never could get through them as they were just waves of mobs to kill one after another.
I like the whole Storty concept of DA:O 2 and don't mind the more action type of combat.
The again I played DA:O on easy and seldom used the pause button. Reason being is that combat should be fun and exciting from my vantage point, not a series of pauses and breaks only to then do it all again for more pauses and breaks.
Given an example that the Bioware people had shown (not the demo) I can still see where stopping and "setting up your shots" can be very viable.
Perhaps I can't speak for others, tho I think there are many who feel as I do, but for myself I stand by my statement.
I just don't see how Dragon Age Origins 2 is like a Diablo game other than the combat is more action oriented.
And if it is then they are doing something better than Blizzard as I will not be buying Diablo III but have preordered DA:O 2
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
First off I just wanted to say my first post was not speaking directly to you, it was actually directed at the OP and the article.
I know you were not talking on the whole genre, I listed off other games that Bioware has made back in 2003, Bioware, the makers of DA:O. The reason I mention that specific series of games is because they are extremely similar in their gameplay apsects.
If you are saying that the gameplay degraded in some way from DA:O to DA:2 then my point in bringing up KOTOR 1 & 2 is because they have extremely similar gameplay elements to the series. If you are speaking specifically on the things the OP is, the fact that you are playing a character that is set in stone what you are and the game is linear and the choices don't seem to really effect the outcome, well he might as well be speaking on KOTOR 1 & 2, they had the same problems.
Bioware has a trend in their new RPG's to make them this way, I'm not sure why the person who wrote the article was suprised by these game elements.
As for the gameplay combat changes, if the removal of auto attack and addition of hitting A to attack is game breaking then I don't know what to say, but it doesn't change the nature of the game, nor does the talent trees, or the fact that you spend a lot of time in one spot in the story line. I just do not find anything you have said to be game breaking or game changing, I've read all of your posts several times now and I honestly think you are just crying wolf, the game play is the same.
Edit: added color.
Edit 2: I forgot to cover the redux on casting time and the speed up of combat pacing by making your character jump at a monster rather than sluggisly walk up to them, turn, face them, and then start auto attacking. Fantastic changes that ultimately improved the pace of combat, but yet did not change the dificulty or nature of it.
I completely agree with you.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
First off I just wanted to say my first post was not speaking directly to you, it was actually directed at the OP and the article.
I know you were not talking on the whole genre, I listed off other games that Bioware has made back in 2003, Bioware, the makers of DA:O. The reason I mention that specific series of games is because they are extremely similar in their gameplay apsects.
If you are saying that the gameplay degraded in some way from DA:O to DA:2 then my point in bringing up KOTOR 1 & 2 is because they have extremely similar gameplay elements to the series. If you are speaking specifically on the things the OP is, the fact that you are playing a character that is set in stone what you are and the game is linear and the choices don't seem to really effect the outcome, well he might as well be speaking on KOTOR 1 & 2, they had the same problems.
Bioware has a trend in their new RPG's to make them this way, I'm not sure why the person who wrote the article was suprised by these game elements.
As for the gameplay combat changes, if the removal of auto attack and addition of hitting A to attack is game breaking then I don't know what to say, but it doesn't change the nature of the game, nor does the talent trees, or the fact that you spend a lot of time in one spot in the story line. I just do not find anything you have said to be game breaking or game changing, I've read all of your posts several times now and I honestly think you are just crying wolf, the game play is the same.
Edit: added color.
Edit 2: I forgot to cover the redux on casting time and the speed up of combat pacing by making your character jump at a monster rather than sluggisly walk up to them, turn, face them, and then start auto attacking. Fantastic changes that ultimately improved the pace of combat, but yet did not change the dificulty or nature of it.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
You might be right in that people will only look at the faster combat and immediately be turned off.
I'll be honest, I played the demo and my thoughts are that it was rushed out the door.
It was basically snippets of game play. My guess is that on the higher difficulties you will have to pause, set up the next moves, pause again, etc.
I could be wrong about that but on the original DA:O I rarely paused because I was playing on easy mode. i wanted more fluid combat encounters. However the harder I put the game the more one had to pause. my thought is that this second installment will be simliar except that one will be on "normal" for less stops and will have to stop on difficult and nightmare.
As a matter of fact I think I saw an interview stating that those settings would require more planning.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
If all you have played is the demo and you say the game is fundamentally different I'm very confused as to why, Demo for one has no difficulty settings, so sure I'm betting it was pretty easy compared to how it could be, it also had a lot of options removed. Yet again you don't mention a single complaint but yet say that the gameplay is "different" you don't explain at all. Is hitting a button repeatedly too annoying? Do you not like how fast mages cast spells? What about it has ruined the entire game for you?
You seem to be on the side of the article, so I'll assume your complaints are in line with theirs, again ALL their complaints against DA2, might as well have been said against KOTOR 1, let me explain
In KOTOR 1 at the end of the game nothing you have done maters, you either kill the bad guy and become the bad guy, or kill him and choose to leave the galaxy turning to the light side, the character you are was determaned from the very begining, you are destined to discover that you are infact a sith lord and that you must either follow your old path or turn away and find a new one as a jedi. The dialogue choices don't effect the end result in most cases and the story is very linear and the path is pretty narrow.
This hints at Bioware, the makers of DA 1 and 2, are doing what they have always done, its nothing new, not a decline merely a continuance. Which is not saying that repeating the same design choices is a good thing, I'm merely stating the fact that their games are following a trend that is repeating, and I'm not sure why everyone is suprised about these specific gameplay elements being reused.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
You might be right in that people will only look at the faster combat and immediately be turned off.
I'll be honest, I played the demo and my thoughts are that it was rushed out the door.
It was basically snippets of game play. My guess is that on the higher difficulties you will have to pause, set up the next moves, pause again, etc.
I could be wrong about that but on the original DA:O I rarely paused because I was playing on easy mode. i wanted more fluid combat encounters. However the harder I put the game the more one had to pause. my thought is that this second installment will be simliar except that one will be on "normal" for less stops and will have to stop on difficult and nightmare.
As a matter of fact I think I saw an interview stating that those settings would require more planning.
My thoughts exactly, I bet if you had a "Hard core" mode or some thing similar then you'd be more inclined to pause and issue orders and have a lot more tactical type combat. This would change the gameplay significantly, in a way that would make a lot of the folks out there who are upset about the fast paced combat perhaps feel a bit better about picking up DA2.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
If all you have played is the demo and you say the game is fundamentally different I'm very confused as to why, Demo for one has no difficulty settings, so sure I'm betting it was pretty easy compared to how it could be, it also had a lot of options removed. Yet again you don't mention a single complaint but yet say that the gameplay is "different" you don't explain at all. Is hitting a button repeatedly too annoying? Do you not like how fast mages cast spells? What about it has ruined the entire game for you?
You seem to be on the side of the article, so I'll assume your complaints are in line with theirs, again ALL their complaints against DA2, might as well have been said against KOTOR 1, let me explain
In KOTOR 1 at the end of the game nothing you have done maters, you either kill the bad guy and become the bad guy, or kill him and choose to leave the galaxy turning to the light side, the character you are was determaned from the very begining, you are destined to discover that you are infact a sith lord and that you must either follow your old path or turn away and find a new one as a jedi. The dialogue choices don't effect the end result in most cases and the story is very linear and the path is pretty narrow.
This hints at Bioware, the makers of DA 1 and 2, are doing what they have always done, its nothing new, not a decline merely a continuance. Which is not saying that repeating the same design choices is a good thing, I'm merely stating the fact that their games are following a trend that is repeating, and I'm not sure why everyone is suprised about these specific gameplay elements being reused.
The gameplay is over the top action style of play, something DA:O never was. Yeah I know that all RPG is exaggerated, but there reaches a point where it kills all sense of immersion. There's an attack, I forget the name, but the warrior jumps up and strikes his target and the target plus all those nearby are obliterated. This is much more in style of Diablo 3 than DA:O. This over the top action style is only part of what I'm talking about, but is the most glaring example.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
If all you have played is the demo and you say the game is fundamentally different I'm very confused as to why, Demo for one has no difficulty settings, so sure I'm betting it was pretty easy compared to how it could be, it also had a lot of options removed. Yet again you don't mention a single complaint but yet say that the gameplay is "different" you don't explain at all. Is hitting a button repeatedly too annoying? Do you not like how fast mages cast spells? What about it has ruined the entire game for you?
You seem to be on the side of the article, so I'll assume your complaints are in line with theirs, again ALL their complaints against DA2, might as well have been said against KOTOR 1, let me explain
In KOTOR 1 at the end of the game nothing you have done maters, you either kill the bad guy and become the bad guy, or kill him and choose to leave the galaxy turning to the light side, the character you are was determaned from the very begining, you are destined to discover that you are infact a sith lord and that you must either follow your old path or turn away and find a new one as a jedi. The dialogue choices don't effect the end result in most cases and the story is very linear and the path is pretty narrow.
This hints at Bioware, the makers of DA 1 and 2, are doing what they have always done, its nothing new, not a decline merely a continuance. Which is not saying that repeating the same design choices is a good thing, I'm merely stating the fact that their games are following a trend that is repeating, and I'm not sure why everyone is suprised about these specific gameplay elements being reused.
The gameplay is over the top action style of play, something DA:O never was. Yeah I know that all RPG is exaggerated, but there reaches a point where it kills all sense of immersion. There's an attack, I forget the name, but the warrior jumps up and strikes his target and the target plus all those nearby are obliterated. This is much more in style of Diablo 3 than DA:O. This over the top action style is only part of what I'm talking about, but is the most glaring example.
but why can't there be that type of attack in a rpg game? Besides, they weren't all obliterated if going by the demo was any indication. some were obliterated and some knocked back. again, my thought is that on harder modes this won't be an issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The gameplay is over the top action style of play, something DA:O never was. Yeah I know that all RPG is exaggerated, but there reaches a point where it kills all sense of immersion. There's an attack, I forget the name, but the warrior jumps up and strikes his target and the target plus all those nearby are obliterated. This is much more in style of Diablo 3 than DA:O. This over the top action style is only part of what I'm talking about, but is the most glaring example.
but why can't there be that type of attack in a rpg game? Besides, they weren't all obliterated if going by the demo was any indication. some were obliterated and some knocked back. again, my thought is that on harder modes this won't be an issue.
If in the begining of the game while the dwarf is telling a "Tall" tale about how powerful you are, if you happen to feel over powered I think this would be why. Not to mention you only get to play the first half hour of gameplay if that, I mean if some attacks aren't "obliterating" the basic monsters in the game I'm not sure how well a person would do against a Dragon, which I mean I'm assuming there will be dragons in a game called Dragon Age.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
If all you have played is the demo and you say the game is fundamentally different I'm very confused as to why, Demo for one has no difficulty settings, so sure I'm betting it was pretty easy compared to how it could be, it also had a lot of options removed. Yet again you don't mention a single complaint but yet say that the gameplay is "different" you don't explain at all. Is hitting a button repeatedly too annoying? Do you not like how fast mages cast spells? What about it has ruined the entire game for you?
You seem to be on the side of the article, so I'll assume your complaints are in line with theirs, again ALL their complaints against DA2, might as well have been said against KOTOR 1, let me explain
In KOTOR 1 at the end of the game nothing you have done maters, you either kill the bad guy and become the bad guy, or kill him and choose to leave the galaxy turning to the light side, the character you are was determaned from the very begining, you are destined to discover that you are infact a sith lord and that you must either follow your old path or turn away and find a new one as a jedi. The dialogue choices don't effect the end result in most cases and the story is very linear and the path is pretty narrow.
This hints at Bioware, the makers of DA 1 and 2, are doing what they have always done, its nothing new, not a decline merely a continuance. Which is not saying that repeating the same design choices is a good thing, I'm merely stating the fact that their games are following a trend that is repeating, and I'm not sure why everyone is suprised about these specific gameplay elements being reused.
The gameplay is over the top action style of play, something DA:O never was. Yeah I know that all RPG is exaggerated, but there reaches a point where it kills all sense of immersion. There's an attack, I forget the name, but the warrior jumps up and strikes his target and the target plus all those nearby are obliterated. This is much more in style of Diablo 3 than DA:O. This over the top action style is only part of what I'm talking about, but is the most glaring example.
but why can't there be that type of attack in a rpg game? Besides, they weren't all obliterated if going by the demo was any indication. some were obliterated and some knocked back. again, my thought is that on harder modes this won't be an issue.
It can be in RPGs, Diablo has them by the score. But it's not what DA is known for. DA:O was not an action rpg, nor should it's sequel be. I have no problem with people wanting that kind of RPG, go play them to your hearts content, but it's not what I expect from a company of BIowares stature. And no, changing the difficulty won't make that much of a difference, weakened enemies will still explode in mass when you make that attack.
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
First off I just wanted to say my first post was not speaking directly to you, it was actually directed at the OP and the article.
I know you were not talking on the whole genre, I listed off other games that Bioware has made back in 2003, Bioware, the makers of DA:O. The reason I mention that specific series of games is because they are extremely similar in their gameplay apsects.
If you are saying that the gameplay degraded in some way from DA:O to DA:2 then my point in bringing up KOTOR 1 & 2 is because they have extremely similar gameplay elements to the series. If you are speaking specifically on the things the OP is, the fact that you are playing a character that is set in stone what you are and the game is linear and the choices don't seem to really effect the outcome, well he might as well be speaking on KOTOR 1 & 2, they had the same problems.
Bioware has a trend in their new RPG's to make them this way, I'm not sure why the person who wrote the article was suprised by these game elements.
As for the gameplay combat changes, if the removal of auto attack and addition of hitting A to attack is game breaking then I don't know what to say, but it doesn't change the nature of the game, nor does the talent trees, or the fact that you spend a lot of time in one spot in the story line. I just do not find anything you have said to be game breaking or game changing, I've read all of your posts several times now and I honestly think you are just crying wolf, the game play is the same.
Edit: added color.
Edit 2: I forgot to cover the redux on casting time and the speed up of combat pacing by making your character jump at a monster rather than sluggisly walk up to them, turn, face them, and then start auto attacking. Fantastic changes that ultimately improved the pace of combat, but yet did not change the dificulty or nature of it.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
Auto Attack isn't removed. Its in for the PC and i believe it has been added for consoles after the complaints.
Auto Attack isn't removed. Its in for the PC and i believe it has been added for consoles after the complaints.
Now I am totally baffled as to why anyone would have any problems to DA2 then.
It was never that for me anyway. He's right, the pc version of the demo has an auto-attack. Personally I don't care whether they had no auto-attack or not, it's not what's at issue.
After playing the demo I will not be getting this game right away. Sure I'll get it at some point, sometime after the price has dropped considerably, but I certainly won't be getting it immediately upon release.
I actually think consoles can be a good vehicle for RPGs, but I think requiring control of multiple players in your party is where it falls on its face. If party AI was better a party RPG could work on consoles. I think Oblivion worked decent on consoles because you only controlled yourself. Once the party gets involved RPGs by necessity require a more PC top-down viewpoint with ability to set multiple orders, control multiple characters, pause on occassion, etc. This is primarily because the AI is so atrocious that you might as well not have the party at all if you can't control them.
My perfect RPG in a perfect world would not have me in control an entire party, but simply be part of a party and perhaps just set strategy for the party prior to battle and maybe bark an order or two during the fight. But over the years I have become more and more disillusioned with the party-based RPGs. Ironically I think it was the Baldur's gate series, which introduced the pseudo-real-time concept that made me finally realize group based RPGs relying on party AI is fundamentally broken. I would always set Baldurs gate to pause basically on every possible auto-pause event. Spell cast, damage taken, end of round, etc.
I blame crappy AI for the problem not consoles.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
ITs all EA fault , sorry they making games just to milk them out .
I finished DA:O a long time ago , when i refused to play single player games with online connection !!
sorry why should I be connected to play a single player game , still don´t buy games where steam is required , call me old fashion but since they are not responsible for my hardware , they i shouldn´t be responsible for there software and online connection .
Now here comes the good part so out of boredom I play it again , want to activate my nice stone prison and other DLC contents what I have right too so online connection it is .
Freaking hell , after 2 weeks of workaround and paid new DLC to see maybe its my fault , opening services that totally bugged up my computer had to reinstall , i said F capital F the official DLC content .
Honestly when official DLC content paid for becomes more trouble then downloading DLC content pirated .
Something is definetly wrong !!! stinky EA , yeah sure maybe its my vista business or windows 7 .
But honestly , will buy DA2 , but they can go to hell with there DLC , customer support was nice and fine .
But didn´t give me solutions , that got me thinking how can DLC pirated content make life so easy .
When official DLC content are like hell to install .
I cant comment on how much I like the sequel until I have played the full game through because the demo is just a small snippet of game play and the full game might be a hell of a lot more immerse but it puzzles me why Bioware are making so many changes because IIRC DA:O was one of their best selling games ever when you would have thought they would have stayed with the successful formula.
BUT and its a very big but is how well ME2 worked, I loved the first ME and it kept me hooked for months as I wanted to try as many character builds and story paths as I could but ME2 was so much more dramatic feeling and taking away the inventory management and loot fagging allowed you to focus on the story and the combat and it wasn't just immersive like ME1 because the combat felt frantic and desperate, real edge of the seat stuff and instead of messing around selling loot you are jumping from story section to story section and there was less messing around building your char and more focus on actually using what you create but still having options unlike GoW.
My point is basically that "dumbing down" isn't always bad for a game and ME2 proved that to me because at first I had my doubts about it and I hope its the same for DA2.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush, Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light, Company of Heroes II.
ITs all EA fault , sorry they making games just to milk them out .
I finished DA:O a long time ago , when i refused to play single player games with online connection !!
sorry why should I be connected to play a single player game , still don´t buy games where steam is required , call me old fashion but since they are not responsible for my hardware , they i shouldn´t be responsible for there software and online connection .
Now here comes the good part so out of boredom I play it again , want to activate my nice stone prison and other DLC contents what I have right too so online connection it is .
Freaking hell , after 2 weeks of workaround and paid new DLC to see maybe its my fault , opening services that totally bugged up my computer had to reinstall , i said F capital F the official DLC content .
Honestly when official DLC content paid for becomes more trouble then downloading DLC content pirated .
Something is definetly wrong !!! stinky EA , yeah sure maybe its my vista business or windows 7 .
But honestly , will buy DA2 , but they can go to hell with there DLC , customer support was nice and fine .
But didn´t give me solutions , that got me thinking how can DLC pirated content make life so easy .
When official DLC content are like hell to install .
all this DLC that bioware are foisting on everyone is a bit alarming tbh, its like they are trying to sell you the game in parts, or worse, sell you a single player game with a subscription! whether this is EA's influence on BIoware, i don't know, but its putting me off of buying their products, as for the 'must be online and logged into their server' to play the game, er.. why? after a really bad experience with xbox live (gta IV) i've vowed to never again, ever buy a game that requires an online connection, i don't care how good the game is.. though if the game is that good, and its pirated, then i'll go with the pirate version, they tend to be more stable, and above all else.. user friendly.. its a shame its illegal but damned if i care anymore.
Comments
You're totally missing the point, are you reading what I'm saying at all? I haven't said anything what you're saying. Please read what I'm saying and stop trying to infer your own meaning onto it. I am stating a simple opinion, DA:O was a traditional classic RPG in the spirit of Baldurs Gate. DA2 is a departure from that and like someone else said, switching styles like that in the same series is jarring at the least. I'm not talking about the genre. I'm not talking about trends. I'm talking about DA and also what we've come to expect from Bioware.
In most ways i find myself agreeing with the OP,and rather pleased someone brought this out,as i didn't want to start a thread over it,though had been tempted..I found DA a toning down,just as previously [i never tried either of the Mass Effects] i found Neverwinter Nights a joke..remember the stupid camera angles? The ones reminding hack n slash games? Which despite this,were somehow meant to 'impress'? the overly light settings? the cartoonish approach to charcters leaving out that baroque style of Baldur's gate toons? The slow but constant walking away from hit dice mechanics? You didn't have to understand DCs to play NWNs..and i could go on,and on..yes considering what trash had been out i guess they were good in themselves,but had not with them 2 Bioware already dumbed a genre down? Next time i bothered with them,it was DA..i stopped in the 3 rd area,where you get to 'meet' that redhead,i forget her name now. Totally uninspiring..what story? a linear walkthrough it was,nothing else..they stole Bethesda's 'trick' of allowing players to add modules to make it the extra semester in the grind of time and thats it..even more bright cartoons,even more light colours,even less gloominess..what the happened to RPGs that were glomy,spooky and a pain in the butt to navigate when in tight places? What happened to a game feeling it took a new twist because you took a chaotic allignment? Why leaving those out? Why fooling me by insinuating i could pick a class and reroll when i could have all classes in my group from the first time,and nothing would change? With no allegiances,no personal character hero stories,no choice to deviate from the Bioware's idea of linear story (and we chain you to it), did it matter if i did a tutorial as mage or scout? By the time i was at that first area camp,i could have all classes in my group,play as each..a one time,one way attempt at making some money,no more. Tbh, the more time goes by,and info keeps coming in,the more i feel inclined to edit previous statements i've made in this forum,as i doubt i will be holding my breath for SWtor..especially since that last dev comment someone linked here,regarding how one "must be stupid not to follow Blizzard's example"..right..add this to what in their lack of imagination in what they want to call "story", [wanna see you all enduring the vid scenes every 5 mins in your 3rd and 4th alts,stories as linear and as unchanging as in previous games they made] and i'm already running away..DA2 falls exactly in that same category,havent even bothered,neither will i. It was in fact the combination of DA news and SWtor news that showed me this was a road they meant to have taken,no accident or delineation,and a road leading to even 'less'. Couldn't care less for their 150 million was it? project, if all it means is extra shiny wrapping on yet more of their past ways.
Not really. I can't be bothered to look it up right now, but there have quite some articles and news items over the years that console games of the same games sell a lot better than their PC version. For the gap between PC and console games, piracy is named, which is far larger and more widespread for PC than for console games.
I'm willing to bet that those who dislike action RPG's also dislike J-RPG's as the Final Fantasy series.
Seems to me that just as it is with MMORPG's, the taste and preferences of those people only contains the subgenre of classic RPG's and want to declare this one as being THE one and only RPG genre, while in truth there are various subgenres of RPG that are all still RPG games.
Limited preferences, and an unwillingness to accept other sub genres of games within 'their' genre.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
redefine? isnt it your definition that is at fault, RPG is not a limited choice linear game, its about role playing, not following a prescripted pathway. the more a game takes away freedom of choice, and the less able you are to enact a role that YOU define, the less the game is a role playing one, and the more it becomes just an interactive story. quite frankly im getting sick and tired of games that continually push out more and more cutscenes, their immersion breaking, and they add nothing in terms of role playing. so, do i think DA:2 represents a decline in the RPG game... YES. and i for one won't be buying it or any more of that kind of rubbish.
Yes... let me highlight what you said since you apparently don't remember saying it.
Now, do you see how what I said directly responds to what you said?
No?
You later talk about how you are specifically speaking on Bioware, just now, how am I suposed to comment on things you have yet to say?
Bioware has made another game that is VERY similar to KOTOR 1 and 2, extremely similar, this is NOT unusual for them the game they made is exactly on line with what they have been making since 2003.
Edit: Again the game plays identically to games they have made for over 8 years now, if that is a decline I'd love to see how you define Decline.
Geez, how many times do I have to say it, I wasn't talking about the whole darn genre! I'm talking about a single series and a company, where yes they do have a certain pattern of giving us good quality classic RPGs!
Edit: Perhaps you TOTALLY missed the very next phrase after the one you highlighted. Here I'll highlight it for you in orange.
Edit 2: Also, if you can't tell the difference between the gameplay of the two games, then I don't know what to make of it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice and to comment on it.
All these people whining about DA2, and not a single one of them has actually played through the game.
Get over it, people dont want to play bloated and overly complicated games, thats why the RPGs you love are "dumbed down" compared to the games that came before them.
Want to play D&D? well better go playu the very first release, since everyone after that has been "dumbed down".
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
First off I just wanted to say my first post was not speaking directly to you, it was actually directed at the OP and the article.
I know you were not talking on the whole genre, I listed off other games that Bioware has made back in 2003, Bioware, the makers of DA:O. The reason I mention that specific series of games is because they are extremely similar in their gameplay apsects.
If you are saying that the gameplay degraded in some way from DA:O to DA:2 then my point in bringing up KOTOR 1 & 2 is because they have extremely similar gameplay elements to the series. If you are speaking specifically on the things the OP is, the fact that you are playing a character that is set in stone what you are and the game is linear and the choices don't seem to really effect the outcome, well he might as well be speaking on KOTOR 1 & 2, they had the same problems.
Bioware has a trend in their new RPG's to make them this way, I'm not sure why the person who wrote the article was suprised by these game elements.
As for the gameplay combat changes, if the removal of auto attack and addition of hitting A to attack is game breaking then I don't know what to say, but it doesn't change the nature of the game, nor does the talent trees, or the fact that you spend a lot of time in one spot in the story line. I just do not find anything you have said to be game breaking or game changing, I've read all of your posts several times now and I honestly think you are just crying wolf, the game play is the same.
Edit: added color.
Edit 2: I forgot to cover the redux on casting time and the speed up of combat pacing by making your character jump at a monster rather than sluggisly walk up to them, turn, face them, and then start auto attacking. Fantastic changes that ultimately improved the pace of combat, but yet did not change the dificulty or nature of it.
I just don't see how Dragon Age Origins 2 is like a Diablo game other than the combat is more action oriented.
And if it is then they are doing something better than Blizzard as I will not be buying Diablo III but have preordered DA:O 2
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I completely agree with you.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Honestly I don't see how you can't tell the difference between the two styles of play, but there's no more point in discussing it. If you've played the demo and still think there's no difference then the argument will just go in circles. I maintain the game has devolved from a more classic style of RPG to a pure action RPG. I think as time goes on you'll see more articles like the one the OP linked and the game simply will not have the success the original had. I think they've misjudged their player base. The game will still sell well I'm sure, but I suspect it will not maintain the kind of sales the original had.
You might be right in that people will only look at the faster combat and immediately be turned off.
I'll be honest, I played the demo and my thoughts are that it was rushed out the door.
It was basically snippets of game play. My guess is that on the higher difficulties you will have to pause, set up the next moves, pause again, etc.
I could be wrong about that but on the original DA:O I rarely paused because I was playing on easy mode. i wanted more fluid combat encounters. However the harder I put the game the more one had to pause. my thought is that this second installment will be simliar except that one will be on "normal" for less stops and will have to stop on difficult and nightmare.
As a matter of fact I think I saw an interview stating that those settings would require more planning.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If all you have played is the demo and you say the game is fundamentally different I'm very confused as to why, Demo for one has no difficulty settings, so sure I'm betting it was pretty easy compared to how it could be, it also had a lot of options removed. Yet again you don't mention a single complaint but yet say that the gameplay is "different" you don't explain at all. Is hitting a button repeatedly too annoying? Do you not like how fast mages cast spells? What about it has ruined the entire game for you?
You seem to be on the side of the article, so I'll assume your complaints are in line with theirs, again ALL their complaints against DA2, might as well have been said against KOTOR 1, let me explain
In KOTOR 1 at the end of the game nothing you have done maters, you either kill the bad guy and become the bad guy, or kill him and choose to leave the galaxy turning to the light side, the character you are was determaned from the very begining, you are destined to discover that you are infact a sith lord and that you must either follow your old path or turn away and find a new one as a jedi. The dialogue choices don't effect the end result in most cases and the story is very linear and the path is pretty narrow.
This hints at Bioware, the makers of DA 1 and 2, are doing what they have always done, its nothing new, not a decline merely a continuance. Which is not saying that repeating the same design choices is a good thing, I'm merely stating the fact that their games are following a trend that is repeating, and I'm not sure why everyone is suprised about these specific gameplay elements being reused.
My thoughts exactly, I bet if you had a "Hard core" mode or some thing similar then you'd be more inclined to pause and issue orders and have a lot more tactical type combat. This would change the gameplay significantly, in a way that would make a lot of the folks out there who are upset about the fast paced combat perhaps feel a bit better about picking up DA2.
The gameplay is over the top action style of play, something DA:O never was. Yeah I know that all RPG is exaggerated, but there reaches a point where it kills all sense of immersion. There's an attack, I forget the name, but the warrior jumps up and strikes his target and the target plus all those nearby are obliterated. This is much more in style of Diablo 3 than DA:O. This over the top action style is only part of what I'm talking about, but is the most glaring example.
but why can't there be that type of attack in a rpg game? Besides, they weren't all obliterated if going by the demo was any indication. some were obliterated and some knocked back. again, my thought is that on harder modes this won't be an issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If in the begining of the game while the dwarf is telling a "Tall" tale about how powerful you are, if you happen to feel over powered I think this would be why. Not to mention you only get to play the first half hour of gameplay if that, I mean if some attacks aren't "obliterating" the basic monsters in the game I'm not sure how well a person would do against a Dragon, which I mean I'm assuming there will be dragons in a game called Dragon Age.
It can be in RPGs, Diablo has them by the score. But it's not what DA is known for. DA:O was not an action rpg, nor should it's sequel be. I have no problem with people wanting that kind of RPG, go play them to your hearts content, but it's not what I expect from a company of BIowares stature. And no, changing the difficulty won't make that much of a difference, weakened enemies will still explode in mass when you make that attack.
Auto Attack isn't removed. Its in for the PC and i believe it has been added for consoles after the complaints.
Now I am totally baffled as to why anyone would have any problems to DA2 then.
It was never that for me anyway. He's right, the pc version of the demo has an auto-attack. Personally I don't care whether they had no auto-attack or not, it's not what's at issue.
After playing the demo I will not be getting this game right away. Sure I'll get it at some point, sometime after the price has dropped considerably, but I certainly won't be getting it immediately upon release.
I actually think consoles can be a good vehicle for RPGs, but I think requiring control of multiple players in your party is where it falls on its face. If party AI was better a party RPG could work on consoles. I think Oblivion worked decent on consoles because you only controlled yourself. Once the party gets involved RPGs by necessity require a more PC top-down viewpoint with ability to set multiple orders, control multiple characters, pause on occassion, etc. This is primarily because the AI is so atrocious that you might as well not have the party at all if you can't control them.
My perfect RPG in a perfect world would not have me in control an entire party, but simply be part of a party and perhaps just set strategy for the party prior to battle and maybe bark an order or two during the fight. But over the years I have become more and more disillusioned with the party-based RPGs. Ironically I think it was the Baldur's gate series, which introduced the pseudo-real-time concept that made me finally realize group based RPGs relying on party AI is fundamentally broken. I would always set Baldurs gate to pause basically on every possible auto-pause event. Spell cast, damage taken, end of round, etc.
I blame crappy AI for the problem not consoles.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
ITs all EA fault , sorry they making games just to milk them out .
I finished DA:O a long time ago , when i refused to play single player games with online connection !!
sorry why should I be connected to play a single player game , still don´t buy games where steam is required , call me old fashion but since they are not responsible for my hardware , they i shouldn´t be responsible for there software and online connection .
Now here comes the good part so out of boredom I play it again , want to activate my nice stone prison and other DLC contents what I have right too so online connection it is .
Freaking hell , after 2 weeks of workaround and paid new DLC to see maybe its my fault , opening services that totally bugged up my computer had to reinstall , i said F capital F the official DLC content .
Honestly when official DLC content paid for becomes more trouble then downloading DLC content pirated .
Something is definetly wrong !!! stinky EA , yeah sure maybe its my vista business or windows 7 .
But honestly , will buy DA2 , but they can go to hell with there DLC , customer support was nice and fine .
But didn´t give me solutions , that got me thinking how can DLC pirated content make life so easy .
When official DLC content are like hell to install .
I cant comment on how much I like the sequel until I have played the full game through because the demo is just a small snippet of game play and the full game might be a hell of a lot more immerse but it puzzles me why Bioware are making so many changes because IIRC DA:O was one of their best selling games ever when you would have thought they would have stayed with the successful formula.
BUT and its a very big but is how well ME2 worked, I loved the first ME and it kept me hooked for months as I wanted to try as many character builds and story paths as I could but ME2 was so much more dramatic feeling and taking away the inventory management and loot fagging allowed you to focus on the story and the combat and it wasn't just immersive like ME1 because the combat felt frantic and desperate, real edge of the seat stuff and instead of messing around selling loot you are jumping from story section to story section and there was less messing around building your char and more focus on actually using what you create but still having options unlike GoW.
My point is basically that "dumbing down" isn't always bad for a game and ME2 proved that to me because at first I had my doubts about it and I hope its the same for DA2.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush,
Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light,
Company of Heroes II.
all this DLC that bioware are foisting on everyone is a bit alarming tbh, its like they are trying to sell you the game in parts, or worse, sell you a single player game with a subscription! whether this is EA's influence on BIoware, i don't know, but its putting me off of buying their products, as for the 'must be online and logged into their server' to play the game, er.. why? after a really bad experience with xbox live (gta IV) i've vowed to never again, ever buy a game that requires an online connection, i don't care how good the game is.. though if the game is that good, and its pirated, then i'll go with the pirate version, they tend to be more stable, and above all else.. user friendly.. its a shame its illegal but damned if i care anymore.