Slashdot Mirror
Dragon Age II Released
Today marks the US launch of Dragon Age II, the sequel to BioWare's popular 2009 RPG Dragon Age: Origins. Like its predecessor and other BioWare RPGs, Dragon Age II is non-linear and has extensive dialog, though this time the story focuses on a particular character, Hawke, whose race and identity you can't change. A demo of the game is available, and early opinions noted both the impressive art direction and less punishing difficulty settings. BioWare has also released an optional ~1GB texture pack for the PC version that bumps up the level of detail for owners of high end computers. They explained some of the technological changes they made in a couple of blog posts. It's available for Windows, OS X, the PS3, and the Xbox 360.
I personally liked the first game because of the way the story
Another nose-dive for productivity in the developed world!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can pause the game during combat. You can quick save at any time. You can set the tactics for the AI. Potions are incredibly easy to craft, or simply buy with the copious amounts of gold available.
Players these days...I've beat the game twice on the hardest difficulty setting. Yes, it's difficult. But it's supposed to be. Getting a little tired of games catering to the lowest common denominator.
Oh, I'm sorry, it makes you feel bad because you had to set the game at casual difficulty? Well then try harder. But don't ruin it for everyone else.
I played the demo - gameplay graphics still suck and it's still insanely hard.
Do yourself a favor and buy something else that came out today - the DLC for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.
I have been a huge fan of Bioware games since Baldur's Gate and they continue to churn out awesomely produced games in spite of the current gaming economy.
"Impressive art direction" means "we've turned it all to shit with an anime theme in an effort to appeal to the console players."
I love the idea of interactive storytelling but I've been greatly disappointed by most of the rpg's I've played. Usually they have terribly dull and uninteresting storylines you couldn't be bothered to give a goddamn about. There's no real storyline propelling the game, just random side-quests along the "collecting goblin noses" standard.
There's plenty of potential for the genre but all of the games feel alike and remain dull. Oblivion remains an unbelievably gorgeous game, jaw-dropping and absolutely amazing. But the counter-intuitive leveling system took immersion and broke it on the wheel. The trite and boring storyline snuffed out any sense of weight and meaning in the gameplay.
And I'd like to second whoever said the original Dragon Age had hideous graphics. Ugly beyond all belief. I don't know how they were able to release it in this day and age. Naff.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
You can't save during combat at all in DAO.
Other than that I'd agree that combat in DAO was pretty easy, even on the hardest difficulty. That was mainly due to mages being massively overpowered. As long as you did the mage tower first to get Wynne the rest of the game was plain sailing, especially with a mage PC.
Apparently in DA2 they've replaced spell combos with cross class combos to make the other classes more relevant. Even in other RPG systems (i.e. D&D, although in D&D they're a lot weaker to start with) mages have always been massively overpowered engines of destruction, so I guess it makes sense to just acknowledge that the power to control elements & stuff means massive combat potential and just let the other classes support them.
Nick
else before it :
... like mini puzzles, or small trading etc.
back 10-20 years ago, computer tech was limited. you couldnt stray too far off from a format. you had to end the game in the same format you started it. in the same genre. because platforms didnt have the resources to expand to many different formats and their technical demands in regard to hard disk, processing power, and memory.
but there were hybrid games even then - like pirates and so on. they allowed you to expand and expand and your GAMEPLAY changed with passing time. not just your attributed strengths and stats, and a storyline.
today, despite the gaming platforms has phenomenal power compared to platforms of old, still the SAME stuff is being done - pigeonhole the player into whatever format you started with, optionally sprinkled with only traces of styles/formats from other genres
but it could be much bigger. you could have numerous game areas, and when you are really bored from one, you could move to another area.
this would actually be more realistic in every way ; in almost all games you develop to a point you are totally a factor that would affect any world, if you developed something to that point (stats etc), but nothing changes - noone comes and asks you to be their general or king, and actual strategy happens. someone who became as strong as the characters in rpgs (da, mass effect included) would actually have SO much clout in the world they were living in that, a lot of things would be effected and revolving around them. but, because innovation and experiments are prohibited in mass manufacturing gaming, escapism is used - 'oh, our character is humble, and he does this/that. or, our character marries with the queen and happy ever after'
that is totally in contrast to what happens in the most important core material that almost all fantasy and rpg gaming had been initially based and devloped on ; lord of the rings :
remember lotr timeline ; the adventurers start as a small band of brave adventurers, during their journeys, they come up against many things, and become stronger. after a certain point, however, they get involved in politics (when gandalf returns, trying to influence the major players of the world to joining combat, like edoras, or fangorn), after a point, they get involved in tactics and strategy (helm's deep) in battle-scale, and after a certain point, they are strategists, conducting a campaign, (after helm's deep, advancing on to sauron as army of the 'captains of the west'), and after a certain point, they are the shapers of the world they live in. (when the war ends, aragorn is king, and everyone returns to building the world again).
but see, ALL of the games up till now, always pigeonholes the player into what it was at the start, EVEN if they are directly based on lotr. (no, the map-trigger 'adventure' gimmicks of various rts maps do not count).
but, just take a moment now, and imagine how it could be, if gaming companies innovated as such into hybridizing their games instead of increasing the polygon count and number of dungeons in their games. just think for a moment.
Read radical news here
Bioware used to be great. I loved their games. Spent more time than I want to admit playing and creating worlds in Neverwinter Nights. But, the docs sold out to EA. EA axed multiplayer in Dragon Age therefore I never bought it, and I surely won't be buying DA2 for the same reason.
Other than that I'd agree that combat in DAO was pretty easy, even on the hardest difficulty.
I can't agree with this. The game was fucking hard even on normal, primarily because mages were overpowered (including enemy mages). You could only survive against a mage by stunlocking them. God forbid there were two or three, because you were fucked when that happened.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Does anyone know if your choices from the original Dragon Age carry over? I heard somewhere they were going to carry over the decisions your character made and incorporate it into the sequel - much like Mass Effect.
It's available for Windows, OS X, the PS3, and the Xbox 360.
This alone is one of the more impressive elements of the release.
Coffee is my drug of choice.
So I was one of the suckers who bought DA 1 on release day. Didn't buy any DLC, because Bioware DLC is always overpriced.
Eventually they come out with the 'ultimate edition', which is the game, expansion, and all DLC for the same price I paid originally. That part is normal, and alright.
Where it gets ridiculous is that for me to add the DLC to the game I already bought on the same day this new verison came out would have cost MORE then just buying the game again and getting everything thrown in.
The pricing model is sufficiently out to lunch that I'll wait this time.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
That's a lot of words to say you don't like the genre.
I don't like things, too. Mostly I just don't buy them.
Nope. Mana Clash killed 95%+ of enemy mages in the game in one shot, every time. As a non-friendly-fire AoO.
Basically if their name wasn't in red, they were going to die from it.
I agree. Mass Effect I was a LOT BETTER and delivered far more wide range of modifications and weapons... MEII came out and dumbed it down drastically. The worlds were far more limited, interaction is more limited... it's more of a "go here do this good boy!" I am afraid they ruined Dragon Age with numbing down of the whole system like they did for Mass Effect.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Anyone get this version yet for the 360? Ordered mine through Amazon but their release day shipping failed, kind of want to just pick it up locally. Is the regular edition the same minus the pre-order email activation code?
Wow everyone must have played it different. I found mages useless and utterly destroyed them easily with the rogues. Wynne was strongest of all the mages in the game but even she dies too easy in combat Morrigan does better when you equip her in lots of armor, mages robes = I'm dead in the game.. I preferred the meat grinder with high level runes on killer weapons. I had the one dwarf set up with a warhammer that would kill most with a single hit. Darkspawn were nothing more than goodie bags to trade for gold.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It would suck.
If I'm playing an RPG I want to play an RPG that gets the RPG things right, if I want to play an RTS I'll play an RTS not some shitty hybrid RPG/RTS/FPS/Puzzle/Adventure/Collectible Card/Fighter/Flight Simulator game that does nothing well.
Sure if they want to tell an epic story have an RPG tell the first part and Civilization tell the last part, but don't make it all one game.
I played through the whole game on hard and didn't have to use potions except for the odd boss fight, or of wynn's AI decided to have her walk into a group of enemies when I wasn't paying attention. Seriously, I wouldn't say it was easy, but I can't imagine anyone thinking the game was hard.
I guess this means I'd better try to catch up and maybe play the first Dragon Age? I didn't even know there was one - is it any good?
No offense but Mass Effect 1's copy-and-paste worlds were one of the worst parts of the game, along with the Mako APC.
Well my GF is a avid RPG player, and enjoys cRPG's on the side. She got home oh an hour or two ago. Installed, starting playing 30ish mins in she was raging and screaming going where are my choices and what's up with this shitty dialog. I want a RPG, not a action-adventure game. Which promptly 5mins later resulted in her storming out of the house, and driving off game in hand. I think she's out for a refund, and woe to the person who tries to refuse it.
I know people will go bahwhaha GF what? Yeah some of us managed to hook one anyway.
I didn't even have a chance to play, but I'm hearing a lot of people use the phrase "Dragon the Mass Age Effect". Which doesn't bode well, and I get the feeling EA has given Bioware the touch of death.
Om, nomnomnom...
Having played all PC versions of Pirates and a few others, the gameplay didn't really change a whole lot as you progressed. It's a fairly varied game overall, though, with elements of story, exploration, trading, fighting, strategy, character development, etc. All of them fairly light fare, though. And I don't really feel like playing an RPG which evolves into a RTS as you describe: I like the tactical combat sometimes seen in good RPGs, but I don't like RTS as a general rule.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I like these games but first releases are typically so buggy that I usually wait at least six months before even considering a purchase.
And unless they lower the price, I'll wait until it hits the discount cycle.
Terrible they are...
Just fyi... Much more linear than expected. :P
Check the ign review
Terrible they are...
back 10-20 years ago, computer tech was limited. you couldnt stray too far off from a format. you had to end the game in the same format you started it. in the same genre. because platforms didnt have the resources to expand to many different formats and their technical demands in regard to hard disk, processing power, and memory.
If only system hardware were the only limitation...oh wait, it's not. Have you ever played FF7? There were mini-games all over the place, including one which was essentially a really shitty RTS. Or how about Halo, where you can go solo or command a small squad, even jumping into vehicles? Hell, Halo: Reach even included space combat.
The problem isn't that games don't cross genres, its that companies that are good at RPGs don't necessarily have the time, budget, or expertise to make a multi-genre game. A good way to think about it is how many shitty "Me too!" games there are out there for every blockbuster that comes out. Even if you're just developing a single-genre game, most companies have a hard time meeting the player's expectations.
You don't have to pick on videogames either--you can look at the traditional market too. The only system I know that combined RPG, Strategic, Tactical (both Naval AND Land), and Diplomatic elements in full was the Birthright setting in 2nd Ed D&D, and even it was crippled by its simplistic and boring tactical component. I'm a miniature wargamer right now playing Warmachine/Hordes, and even though its parent company Privateer Press is making moves to get back into the RPG market, I'm not sure if they'll really be able to pull off a scale-resilient setting and compatible RPG system.
tl;dr: Shit's hard man. Try it sometime.
this would actually be more realistic in every way ; in almost all games you develop to a point you are totally a factor that would affect any world, if you developed something to that point (stats etc), but nothing changes - noone comes and asks you to be their general or king, and actual strategy happens. someone who became as strong as the characters in rpgs (da, mass effect included) would actually have SO much clout in the world they were living in that, a lot of things would be effected and revolving around them. but, because innovation and experiments are prohibited in mass manufacturing gaming, escapism is used - 'oh, our character is humble, and he does this/that. or, our character marries with the queen and happy ever after'
No, that sounds good but it would suck. Here's why: it's hard enough to make a game in a single genre that's any good. You start trying to go cross-genre, you're now greatly increasing the chance something's going to suck.
Something like GTAIII to IV is pretty unusual in that it's a hybrid of a first-person shooter and a vehicle sim. Even at that the vehicle controls are a bit spongy and make precision maneuvers difficult. Not so bad on normal missions but ruinous in the races.
There were already enough complaints with the way GTA IV handled all the mini-games. People were saying "I'm three hours into the game and still getting tutorials! This sucks!" And most of the mini-games were pretty forgettable. Darts, pool, the dating stuff. It sounds nice on paper but a lot of people found them completely distracting. Fortunately, you could skip most of that stuff or just do autoplay.
But what you're proposing would have the potential of introducing a brand new play mechanic really late in the game with the potential of ruining the feel of it. While it remains theoretically possible to do something like this right, in practice it would remain exceedingly difficult.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Yeah, but it is one that goes of on Friday nights for hours on end, and the one time you followed her and found her at some dude's house with 5 other guys, she told you she was "playing D&D". Yeah, that's why she was in a leather bikini and the guys were all standing around in loin cloths.
Solution to that was pretty simple: carry multiple mages in your party. I played a mage PC, and carried Morrigan throughout the whole game. Once both had crushing prison controlling 2 mages was cake. If there was a third you basically just blasted the heck out of them and kept them moving as much as possible (cast Horror and such). They went down quickly.
As a matter of fact the only encounter I really had trouble with was Ser Cauthrien right after rescuing Anora. Just too many guys to try to get under control with Cauthrien mowing through my party. I think I replayed that encounter at least 2 dozen times before completing it. Most everything else though was pretty straightforward.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
then you dont know shit about gaming. best of the best in the golden age of gaming, were hybrid games. pirates, defender of crown, star control 2 and similar.
Read radical news here
It's not the fact that you claim you have a girlfriend that makes me think that your post is fake, but that you claim she stomped off "game in hand" for a refund. Having heard enough stories in my time to tell when creativity starts to take the place of reality, I detect some falsehood there - a bit of embellishment at a minimum.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
it didnt change MUCH, because as said, there were technical limitations in the original version back in c64 age. they didnt twist the concept, they just built it in better form in latest pc versions.
Read radical news here
Here's why: it's hard enough to make a game in a single genre that's any good.
the above 'is not'.
its not hard enough to make a game in single genre that's any good. with the amount of resources that are being poured into obfuscating aspects of modern games (graphics, resolution, textures, polygons), much more could be made. in some respects, graphics concept already passed the point where human eye can comfortably keep up anyway.
moreover, straying off to multiple genres could make a lot of things much more easier - because you can switch to formats that are strong when a certain stage of the story/game arrives, and hence cut your effort needed in that stage, and switch back to others when they are strong or more efficient to use in that stage in the game.
furthermore, its about immersion. its much more important than trying to make gaudy graphics appear in less-interactive cutscene formats for immersing the player in the game environment.
things need to actually happen in the game world, for immersion.
Read radical news here
Wow. Those go way back. I'd forgotten Defender of the Crown. It's true -- I often wonder why RTS games don't also have quests to improve your heroes, etc.
This story just isn't front page news, nor is any video game unless it made ungodly amounts of money on release day, or has been delayed for over a decade.
looks like it sucks.
No offense but Mass Effect 1's copy-and-paste worlds were one of the worst parts of the game, along with the Mako APC.
Yeah, that was the point where I finally gave up and uninstalled it. Bad driving physics on cookie-cutter worlds wihle randomly being killed by worms jumping out of the ground is really not my idea of a fun time.
Spore is very much like you describe. the game changes based on your level.
leave aside that, the hybridness of defender of the crown, actually made the world you lived in real - there were things happening, as they would happen depending on context - you go to a castle raiding - you are just another strong man with a sword. you go to tournament - regardless of whether youre king or holy roman emperor, you are now just a man on a horse with a stick in his hand. this was as such in reality, not to mention that, doing some of these were the obligations of the nobles by then.
..... not because there would be THAT many dungeons even in a fantasy world - but because it is much more coding-efficient in order to just make new dungeons once you have set the format and have the necessary in-house utility-mapmaker etc.
now take dragon age - dungeon after dungeon after dungeon after dungeon after dungeon
games are not being built around immersive realism from the eyes of the first person like they were being made in the early days of gaming - the industrialization of the sector turned gaming into manufacturing - efficiency of production and interchangeable parts.
Read radical news here
Oh noes my taste is different than yours, it's the end of the world. And yes I played all those games, and yes they were good at the time. They are however crap now (well ok Defender of the Crown was crap then too).
And I still would prefer separate games. If I want to watch a romantic comedy I'd prefer it not also be a thriller.
they do. King Arthur (http://store.steampowered.com/app/24400/) for example.
The Ser Cauthrien encounter took me two tries to get (mage PC, normal difficulty). Storm of the Century pretty much sweeps the room clear of archers in a flash. A fight you're clearly meant to lose just shouldn't be that easy.
There's really not any conclusion I can draw but that some of the spells / spell combinations weren't really tested out very well, or that they wanted the game to be dramatically easier if you were a mage who picked the right spells. I just can't believe that it's intentional, for example, that Mana Clash drains all the mana from most enemy mages and does enough damage to kill them three times over.
Yes, I hear it good and I liked the first one, so I'll pick it up as soon as I can get the entire game with one ~$50 purchase. EA/DLC can suck it.
If those counts as hybrids then so do DA:O and any party RPG, which inevitably interrupts the usual game to handle battles.
In fact DA:O has three different games:
1. Interactive full-motion video. This is the only place you can change the outcome of quests, or really anything in the game
2. A game where you move around non-consequentially on a map (the so-called RPG part)
3. A tactical combat game.
When I played the demo, it did seem like button-mashing hack-n-slash. But I'm going to reserve further judgment until I get a few hours in. For now, it's sitting on my doorstep waiting for me to get home from work.
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
You forget Elite! One of the first and most successful hybrids of its time... Oh sweet frontier..
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
nope not even close.
Read radical news here
why watch a romantic comedy, instead of a romance movie or a comedy then.
you are contradicting your own argument.
Read radical news here
i have spore. unfortunately its way too simplistic, and immersion is much limited.
Read radical news here
I know, we could call it Spore!
i have spore. unfortunately its way too simplistic, and immersion is much limited.
The problem here is that you're trying to strike a balance between detail and tedium and it's a hard one to get right.
Master of Orion had one planet per star. The sequel put multiple planets per star, plus added micromanagement for each location. It certainly made the game more complicated but didn't feel any deeper, just more tedious.
X-Com had a good balance between the strategic map and base building/UFO intercepting but the sequel completely ruined that balance. Instead of the missions being interesting they felt like a grind. "Oh, shit, gotta go do another goddamn mission." And the ships were the worst because that basically took what would have been one tedious level and turned it into three or four decks worth of tedium.
The only way I think what you're suggesting would work is if the greater scale could be bolted onto the existing interface without feeling obnoxious. If it's an RTS game, you start out leading a fighting patrol. You're just a nobody. As you progress you get to start requesting units, then eventually building bases, and setting grand strategy. The RISK-style strategy screen would let you select the next territory to conquer and would determine the amount of support you can bring when conquering the next territory. All of those pieces would have been designed together as part of the whole game but revealed in a sequence that flows with the storyline.
But as I said, there's a fine balance between immersion and tedium. If you look at the recent Pirates! remakes, the land battle segments are not very good. It's tedium. Even worse is trying to go treasure hunting. You'll waste so much time mucking about the map. The console version did away with that -- so long as you make landfall near the right spot, you find the treasure/missing relative.
Honestly, for the most part I think if you're going to hybridize you need to do it from the start. Adding in some sort of higher-level minigame at the end would likely be irksome more than anything else.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I believe the spiritual successor of DotC was Conqueror: 1086 AD by Sierra.
If you could get it to run properly, it was actually pretty good. Now though, unless someone hacks it for modern windows versions, it won't run as it is a DOS based game. I suppose a VM could do the trick, but I'm not going to set one up just to play a 16 year old game I kicked the shit out of when I was 12.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
It's not that game manufacturers are lazy or unimaginative; they've been chasing the Holy Grail of games that you just described, but the limits of the computer interface create what I can only describe as the "Spore problem," which I will explain in a bit.
The problem with your "hybridization of games" figure of speech is that real life (or fantasy life, for that matter) is not a hybridization of anything - it's just life. It's not like the commanders of actual armies have a screen with their units on it that they can left click to select and right click to move/attack, they have offices with reports and people working for them (and, yes, visualizations of the battlefield,) but they're still basically playing a first-person RPG: they're looking out a pair of eyes, they can move around the room, they can throw a chair at the map, etc. Actual communication is a very complex matter: commander gives objectives and standing orders, assistant sends the report out, company commanders send out mission-specific orders, unit commanders give tactical commands, individual soldiers can follow the orders or not. And each individual soldier is living his own life with his personal problems and politics that come with it. And the whole "political" stage of LOTR; current AI can't even think about the level of "politics" you speak of without pre-programmed routes and reactions. Politics depends so much on realistic human reactions.
Now you might say "it doesn't *have* to be that complicated. Just have 'soldier' NPCs, or simplify the communication and game mechanics of battle. Maybe when you walk up to the map it switches over to the RTS mode and you can command your units like Command and Conquer." This is where the Spore problem comes in: a game wants to be everything (RPG/RTS/city simulator/space simulator) and realizes that real life is just too epic to program into a game, not to mention that the keyboard/mouse interface is severely limiting. So because of this, they create "stages," which in essence is 5 distinct, separate games that happen to follow each other, each being the best at a specific genre. This *kills* immersion, because just when you thought you were playing an RPG and your world existed in the 1st person, your perspective is suddenly shifted to the 3rd dimension and game mechanics change. The result feels contrived. Even if the game you have in mind is a little more subtle than this, the limits of the keyboard/mouse combo, as well as the limits of programming time and money, are bound to make end up as a series of minigames that'll destroy the immersive world you've set up.
This news story sounds like it what was submitted by an EA publicist.
A lot of people have taken issue with the dumbed down combat, limited customization options, extremely linear story, bad graphics and a dialogue wheel that is essentially broken into compassionate, obnoxious or humourous responses. This game is a pale impression of it's predecessor. It seems kind of ironic that the series designed to resurrect the cRPG may be the very thing that destroys it. Before buying this game, read this article and save yourself some money.
My experience was slightly different accross two playthroughs (OK, 1.8, the second playthrough stalled in the deep roads, which was the last thing I had to do before the finale).
On my first play-through (2nd hardest difficulty), I killed Wynne and my PC was a warrior, so only one mage that was offensive oriented. I had to rely heavily on Morrigan during most of the game, but near the end when my PC got decked out with strong armor and weapons, they took off in power and the Morrigan mostly just CCed groups of enemies while he ripped through them at 100 mph while dual wielding longswords and wearing plate mail. Also, all of my characters were chugging potions like drug-addicts for most of the game due to the lack of healing.
On my second play-through (hardest difficulty), I decided I didn't want to rely so heavily on Morrigan, but I did get Wynne and used her instead. My PC was a rogue this time. I honeslty found the healing abilities of magic to be almost as over-powering as the offensive abilities, and the money saved not buying every potion that wasn't bolted to the floor let me gear my characters earlier to make up the difference in team damage output. When I stopped playing that playthrough, I was getting to the same point where Wynne was becoming less useful, and had I continued my PC probably would have gotten to a similar point as the first game (except with rapid fire backstabs while my bear tanks instead of windmill longswords and plate mail).
I imagine it would be very difficult without a mage on the harder difficulties. None of the other talent trees I used came close to them in terms of AoE CC or healing power, and both of those were crucial to my standard battle plan for long stretches of the game, even though as the game progressed they became less relevant.
I played through the intro on the "Hard" difficulty last night against my better judgment. The tutorial fight where I was only controlling Hawke felt very button-mashy, but at the end of the intro I had a full party with two or three abilities each, and it felt more like DAO. Also, the final fight of the intro took a decent amount of positioning and control for each character, definitely not just button mashing. I feel like the first tutorial fight was intended to introduce the controls (duh) and show off some of the flashy ability effects in a no-risk situation, and for the earlier fights in the intro the fact that I had maybe one ability per character, after which they just auto-attack, are what made it feel button-mashy at first.
Not sure what the demo covered, but I would bet it suffers from some of the same issues as the tutorial fight (specifically wanting to be easy to pickup, and wanting to show off flashy combat effects).
The over-the-shoulder camera angle didn't help with the feeling, either, but I'm sure I'll get used to that.
See... if you simply surrender peacefully, you can skip that encounter entirely, and get a really fun bit of RP as you try to get out of the dungeon. You can either choose to break out of the dungeon yourself, which opens up the possibilty of trying to trick the guards into thinking that you're a new recruit and letting you walk right out the front door, or you can let your companions come rescue you... each of them has their own dialogues and ways of tricking the guards into letting them walk right *in* the front door to rescue you. Either way, it's tons of fun, and you don't have to kill Ser Cauthrien. There's even some dialogue at the Landsmeet if you choose that path, where you are able to convince her to turn in your favour. :)
ok ill give an example from your own examples :
how was xcom apocalypse compared to xcom and xcom terror from the deep ?
Read radical news here
What you said:
What you meant:
No other meaning is possible.
I think a lot can be said from the critic-user delta on metacritic...
Dragon Age II: 8.5 - 4.1 = 4.4 diff
To take a couple "normal" games like for example Bulletstorm it's 8.4 - 8.0 = 0.4. Fallout 3: New Vegas 8.5 - 8.0 = 0.5. Dead Space 2 is 8.7 - 8.5 = 0.2. Civilization which many considered a bit overrated is at 9.0 - 7.0 = 2.0. I played the demo and I was already OMGing at all the changes, if you loved DA:O you'll hate DA2. If you look at the reviews that praise DA2, they all pretty much hated DA:O. Gone are all the "annoying" parts, that is pretty much everything that makes it an RPG.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Spent 2 hours downloading the demo, then spent 20 minutes playing the demo, as 2 different "characters" (same person, same plot, same voice, just different abilities). That's a chunk of bandwidth cap I'm never getting back :(
I even tried just doing nothing for one of the fights. Sure enough, we win anyway. This isn't a game, it's a series of cutscenes tied together with a series of pointless 'fights'. Might as well be watching some crap TV fantasy show for all the contribution I made.
I'll go back to Minecraft, thanks, where I'm an active participant in the entertainment not a passive viewer.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
How many people are going to give it a fair and objective review on the first day of release? You have to give user reviews time to balance out. Or at least give me the day 1 data of other major games to compare it to.
Because all the people expecting an RPG will ditch it after half an hour?
Bioware sold out, they're producing action adventures nowadays (pretty good ones, at that), but not RPGs. I wonder if they have any loyal supporters left from the Planescape days, probably not many after this.
That said, I'll do my best to work through this not expecting a proper RPG and pretending it's not the successor to a game that claimed to be the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate series, I might enjoy it then.
For a proper RPG, I dunno, maybe Skyrim will deliver, for now I'm sticking to Drakensang for my RPG fix.
That's a fair enough point, although Bioware has made no such claims about Dragon Age 2. In fact, they've admitted that it's much more of an action game and they also put out (and heavily advertised) a demo that made what the game is extremely clear. If someone bought this game expecting anything resembling Baldur's Gate then it's their own fault for ignoring all of the information out there and is not indicative of the quality of the game.
Not quite sure about that, they've gone out of their way claiming it didn't deviate a lot from DAO's gameplay (on the PC anyway), that it wasn't going to be "Dragon Effect" etc etc. There's been quite a few press articles along those lines as well.
But as you say all evidence pointed in exactly that direction, even though they kept denying it.
I guess they do fear the loss of sales (and maybe more so: the loss of loyal fans) for being EA's lapdog more than they will ever admit and I predict a lot of people will be disappointed exactly because of this.
For you, the day when bad driving physics on cookie-cutter worlds caused you be be randomly killed by worms jumping out of the ground was the most important day of your life. For me? It was a Tuesday.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Is 10hrs enough? I got my copy in late last night, sat down played. Not happy with any of the changes, the biggest things that piss me off? Repeated level designs. Using the same levels, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. And the cheap ass method of dealing with bosses. Meaning, you start fighting a boss. And kill off his spawns, then the game spawns, more of them, and keeps spawning them. It's a cheap way to make content hard.
Om, nomnomnom...
I didn't say every early review isn't valid nor did I defend the game. I am just saying that day 1 reviews of an RPG won't be balanced. Even if every one of them is a legit review they are still unlikely to include the many people who are enjoying the game and haven't finished it yet. Give it time before comparing the raw numbers.
I generally agree with you though, I'm disappointed myself. I plan on buying it when it's cheaper and I'm sure I'll enjoy it thoroughly, but this isn't the direction I was hoping for.
This game is so consolfied it is beyond believe.
They amped up the character animations so that warriors and mages jump around swinging and attacking like champs.
They made the plot run on a single rail train line. The maps are all one way and narrow.
The entertainment comes from crushing multiple waves of trash attacker in a story your stuck in the middle of an unbeatable army the you and your few companions crush over and over from the start of the game.
Add to that the new AI system ditch's all your commands so you pause the game and set targets for your 4 or 5 companions. As soon as your press play they do the one command then switch targets and do what ever they like.
Total cluster pouppy RPG.
Consoles destroyed another good game maker.
You are absolutely right, the day 1 reviews give a good idea of the reception by longtime fans. As you say it's by no means a good overview of the overall reaction of the public (especially since nobody will have finished the game yet, I would hope anyway or it's one short RPG ;-) ).
Which of the two groups you deem more important is a personal matter, in this case I think I personally value the opinion of the longtime fans more (as, by the sound of it, do you).
Customer calls EA "devil" on the forums, EA retaliates by locking him out of not just the forums, but also the game he paid for:
http://digg.com/news/gaming/bioware_forum_bans_affect_access_to_your_game