Dragon Age 2 - Catch All

trueheart78 wrote:

Personally, while I'd like to have more of the same, I'm glad it's different.

Ditto. All too often a sequel comes out and it makes the last one redundant. I'm heartened that DA2 seems like it'll be a different experience, not just bigger and improved from DA:O. Reports of DA:O's murder are greatly exaggerated.

LobsterMobster wrote:

OK, well, you guys should take that up with 2004 through 2009, when it was marketed as a return to hardcore CRPGs, and described like a hardcore CRPG, and advertised as an uncompromising and difficult hardcore CRPG, and discussed as something that might not ever make it to market because it's such a hardcore CRPG.

It was marketed as, and I quote, "the new sh*t" as well. As good as Bioware's games have been, their marketing has been just plain awful.

Just because it's not quite Baldur's Gate doesn't mean they weren't trying for a return to form. It was definitely closer than Dragon Age II, and I'll remind you that I still have my copy of DA2 pre-ordered. It's OK to talk about it without implying that it's total garbage, right?

Oh sure they were trying to harken back to Baldur's Gate with Origins, but that's the problem... either do a hardcore rpg or don't. Don't water it down and at least partially consolize it and pretend it's still anywhere close to a hardcore rpg.

With Origins they took a Ferrari and, because it wasn't very comfortable, replaced the seats with plush leather heated seats. Because the paddle shifters involve activity, they made it an automatic. They added air conditioning, etc. With DA2 they're starting with a Corvette and adding better brakes, more horsepower and stiffer suspension. It's still not a Ferrari, but I think it'll be better to have more of something decent than less of something great.

If it wasn't clear, I'm more excited for DA2 than Origins. I thought Origins was largely a Lord of the Rings ripoff. I think the combat I've seen so far in DA2 has been pretty fun and I like poofing around the battlefield like Nightcrawler with my rogue. So long as the actual game is OK I think it has the potential to be much, much better than Origins.

Edit - good lord my English was awful in that. Edited to clean it up a little.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

Personally, while I'd like to have more of the same, I'm glad it's different.

Ditto. All too often a sequel comes out and it makes the last one redundant. I'm heartened that DA2 seems like it'll be a different experience, not just bigger and improved from DA:O. Reports of DA:O's murder are greatly exaggerated.

That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but so is the opposite view. Some want more of the same, some don't. I like both but I do think DA2 went from day 1 purchase to Steam sale purchase for me.

If anything the pre-release part of this thread has been interesting to see how different viewpoints put across their case. And very civil too. Jolly good show everyone.

Scratched wrote:

If anything the pre-release part of this thread has been interesting to see how different viewpoints put across their case. And very civil too. Jolly good show everyone.

I agree, it's why I really like this forum

I'm in the group that thinks the changes so far are not a bad thing but I will be interested to see everyone's views once the game launches.

I always find that getting a good accurate picture of a game you're not sure about is hell this close to release. Besides the marketing from the publisher you have to wait a few weeks at least for people to play it enough and for the "OMG I'm playing the shiny new game" effect to wear off, and then put together that picture.

trueheart78 wrote:

Personally, while I'd like to have more of the same, I'm glad it's different.

Wait, what? That sounds very p && ~p to me.

Scratched wrote:

If anything the pre-release part of this thread has been interesting to see how different viewpoints put across their case. And very civil too. Jolly good show everyone.

Yeah, despite moments of testiness everyone is still here and everyone is still conversatin', so that's good.

While cheeba is right that DA:O wasn't Baldur's Gate 3, for me it was close enough. DA2 is further away from that, so for me it isn't close enough to buy at full price.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

While cheeba is right that DA:O wasn't Baldur's Gate 3, for me it was close enough. DA2 is further away from that, so for me it isn't close enough to buy at full price.

I'm just wondering how good (not whether it is good) it is on it's own merits, it just sounds like there's a few too many wonky decisions that make it a "jack of all trades, master of none". I think if they had gone down the road they took for the console version and fully dedicated to it, it would be better for it than sitting on the fence.

Until it's out we can only guess, and it doesn't sounds particularly compromised on the console version.

That's where the money is. After all DA:O even sold much better on the consoles, some people loved it but there were a lot of complaints too.

Good discussion going here

I used the Mage and felt a bit conflicted about the demo, too. Some of the AoE mage spells feel awesome. I also like the marriage between speeding up the combat but also maintaining the tactical pause options. The melee Rogue did not impress me as much. They're moving in the right direction with the class but it feels like a faster version of the Warrior with more evasion and stun-at-range abilities. It was OK, but the button-mashy nature of the combat really shone through playing as a dual-wielding Rogue.

The Rogue Archer, on the other hand, is pretty sweet. Unless you're talking about Diablo-style games, archers usually get the shaft in RPGs. They don't fire fast enough, they don't do enough damage and they just feel impotent and optional compared to the other classes. The feel of letting off arrows in DA2 is very good and if an enemy gets too close, Hawke will actually pull out a dagger for some melee combat. I see the evasion and stun abilities being a whole lot more useful for the Archer. Could you play a Mage and still have a lot of the same experience but feel more powerful? Probably... but the archer feels the most improved out of anything so far.

I definitely have my concerns with DA2 but a few days after playing the demo I went out to pre-order the game anyway. I have enough faith in BioWare to deliver a good gaming experience. They've kept me very well entertained in the last several years!

Scratched wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

While cheeba is right that DA:O wasn't Baldur's Gate 3, for me it was close enough. DA2 is further away from that, so for me it isn't close enough to buy at full price.

I'm just wondering how good (not whether it is good) it is on it's own merits, it just sounds like there's a few too many wonky decisions that make it a "jack of all trades, master of none". I think if they had gone down the road they took for the console version and fully dedicated to it, it would be better for it than sitting on the fence.

From the way the demo unfolded, it seemed as if they were trying to evolve DA into its own genre - distinct from Baldur's Gate style, but not exactly Diabloesque. I'm reminded of the old console Baldur's Gate, which was quite distinctly an action RPG and quite fun in its own right.

I played the demo two ways. As a mage, I tried to play it as an honest tactical RPG and control the whole party and make tactical decisions. It felt kind of dumbed down. Without positioning being as important as it used to be, and with Mages holding their own solidly against physical combat, it felt very action-oriented. At the mid-game point, it just felt like everyone was a caster with different power slate. That's good in some respects and bad in others. I'd like for the actual game to make more of a distinction between the classes, given that there's only three of them.

I played the Rogue "solo" - like Mass Effect. I did not try to control any character other than Hawke. My main control method for other characters in the party was mainly through the tactical screen. It still felt dumbed down, but it felt better. Given that normal attacks are auto, I felt that I spent a little too much time not doing much of anything. That said, it's something of an improvement over a Diablo in complexity because I was playing with a party and I was influencing other character actions. I imagine that the combat would feel even more action-oriented and put together as a Warrior.

The thing is, I look at console/joypad footage of DA2 and it looks kind of fun. I would mind hooking up my pad and doing a second playthrough with a different flavour to it. What I also get from it though is that there's compromises on both console and PC versions to accommodate the other side. They didn't make a PC game and port it to consoles, or take a console game and port to PC, it's a weird thing where they've made the content and gameplay for both, but fully suited to neither.

As an awkward analogy, they don't have one great game, or two great games (one great on each platform). They've got one and a half great games: two almost (0.75) great games, but not one strong game and one weak game. Tinker with the numbers to suit.

Scratched wrote:

As an awkward analogy, they don't have one great game, or two great games (one great on each platform). They've got one and a half great games: two almost (0.75) great games, but not one strong game and one weak game. Tinker with the numbers to suit.

I'm not sure we know enough yet to say, as I'm not sure how good of a slice of the game we've been able to see.

Warts? Yes. But it's possible the game's going to be great anyway.

We've seen plenty of demos that when looked at from the whole view of the game look quite incompetent at doing their job to show you what the game is like. Apparently Bulletstorm is a recent case. Batman Arkham Asylum definitely didn't show enough about what made that game much more than a brawler.

I'm not sure they're compromising the PC version exactly. They're making it simpler than it could have been, but the way I see it, they're being forced to put some kind of UI polish into a game they've generally not bothered to polish at all. That's a step up in my book. I would probably still play this on PC only, seeing as how placing any kind of AoE effect on a pad would probably annoy me no end, and I didn't mind the camera change much. In fact, the only reason I didn't do it like that for DA:O was because the game looked really awful close up, and DA2 doesn't look quite as bad.

There is NO WAY IN HELL they will get away with 12-15 hours. Down from 60+ in the original? Even ME1 & 2 were closer to 30.

I attempt to disbelieve.

Some bullet points from a translated german review (which can often be MIS-translated, so pinches of salt all round). Edited to remove some stuff that might be mild spoilers:

EA did not let them use their own screenshots for the article without explicit approval, even though they were given the final version. The reviewer calls this "inexplicable". Hence, the article uses a few stock screenshots and generally shows nothing even remotely new.

Oh EA marketing department. Tut Tut.

- If you choose not to import and use one of the 3 predefined "lore backgrounds" instead, the backstory is explained in a short cutscene of the final moments (Landsmeet+Archdemon fight) of DA:O.

- cameos:

Spoiler:

Alistair

is available for an "inconsequential" 1-2 minute long chat if you imported the right DA:O ending

- the prologue is described the same way as the demo

- Hawke has up to [removed in case people don't want to know] companions, who generally feel alive and responsive. However, they have consistently less depth and weaker characterization than the cast in Origins. The only exception is Varric, whose frequent banter with Cassandra provides
much of the game's tension and humour. He's described as "a d*mn cool sock" (don't ask)

part of that might be down to weak german voice acting though, that's mentioned in the summary of the "sound" later.

- Main Quest takes 12-15 hours, you can double that number "if you take your time and explore everything the game has to offer".

double dose of salt required when mentioning play times in reviews, but still...sounds a little anemic compared to the first game.

-The game does not feel long or epic, and the central conflict....is not as dramatic as the reviewer would have liked. But although it doesn't have anything comparable to the Battle of Ostagar or the final attack on Denerim, it still has some very tactical boss fights.

- ugly ("texture mud") and low-polygon graphics, especially in the areas outside of Kirkwall. Generally feeling of emptiness/lack of NPCs. Constant encounters with "clonecellars" and "clonecaves", which can be a huge source of frustration. However, beautiful spell effects and good character models that can graphically compete with ME2.

The cloned areas is something I've read in reviews and previews before as being over-prevalent. Pretty sure i remember them doing this in the first game as well though. Still very lazy regardless, ESPECIALLY when it's got such a dramatically smaller play time. It's also set more or less entirely in the one location (Kirkwall) so presumably the city gets re-used constantly as well.

- combat is generally tactical, though frequently unbalanced. The lack of an iso-style camera was a huge problem for the reviewer.

- The number of talents is huge. The game offers class specific weapons and some crafting options. However, overall you generally have a small selection. (they don't expand on this)

- The ending is described as

Spoiler:

open ended and unresolved

.

- final rating is 87%. "Although the fans' fears have partially come true, this is still a magnificent RPG"

So. Yeah. I'm still going to give it a look-in but my already low expectations are now low enough that it will have to try REALLY hard to disappoint me further.

stevenmack wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:

There is NO WAY IN HELL they will get away with 12-15 hours. Down from 60+ in the original? Even ME1 & 2 were closer to 30.

I attempt to disbelieve.

Well they say to double the 12-15 if you focus on doing all side quests, etc. And of course, play times reported in reviews tend to deviate wildly from reality on occasion. Still, I always assumed this would end up being the case - for one thing, voicing the main character has got to have taken it's toll on the amount of 'script' they could squeeze into their budget.

It's the repeated 'clone' areas that worry me more, personally.

The "cloned areas" thing has already popped up in AWAKENING, which I could forgive. A $60, full-on sequel, though? Not so much.

SommerMatt wrote:

There is NO WAY IN HELL they will get away with 12-15 hours. Down from 60+ in the original? Even ME1 & 2 were closer to 30.

I attempt to disbelieve.

Well they say to double the 12-15 if you focus on doing all side quests, etc. And of course, play times reported in reviews tend to deviate wildly from reality on occasion. Still, I always assumed this would end up being the case - for one thing, voicing the main character has got to have taken it's toll on the amount of 'script' they could squeeze into their budget.

It's the repeated 'clone' areas, on top of the fact that most of the game plays out in the one main location that worry me more, personally. Not that EVERY rpg needs to be a globe trotting extravaganza of course, but still...worrying.

12-15 hours is kind of... ...short. Muramasa: the Demon Blade is an out and out brawler and the one arc of it takes that long. It takes about 20+ hours to complete the entire game. I'm inclined to think that an actual playthrough on DA2 without speeding through it will be about that long, but damn. For a brawler to be as long as a game that's supposed to be an RPG is insane.

I'm hoping that the texture work isn't quite as bad as they make it out to be (but I'm expecting that it will be, sigh).

The side quests on this thing had better be some kind of meaty.

SommerMatt wrote:

There is NO WAY IN HELL they will get away with 12-15 hours. Down from 60+ in the original? Even ME1 & 2 were closer to 30.

I attempt to disbelieve.

I dunno, I had to try really hard to stretch any of my DA:O playthroughs past 35 hours (my 100% playthrough ended at 42). I heard lots of anecdotal claims that the console version was shorter than the PC version due to more enemies, though I have a hard time believing that more (10-15?) enemies per fight equates to an additional 30-40 hours. If anyone knows another way that the PC version was so much longer I'm very curious.

Of course counting all plays my time was most likely over 150 hours.

Depends on what's being called "side quests" as to how disturbing saying the main quest takes 12-15 hours is. After all, ME1's main quest probably isn't that much longer than that, and ME2's core missions if you don't do the loyalty stuff is fairly short. Viable, but not a recommended way to get the most fun from ME2.

stevenmack wrote:

Well they say to double the 12-15 if you focus on doing all side quests, etc. And of course, play times reported in reviews tend to deviate wildly from reality on occasion. Still, I always assumed this would end up being the case - for one thing, voicing the main character has got to have taken it's toll on the amount of 'script' they could squeeze into their budget.

It's the repeated 'clone' areas, on top of the fact that most of the game plays out in the one main location that worry me more, personally. Not that EVERY rpg needs to be a globe trotting extravaganza of course, but still...worrying.

Here I'm thinking about the various Japanese AVNs that are popular with out game-playing brethren in the land of the rising sun. Very few such stories are actually save-the-world type stories. In fact, most of them are relationship-based, even the ones that involve saving the world. You don't need to trot the globe to have a great game, and you don't need the world to have an alive, entertaining environment.

inFamous was played in only the one city and it was pretty good. I could do with an RPG that played mainly in Kirkwall, if they detailed it well enough and if the outside environments didn't feel like tacked-on badly made extras.

stevenmack wrote:

Some bullet points from a translated german review (which can often be MIS-translated, so pinches of salt all round). Edited to remove some stuff that might be mild spoilers:

One other thing that sticks out about the PC gamer review is that a shining light of praise was also first, and weeks before anyone else. Also I'd wonder how long the various publications have had their hands on review code, PCG announced their score and Bioware announced DA2 going gold on the 11th, although I guess they all had 'final' review code for a while before while the game was getting signed off by QA and certification.

I think my first run through was something like 45-50 hours with vanilla origins (no DLC at the time, apart from the stuff they gave away free).

Blind_Evil wrote:

I dunno, I had to try really hard to stretch any of my DA:O playthroughs past 35 hours (my 100% playthrough ended at 42). I heard lots of anecdotal claims that the console version was shorter than the PC version due to more enemies, though I have a hard time believing that more (10-15?) enemies per fight equates to an additional 30-40 hours. If anyone knows another way that the PC version was so much longer I'm very curious.

Of course counting all plays my time was most likely over 150 hours.

One of my playthroughs was at 80 hours, I think. The first one was about 100. The PC version of the game was generally designed to be harder, and I played my games at the Hard setting. This means that I paused a lot, viewed the battlefield from multiple angles, and generally tried to optimize play on a second to second basis. You hear a lot about how the Deep Roads were an interminable ordeal for some players - I'm supposing that this was why. For my own part, I didn't take Orzammar until I was comfy with the game and by that point I was using the Tactics menu to shortcut my approach.

You would definitely cut playtime by more than 50% if you made the enemies both less numerous and the combat real-time instead of pause-mediated.

LarryC wrote:

You would definitely cut playtime by more than 50% if you made the enemies both less numerous and the combat real-time instead of pause-mediated.

My fights were anything but real-time, believe me.

Anyway, this makes me want to try a speedrun through Origins. I bet I could manage 20 hours if I tried hard.

Blind_Evil wrote:
LarryC wrote:

You would definitely cut playtime by more than 50% if you made the enemies both less numerous and the combat real-time instead of pause-mediated.

My fights were anything but real-time, believe me. Playing on normal I'd usually switch between all four characters twice or thrice to give instruction.

Anyway, this makes me want to try a speedrun through Origins. I bet I could manage 20 hours if I tried hard.

I was only trying to give you an idea of why since you asked. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't pause the game. Other players did not.

Playing the game on Hard on PC requires a minute accounting of actions (for me, anyway. I'm sure some people could play it on Nightmare better). I did not allow my characters to so much as start an animation of a normal attack without my say-so. For instance, Wynne's Stone Fist was turned off because I wanted to reserve it until after I froze the enemies with Cone of Cold. Rogue and Warrior Criticals were reserved for similar reasons (they can also shatter frozen enemies).

Later on, I used Tactics so that I only had to order Cone of Cold manually, and everything followed suit, but it took a while. There was also more queuing of potions necessary, and the crafting and cross-country trips that involved since endless amounts of lyrium and elf-root were not available everywhere.

In addition, I dicked around a lot with the poisons and the bomb things. I think the new Rogue AoE powers actually come from this idea in DA:O, since a well-equipped party with Poisoners and the right kind of "potions" (bombs, really) could wreak all manner of AoE havoc on clumped enemies without a Mage. Between all the pausing, tactical algorithm design, crafting, and traipsing around everywhere, I can easily see where I took so much time to finish the game.

After playing through origins on normal, easy is a laugh. Enemies pretty much just fall over.

If it's really 12-15 hours of main story, and another 12-15 of side quests if you mine every single corner, then that seems like a significant problem for their relationship with their fan base (by which I mean the type of person who knows when it's releasing and is going to be buying on the first day).