Atomic Fiend
New member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,275
It's a step back.
The combat system is BAD. You can't zoom out from the action and fights don't have any tactical feel to them. Your companions will just run off etc. sometimes, even when you just ordered them to stay in place. And there's no way to plan for combat: you can't cast spells before hand and enemies tend to just appear when you get to the center of a room and then reinforcement spawn out of nowhere. I litteraly couldn't have thought of a better way to take all the pleasure out of dragon age's 1 fights.
I don't even understand how they could have ended up with this when they already had most things right in dragon age 1. I mean I get the whole 'we want a more spectacular and nervous game for 12 and 20 year olds alike' but calling this game dragon age 2 is basically a lie.
So basically there's NO tactical cost to using big badass zone damage spells like fire balls etc.
I knew it was for 12 year olds when I found that killing some one with a critical hit causes there bodies to shatter like glass leaving giant chunky parts of them selves all over the streets.
Keep it classy Bioware.
I never used the tactical slots in DA:Origins, I prefered to do all the work rather than have say, my mage use half of his\her (hir) mana in an unefficient way.Yup. Again, you have to think "video game" (far more the model here) than the kind of combat system that was in DA 1. Aside from preprogramming your tactical slots, you have to approach it as if you were playing a real-time action-oriented video game. Which means you have to be prepped for when things jump you after you thought combat is over.
You shouldn't, nor should anybody else. it isn't some 'revival of the licence'. We're talking about a game that was announced shortly after DA:O came out and DA:O was supposed to be an introduction, it's called 'origins' after all.I might be kinder to it, if it had been a separate game not using the Dragon Age franchise label.
I happen to avoid facebook like the poxDid you guys play the FaceBook variation yet? Plan to?
yeah but see, they make the gameplay 'nervous' and then they add timers that make useful abilities take a hundred years to reload if you havent spent 3 levels upgrading that particular ability.The only way they can compensate for that is by scaling mob durability up, but at least at low levels they did not do that. Like I said, Bethany just mowed over groups of mobs at once, without significant mana drain. SHe was only inhibited by the individual timers on her abilities.
I never used the tactical slots in DA:Origins, I prefered to do all the work rather than have say, my mage use half of his\her (hir) mana in an unefficient way. And frankly using it now to make the gameplay less of a pain in the ass seems ridiculous somehow.
You shouldn't, nor should anybody else. it isn't some 'revival of the licence'. We're talking about a game that was announced shortly after DA:O came out and DA:O was supposed to be an introduction, it's called 'origins' after all.
I happen to avoid facebook like the pox
yeah but see, they make the gameplay 'nervous' and then they add timers that make useful abilities take a hundred years to reload if you havent spent 3 levels upgrading that particular ability. It doesn't make any sense. It's like they haven't stopped to think about any of the consequences of the changes they 've made to the gameplay.
My thought as well, wether it's just pressures from EA and co or some marketing \investors kind of people or not, I just can't believe that the dynamics that led to a title like DA:O, which was from the start supposed to be the start of a saga was just a sly ploy to create a following by starting off the licence strongly. But I suspect it could have been an important part of the decision at the level of management though: 'let them do their game as well as they can and then we'll get a new strong licence to add to the EA portfolio' (which is how ea works, they stated their desire to invest on a few strong licences with frequent sequels many times).I wonder how many people on their programming staff and/or studio heads were changed, since the direction is so different. If their goal was to make a console game that ports easily to computer rather than a computer game that would be hard to port to the console, and that hits a demographic of 18-25 year old males, then apparently they have achieved their goal.
The change seems far more driven by marketing and business, rather than by the old game design staff. It's like an entire philosophy shift on what DA was originally conceived to be.
Cancel it. Not worth it.Damnit. You guys make me want to cancel my order.
I liked FF13 though, which was also a step back for it's genre. I guess I'm not too critical once I get into things. I hope it's the same here.
Cancel it. Not worth it.
FF13 was a good game. It wasn't 'FFish' enough but it was still a good game.
This is a bad game packaged into the background of a good game. It's not 'terrible' but i wouldn't pay over 20 dollars for it while the first one felt cheap for its content.
That sucks.. I'm going to try to cancel. If I can't, oh well.
I used to chat often with one of the Bioware writers actually. He had left, and after that, it seemed like Mass Effect 2 had suffered a bit. I thought it was a fluke, but there must have been more people who had left, if some of this streamlining is trickling down to Dragon Age as well (which was never really like their old games either, but cool enough). It makes wonder about that Star Wars game in the works too. I hate MMOs, but the only reason I'd play that one is because of what Bioware might bring to the table, storywise. It's sounding like that could suffer too (that is, unless all of the good writers left were actually moved there).
Umm, just a thought.
Before leaving for the expedition to the deep roads, you of course meet all the team.. in the middle of a busy street, because that's obviously where dwaves would discuss their business projects.