It was pretty much the same for origins too in that department.
It was pretty much the same for origins too in that department.
I like it. Anyone who says it's totally changed the game are using hyperbole. It's refined things: some things are actually more complicated like talent trees, and some things are simplified like companion armor and skills.
Their focus seems to be on taking away the *illusion* of choice in character stat stuff -- things that imply a choice but all of the choices but one is totally inferior to another. There was little 'real choice' in armor in Origins. One of the plate wielders would wear Juggernaut, another would wear Dragon Armor, another would wear Warden Commander. Etc. There was little choice except who would wear what. This was an illusion. In the same manner, skills. Skills meant little other than making sure someone had Survival 3 or whatever for the Dalish, and Trapmaking/Poisons 1 or something for Lothering, and 1 point in Robbery for the quests. Otherwise they meant nothing to the story whatsoever.
DA2 takes away the illusion of choice and makes stat and gearing choices actually have impact. This is a valid of decision. Some might have liked the opposite -- making things even more complex to provide that, but there's a question of diminishing returns compared to complexity.
Then again, in Tabletop RPGs, I play everything, even 'rules light' games like Dead Inside and PDQ. So I'm used to not needing a blizzard of stats to make it an RPG.
Metacritic has the game at 83 with the mediocre reviews saying roughly "we like the new combat system, graphics are better, but it's still the same dragon age". Well, duh.
83 is still a good score. So how is this pretty bad?
The thing I really like is the icon for the responses so I'm not sitting there guessing how to respond because I don't want to lose points with someone.
The original game was 90 or such. People have taken off points for it being different from what they wanted and conversely it's being the exact same.
Anti-fans/fan haters are using this to 'validate' their view that Bioware sold out/sucks. Pretty typical fan behavior.
Finding the balance between innovation and consistency when developing a sequel or series is a very delicate art. Some series do it incredibly well (look at the early iterations of super mario bros or more recent developments in the castlevania series, GTA) and some do rather poorly (Metroid: Other M, Super Mario Galaxy 2, the Madden series). It is wiser to err on the side of innovation and risk losing the fair-weather fans than appease them at the risk of isolating the people who have stood by you every step of the way.
It's quite amusing how so many players casually mock gaming industries for not catering to the horrible experiences that most "true RPGs" had.
I played through the demo and little into the game. Animation, combat, effects and graphics are top notch, especially on DX 11.
I like the chat wheel. The icons give you a quick idea about what you are going to say, but I just read the line first before clicking on it just like I did in Dragon Age: Origins.
It is not the same as Origins. I'll give you that. But take Gamespot review for example. "Lack of Overhead Camera and companions look the same."
I never used the overhead camera in DA:O either, and guess what, all my companions in origins looked exactly the same. (Morrigan for example. She had the good stuff for cold magic, and she looked exactly same for the entire game.)
The combat is good, and like many others, love the fact that you are no longer forced to run around with a healer no more. A good tank and healer backing him up would mean you would just wait for the combat to end in DA: O. Not so much now. (Flemeth on Nightmare. Shale with Fire resist, Wynn with Willpower gear, and I had my mage and Leliana towards back, shooting from the same spot, never moving around.)
Another example: I usually stacked up on pots, and had my companions drink whatever they needed at semi-high percentages. (Chug a large health pot for tank at 50% HP for example. Or smaller ones for DPS and mana at 75%.) That, almost entirely removed the need to pause the game along with having at least 2 mages in the party specced for freeing people from stuff. With 1 Mage Spirit Healer/Blood and other as Spirit Healer/Shapeshift [Morrigan] I never had any problems. (Ogre shows up, grabs Alistair, guess what, Morrigan Cone of Cold'ed his ass before I can send in a paralyze. Or vice versa, depending on which mage was closest.)
"Stop, fight, stop, wait, fight, fight, STOP! wait... Fight, stop!" Is not very "Tactical and challenging" if you have good setups and know what you are doing. A Ranger with pet, 2 Mages and a good geared and specced tank was all it took to make the game a breeze.
I like Hawke having a personality, voice, and reactions. Things like those made Shepard an icon, so why not him? If you are concerned that this makes it too similar to Mass Effect. Well, someone liked Mass Effect considering it was the best RPG in 2010.
I don't understand why people demand more of the DA:O for DA 2. They went for change, good one, and they managed to pull it off. All those reviews I've read deduct points off because of the reasons I've listed so far. Why? Those were the reasons they gave best scores at Mass Effect? I mean, why keep insisting on Neverwinter and Baldur's Gate clones?
DA 2, is a great game. If people stopped comparing it to the first one, it would easily score higher than 9. It's fun, sucks you in, provides plenty of "OH SHIT!" moments and intense combat. GET IT. You won't be disappointed.
"So, he sent a succubus to seduce you, and lure you down to his side. And yet, first thing you do is to check her ass? Ah, kid, you've got much to learn.."
DAII is actually a roleplaying game. Not a fantasy combat game. It is about character development and relationships. If this is what your primarily enjoy in Bioware games, none of their games has done it better than DAII.
the problem with DA2 is it feels like we are playing console RPGs, wich is boring most of the time (if not JRPG) old skool SNES/PSX/PS2X/N64/Sega etc. since it feels like the combats complexity took a dump. i still play eg Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 both are good interpertations of D&D and complexe combat. i mean i pause i set up alot of different atacks on my characters and i see it play out, in some scenarios when i meet weak opponents i can play mostly in RT, but harder and more chalanging encounters playing it more like a TB makes it more fun. this was in origns atleast the signs. now u only realy need to puase seldomly if u are getting "overwelmed" wich aint alot :/
If DA2 is a "console RPG", then so is origins. None of the RPG elements were taken out at all.
If you come in expecting another DA:Origin with different world settings, you sure will be disappointed. Hugely disappointed. But as a game, it did it job well (albeit not as successful as the first one). Combat is obviously tailored for console, it took me awhile to get used to (spam R to attack, then 1-2-3-4 with WASD move like an offline WoW), after that it turned out to be quite fun. Playing on hard/nightmare still requires a great deal of game-pause to make tatical decisions. Dialogue chioce changed, but I liked ME dialogue design, so no complain here.
In original DA, you actually never had a gearing choice, in-game items was so limited it didnt take much effort to pin-point BiS stuff then went hunting for it, hd a certain char wear it etc. I'm glad they decided to remove them altogether.
Last edited by kronpas; 2011-03-09 at 06:21 PM.
I liked the demo at least. I'm one who never enjoyed auto-attack combat, and so being directly rewarded for input by removing the "auto" was to me a good change. I no longer felt like I was playing WoW-rogue.
The auto attack is still in the game. Console versions have to button mash, but auto attack is supposed to be in console versions too.