Impressions of DA2 demo from somene who never played DA:O

[Res_]

I'll cover a few specific aspects:

Combat:

I have to say I'm not that enthusiastic about the combat mechanics of this game, but they aren't horrible either. I'm not particulary fond of the auto-attack where I can just right-click on a enemy and sit back and watch... I'd rather do the clicking for each attack myself... makes me feel at least a little more involved with the combat and could give me a little more versatility, such as being able to attack WHILE running/strafing......

I'm not a big fan of the whole switching characters and using their abilities, but if I can do combat with just 1 character because the companion AI is good enough, then I won't worry. I wouldn't mind it if it was done the Mass Effect 1/2 way where you could hold a button down that paused the game and you clicked on the other party members abilities that weren't on cooldown. Much more simplistic, faster and less cumbersome using ME2's way then DA2's way.

And why the hell can't I use say TAB to target different enemies while running around.... using R doesn't seem to always target the closest enemy if you already have a target and trying to right click on an enemy while running around is lame.... and having to pause just to target a enemy because I can't do it with say using TAB key on the fly is lame as well.

Map layout:

I certainly hope that the maps for DA2 aren't just linear corridors with no room for exploration like the demo. For a FPS game like ME2 it can work, but for an RPG? I not so sure. Usually from RPG's I expect quite a bit of freedom. Maybe someone who has played DA:O here will tell me what this aspect was like, so theres an idea of what to expect in DA2.


Story:

While I'm not a big fan of the whole flashback story telling in the demo, I'm sure in the full game that is just a small glimpse of the story. As is the usual, I'm sure Bioware will have a great story.

Besides those concerns/gripe, everything I didn't mention was good.





One things for sure, at least it's not like the Crysis 2 demo where it just seems like the whole thing was made with console people in mind....... one example: "Press Start to Begin" on the very first screen.

[Aemony]

You are of course entitled to your opinion as much as I am to mine, but the simple notion that you are not particulary fond of the combat mechanics would suggest you are pretty much not one of their intended audience. None the less, with the ability to set up tactics to your companions you can make most, but not all, fights without touching another character.

But the whole gameplay, combat and tactics is about controlling the field with the superior control you have. If this is a dealbreaker for you this game is not targeted towards you and you're better of looking towards The Witcher 2 instead.

/in before a storm of rants and flamewars

[Res_]

But the whole gameplay, combat and tactics is about controlling the field with the superior control you have.

I'm sorry, but you just contradicted yourself....

Having auto-attack while you watch your character isn't exactly giving "superior control" is it?

I do like the fact that you can make your companions do certain tactics in different situations.

[Sonris89]

haha I love this. People complain that its a button mashing hack and slash on post and the next its the auto attack thats under fire.

Really goes to show you can't win everyone xD

[Res_]

haha I love this. People complain that its a button mashing hack and slash on post and the next its the auto attack thats under fire.

Really goes to show you can't win everyone xD

People that are complaining it's just a button smasher obviously are people who are used to slow paced combat and aren't twitch players. Myself, I'm a person who prefers fast paced twitch combat.

[TheRejectedDude]

lol ME2 FPS..

[HorrorScope]

Map layout:

I certainly hope that the maps for DA2 aren't just linear corridors with no room for exploration like the demo. For a FPS game like ME2 it can work, but for an RPG? I not so sure. Usually from RPG's I expect quite a bit of freedom. Maybe someone who has played DA:O here will tell me what this aspect was like, so theres an idea of what to expect in DA2.


Bioware has been getting away with this since NWN. I could understand then, I'm completely baffled that players tolerate it today.

[Smertnik]

You are of course entitled to your opinion as much as I am to mine, but the simple notion that you are not particulary fond of the combat mechanics would suggest you are pretty much not one of their intended audience.

I wouldn't say that. I didn't particularly like the combat of about the half of BW's games (including DA:O, BG and KoTOR) but I still loved every single one of them because of the narrative, the dialog, characters and the different choices. This is what BW's games are all about, in my opinion.

[Aemony]

I'm sorry, but you just contradicted yourself....

Having auto-attack while you watch your character isn't exactly giving "superior control" is it?

I do like the fact that you can make your companions do certain tactics in different situations.

Sorry, I talked about the ability to order each single character in your party to do what you need them to do, when to do it and how they do it, not the auto-attack thingy.

But the auto-attack is there to make you more attentive towards the buffs, skills, cooldown, tactics, spells, items and the overall flow of the fight. The lack of an auto-attack would mean that you as a gamer always must have your attention towards the small fight in-front of your character, when the combat in DA:O and DA:II is all about having the attention towards the big picture.

If you dislike the thought of your character auto-attacking with the most simplistic and basic attack (as practically every MMORPG and almost every other cRPG also does) then the game (and possibly the genre) clearly isn't something targeted towards you.

[Res_]

If you dislike the thought of your character auto-attacking with the most simplistic and basic attack (as practically every MMORPG and almost every other cRPG also does) then the game (and possibly the genre) clearly isn't something targeted towards you.

The problem with the auto-attack in this game is that your character has to stay perfectly in 1 spot! You can't even move the character at all or the auto-attack will stop. I would be perfectly happy with it if I could move and strafe around while the auto-attack happened (which you can do in just about every RPG). Almost makes me think it is geared towards consoles because you can't fight and move at the same time which makes it easy for the console controllers to handle.

[Aemony]

I wouldn't say that. I didn't particularly like the combat of about the half of BW's games (including DA:O, BG and KoTOR) but I still loved every single one of them because of the narrative, the dialog, characters and the different choices. This is what BW's games are all about, in my opinion.

The gameplay overall is usually what dictates the targeted audience, as that is where most of the game is played out and is what defines what type of game the game will become.

And a person not intended in the targeted audience could still find the games loveable, I'm not against that fact. But if BioWare didn't intended to target their games towards fans of the combat mechanics they wouldn't use it either, instead opting for another more simplistic and cinematical combat experience (much as they have done in the later years).

[Aemony]

The problem with the auto-attack in this game is that your character has to stay perfectly in 1 spot! You can't even move the character at all or the auto-attack will stop. I would be perfectly happy with it if I could move and strafe around while the auto-attack happened (which you can do in just about every RPG).

Wha... What do you mean? I'm pretty sure I was able to move when I last played through the demo... Anyway I know at least that it's possible to do in DA:O...

Anyway, 'R' is your friend. Hotkey (bleh) used to auto-attack the nearest enemy.

♥♥♥♥, I need to verify this...

[Aemony]

Meh... You're right...

Oh well, move around and strafe all you want. Click 'R' to attack them "Hack 'n Slashy". Seems to work nicely.

[Riku98523]

I'm sorry, but you just contradicted yourself....

Having auto-attack while you watch your character isn't exactly giving "superior control" is it?

I do like the fact that you can make your companions do certain tactics in different situations.

K well considering you never played DA:O you can't really talk >.> try to go through the game with just auto attack lol.

Its called micromanagement (Jade Empires had it) and its what made DA:O combat awesome.

DA2 seems like they made things a little too easy though imo.

[Res_]

Wha... What do you mean? I'm pretty sure I was able to move when I last played through the demo... Anyway I know at least that it's possible to do in DA:O...

Anyway, 'R' is your friend. Hotkey (bleh) used to auto-attack the nearest enemy.

♥♥♥♥, I need to verify this...

You can use your special abilities while moving I'm pretty sure, but your character will not auto-attack while strafing/moving, which makes it very very annoying. So you have to stand still in one spot if you want to auto-attack.

Using the 'R' key is a problem in the demo because once you use the R key and target the closest enemy, if you move around and press the R key again to re-target the closest enemy, it will just stay targeted on your previous enemy until he is dead... so you CANNOT switch targets with the R key, have to right click.

[Res_]

K well considering you never played DA:O you can't really talk >.> try to go through the game with just auto attack lol.



Like I said, I wouldn't mind the auto-attack if my character didn't have to stand there like a tree to use auto-attack.

[ThreeSix]

lol ME2 FPS..

hahaha i was thinking the same thing

[PhellAsleep]

OP,

I think the point people are trying to make is that this is not an action hack n' slash game. Your preferences, while valid, clearly indicate that this is not the sort of game that was designed with your preferences in mind. The combat system in the game is focused on strategic deployment of a group of characters, not the singular prowess of just one.

Your criticism of the game's "flawed" mechanics is similiar to someone saying that Star Craft 2 would be better if you could zoom into first person view on Terran units to just headshot the Zerg.

[taz rose]

These games evolved from dungeons and dragons rulesets, which were determined with dice rolls and turns. DA:O still maintains the bones of its ancestors. And thats what makes it so cool. Your not supposed to be moving and attacking, though that could quite easily be introduced as a new skill your character can acquire. I can see that being effective with rogues and warriors in particular, allowing them to move about or past an enemy whilst inflicting damage.
If were not done in this way, it would change the very nature of the beast.

[Porkdish]

OP,
I think the point people are trying to make is that this is not an action hack n' slash game. Your preferences, while valid, clearly indicate that this is not the sort of game that was designed with your preferences in mind. The combat system in the game is focused on strategic deployment of a group of characters, not the singular prowess of just one.

Boy I wish that where true but there's plenty of developer interviews that say otherwise. Normal difficulty is specifically programmed to let you JUST PLAY HAWKE, and let the AI do everything else. No battle is supposed to threaten you if you just play Hawke to the best of your ability.

They tested manual attack on the PC, but it was too hard to integrate while maintaining point and click movement. Testers kept clicking the ground and moving around the field accidentally when trying to string attacks together. You can manual attack on the console version though. No idea if they plan to implement controller support in the PC version.

The nearest+attack key is a compromise. It targets the nearest ONLY if you have not already got a target set for that character. If you have a target set, spamming R (default key) will string attacks together. If a new enemy comes closer 'R' will not switch until the former is already dead, you must manually retarget. This requires a mouse click not a TAB, sorry.

If it makes you feel better you can keep hitting R to pretend its manual attack, but its not necessary since its only .05% faster than the auto-attack speed. But it'll give your restless hands something to do, I guess.

Welcome to the joys of playing a game that's hopelessly trying to straddle genres to attract new customers.

The ME2 power system only works because of the limited number of abilities and guns you and your squad have. They all fit on screen, its not so easy in DA2 when each of your party members can have more than 10 powers that require activating. Thus the tactics scripting, which you can manage yourself or turn off completely.

You might feel better skipping this years release for Dragon Age 2012. EA has it as a yearly release now. Each year the controls are 'streamlined', the graphics improve slightly and the tream roster changes a little.

[c4maniac]

Map layout:

I certainly hope that the maps for DA2 aren't just linear corridors with no room for exploration like the demo. For a FPS game like ME2 it can work, but for an RPG? I not so sure. Usually from RPG's I expect quite a bit of freedom. Maybe someone who has played DA:O here will tell me what this aspect was like, so theres an idea of what to expect in DA2.



The first was very linear. Going down narrow paths in the forest and narrow paths in cities and narrow paths through caves. If your looking for freedom play oblivion and soon skyrim. Its hard to say since the main dev on DA1 quit DA2 has a newish guy to the franchise his take on the game might change it but if your not looking for this right off the bat wait 6-12 months for all the evil 100 addons EA games is famous for and buy the combo pack.

[Sonris89]

I dunno, if you used tactics right in DA:O you can pretty much leave the rest of your squad alone, even on nightmare all I did was aim my big nukes CC and last minute saves, most of the tanking healing and damage was done by the tactics I put in.

ME2 you could pretty much ignore companions on any difficulty I found, I just sniped everything before it got to us.

But I agree DA2 is more solo friendly but there are solo plays of DA:O too soo..

But just look at the cinimatic difference, the DA:O ashes trailer focused on a team, DA:2 was just Hawke.

[Draek]

The problem with the auto-attack in this game is that your character has to stay perfectly in 1 spot! You can't even move the character at all or the auto-attack will stop. I would be perfectly happy with it if I could move and strafe around while the auto-attack happened (which you can do in just about every RPG). Almost makes me think it is geared towards consoles because you can't fight and move at the same time which makes it easy for the console controllers to handle.

Err, what? of all the RPGs I've played (dozens and dozens), the only ones I can remember off the top of my head where you could strafe during attacks were the Elder Scrolls series, the Mount & Blade series and Fallout 3/New Vegas, and in the latter your accuracy drops so fast you may as well suck it up and use VATS like everybody else.

Ohh, and also? ME2 isn't an FPS. Beginning with the fact that it's not in first person (you know, the FP part of FPS? yeah), but there's also the fact that it's an RPG rather than a shooter (the S part).

[Res_]

Err, what? of all the RPGs I've played (dozens and dozens), the only ones I can remember off the top of my head where you could strafe during attacks were the Elder Scrolls series, the Mount & Blade series and Fallout 3/New Vegas, and in the latter your accuracy drops so fast you may as well suck it up and use VATS like everybody else.

Ohh, and also? ME2 isn't an FPS. Beginning with the fact that it's not in first person (you know, the FP part of FPS? yeah), but there's also the fact that it's an RPG rather than a shooter (the S part).


You're right, I meant 3rd person shooter, not FPS. It's more of a 3rd person shooter than a RPG imo. Apparentely you haven't played the wide variety of mmoRPG's where you can strafe auto-attack in pretty much all of them.

[Brandon Spikes]

I love when people get angry over ones opinion.

Ah, "teh interwebs".

[Mithridate]

You're right, I meant 3rd person shooter, not FPS. It's more of a 3rd person shooter than a RPG imo. Apparentely you haven't played the wide variety of mmoRPG's where you can strafe auto-attack in pretty much all of them.

Over shoulder S-RPG then? :) Anyway its definitely a RPG game, only a bit lighter on the visually customizable part. But since theres a lot of RP related content (convos, info, events etc) its still definitely RPG. What sets it apart is that its not RPG HEAVY like The Witcher and Oblivion.

regarding strafing and attacking:
Not moving around while attacking is a good thing, since you fight with your whole body. Kinda hard to fight effectively while running backwards for example, or properly aim/parry/dodge while running in circles.

[Aemony]

What sets it apart is that its not RPG HEAVY like The Witcher and Oblivion.

What sets it apart is that the RPG element is no longer the primary genre but merely a secondary one. It's pretty obvious that BioWare has focused on delivering a cinematical action experience more so than they have focused on delivering an amazing RP experience.

Just as they did with ME2...

[DTKT]

What sets it apart is that the RPG element is no longer the primary genre but merely a secondary one. It's pretty obvious that BioWare has focused on delivering a cinematical action experience more so than they have focused on delivering an amazing RP experience.

Just as they did with ME2...

Out of curiosity, what defines a RP experience?

[djwyattwood]

Out of curiosity, what defines a RP experience?

Role-playing video games use much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics as early pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Generally, the player controls a small number of game characters, usually called a party, and achieves victory by completing a series of quests and reaching the conclusion of a central storyline. Players explore a game world, while solving puzzles and engaging in tactical combat. A key feature of the genre is that characters grow in power and abilities, and characters are typically designed by the player. RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination, with the exception of action role-playing games.

Role-playing video games typically rely on a highly developed story and setting, which is divided into a number of quests. Players control one or several characters by issuing commands, which is performed by the character at an effectiveness determined by that character's numeric attributes. Often these attributes increase each time a character gains a level, and a character's level goes up each time the player accumulates a certain amount of experience.

Role-playing video games also typically attempt to offer more complex and dynamic character interaction than what is found in other video game genres. This usually involves additional focus on the artificial intelligence and scripted behavior of computer-controlled non-player characters.

edited to include my copy-pasting skills (not my words/work).

[DTKT]

Role-playing video games use much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics as early pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Generally, the player controls a small number of game characters, usually called a party, and achieves victory by completing a series of quests and reaching the conclusion of a central storyline. Players explore a game world, while solving puzzles and engaging in tactical combat. A key feature of the genre is that characters grow in power and abilities, and characters are typically designed by the player. RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination, with the exception of action role-playing games.

Role-playing video games typically rely on a highly developed story and setting, which is divided into a number of quests. Players control one or several characters by issuing commands, which is performed by the character at an effectiveness determined by that character's numeric attributes. Often these attributes increase each time a character gains a level, and a character's level goes up each time the player accumulates a certain amount of experience.

Role-playing video games also typically attempt to offer more complex and dynamic character interaction than what is found in other video game genres. This usually involves additional focus on the artificial intelligence and scripted behavior of computer-controlled non-player characters.

Fair enough. I appreciate the time you took to write that.

Cheers.

[djwyattwood]

Fair enough. I appreciate the time you took to write that.

Cheers.

Oh I won't take credit for it, I didn't write it. Maybe I should have said as much when I posted, my bad. I copy-pasted wikipedia's definition of RPG in video games (after reading it). So if you want, wiki that, and feel free to read the sources the article cites.

[DTKT]

Oh I won't take credit for it, I didn't write it. Maybe I should have said as much when I posted, my bad. I copy-pasted wikipedia's definition of RPG in video games (after reading it). So if you want, wiki that, and feel free to read the sources the article cites.

WHAT! Blashphemy! Give me back that rep you thief!

;)

(I still appreciate it...)

[JKflipflop]

Seems to me that Bioware is the "cool" new thing to hate on. Loser kids love to be stand-offish with anything that's good and popular.

Halo? Sucks.
Modern Warfare? Sucks.
Mass Effect 2? Sucks.
Dragon Age? Sucks.

Oh ho! But don't you dare talk badly about my obscure shareware game from 1998! It's better than anything Bioware has put out in the last 10 years!

[Clock King]

Seems to me that Bioware is the "cool" new thing to hate on. Loser kids love to be stand-offish with anything that's good and popular.


In your opinion, is that just because these game are popular and "good"? Or do you think there might be other reasons?

Do you also think that the only way "forward" for all games is to make them into wow/awesome cinematic interactive movies, with mainly simple duck + slash/shoot mechanics? Or should some games at least, say like RPGs, have a little more on offer?

[DTKT]

Seems to me that Bioware is the "cool" new thing to hate on. Loser kids love to be stand-offish with anything that's good and popular.

Halo? Sucks.
Modern Warfare? Sucks.
Mass Effect 2? Sucks.
Dragon Age? Sucks.

Oh ho! But don't you dare talk badly about my obscure shareware game from 1998! It's better than anything Bioware has put out in the last 10 years!

I dont think it's exactly that.

Every single game you listed was considered as a "foundation" of that genre or of that franchise. When the developers attempted to change the "winning" formula, the fan base created by those first game were shocked that thing were changing.

Note that I'm not taking sides but as you grow attached to a game, you tend to consider certain gameplay elements as core components. When those are changed or removed, you tend to take notice.

That's just one part of it. Following that, certain games are associated with a RPG. Baldurs Gate is often cited as a "traditionnal" RPG and when a game suck a DAII is labeled as such when few key elements can be found in the two titles, it can irk some people.

DAO, to it's core, can be likened to Baldur's Gate. That's one part of why it was really well received by the "hardcore fans". When DAII was announced and when Bioware outright said that these "core" elements would be changed, I can understand the internet uproar.

Keep in mind that I'm not even speaking to the game quality because I haven't played it.

It's late and I'm rambling too much. ;)

[Aemony]

Seems to me that Bioware is the "cool" new thing to hate on. Loser kids love to be stand-offish with anything that's good and popular.

Halo? Sucks.
Modern Warfare? Sucks.
Mass Effect 2? Sucks.
Dragon Age? Sucks.

Oh ho! But don't you dare talk badly about my obscure shareware game from 1998! It's better than anything Bioware has put out in the last 10 years!

Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). ♥♥♥ hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).

[Super Fun]

You cant explore in bioware games, not sandbox style anyway. That's why their games will always be below average in my book.

[Mithridate]

I know this is not the right place (the right people seem 2 be here thought) and ill prolly get raged for this but:

the only major diffs i can see between DA:O and ME2 is the looting/equipment systems and that you can calmly explore more on the "levels" in DA:O. And ofc the obvious fact that ME2 is a kind of shooter.

Why is it by many not considered a RPG? Merely cuz its not in medieval settings? Sure its more action like with the interactions (click and stuff go BOOM) and combat. And that its less strategic.
But on that note id like to say that i find ME2 about as "strategic" as Baldurs gate: Dark alliance (only baldurs ive played sadly).

Please enlighten me

[yvu]

These games evolved from dungeons and dragons rulesets, which were determined with dice rolls and turns. DA:O still maintains the bones of its ancestors. And thats what makes it so cool.

For lovers of D&D, perhaps. For those who never played real D&D or just didn't like the system it's more of a hindrance. It doesn't feel natural in a video game.

[Clock King]

For lovers of D&D, perhaps. For those who never played real D&D or just didn't like the system it's more of a hindrance. It doesn't feel natural in a video game.

Translation - "It doesn't feel natural in our new breed of video games, such as DA2".

It has felt perfectly natural to millions of gamers since the start of cRPGs. However if publishers are all tripping over themselves to get a piece of the twitch reflex, awesome-action, button mashing, pie - then yeah, background dice rolls don't fit too well into that.

This is because we're moving from combat determined by the reflexes of the character being role played --- to combat determined by the reflexes of the player. So obviously the player doesn't need to roll dice for himself, he just needs to pound the 'X' key until either RSI sets in, or the opponent explodes.

[schism84]

For many years, the definition of RPG in video games has been that to some extent, they follow the D&D model. Personally, while I've immensely enjoyed some such as the original Fallout games (didn't like Fallout 3), I've always found that idea flawed. But before I get flamed, let me explain why I and others feel that way.

In a D&D game (a real one, with live people and real dice), the dice and character sheets serve as a medium for the players to express themselves under the (hopefully) good direction of the DM. Most of a D&D game, though, is not in the rolling of dice but in the imagination of the players, the choices they make (including small ones) and how much the various people there get into it.

Now, let's translate this to video gaming. Well, this is a visual and audio medium with interactive input through a keyboard or controller, far more advanced in terms of interface than paper, dice, some people talking and imagining the rest. But with this completely different way of having the game unfold, we are still going to insist that it's only the polish that has changed, underneath that we're still rolling dice to see if we hit or miss.

I have never found this to make much sense. We've all accepted it as canon and the norm but please, even if you're a fan of the style, bear with me a moment. In a D&D game, you roll, the DM checks your roll for result, you miss. From this, you imagine that you missed (supposing you have the imagination necessary for that). Now we have a video game... Your character flails about with numbers popping up above an enemy's head and occasionally it displays MISS, or in some more advanced games it will make a miss sound with maybe a different animation.

Here is where I have two problems with this notion. Firstly, video games are not paper RPG for one huge reason. You are not imagining it, it's unfolding in front of your eyes. This changes everything. You're no longer filling in the blanks, the game shows you what happens and what it shows you starts to not make much sense. When playing D&D, do you imagine a little pixel guy swinging repeatedly ad vomitum at another pixel guy? Surely not, what you picture is far more epic. IMO games of this sort both fail to capture what makes D&D great and fail to fully realise the potential of a video game, which is a completely different beast.

Now let me get to what I think is truly great about pen and paper RPG games. What's unique, and what most people who have never played one don't understand, is how social and imaginative it is. People picture nerds rolling dice and getting excited about adding a number to their character sheet but that's not it... What people get excited about, no matter how hardcore they are, is really the quest, the unexpected events, the ROLE PLAYING. It doesn't matter if a game emulates dice to make sure it isn't desecrating the holy canon of role playing. For a game to be a real homage to that heritage, it needs to be engaging, feel truly epic and to the best of its abilities, make it your game as much as possible rather than the game the designers created.

So my conclusion of this entire rant is as follows. Rolling proverbial dice in the background does not make a game a RPG or at least it doesn't make it deserving of the term, nor does omitting that mechanic forbid a game from being one. There's nothing wrong with exploring a new route of providing a comparable level of engagement with an entirely different medium, to some extent it's even common sense. To me, Dragon Age was not really an RPG any more than Mass Effect was. I don't mean by that they are bad games, I think they're great (although personally I prefer the Mass Effect franchise), but it never felt like my adventure. To me they are epic extremely good adventure games and that's all they are. All the dice in the world could not change that fact.

[yvu]

we're moving from combat determined by the reflexes of the character being role played --- to combat determined by the reflexes of the player. So obviously the player doesn't need to roll dice for himself, he just needs to pound the 'X' key until either RSI sets in, or the opponent explodes.

There's nothing natural about turn-based combat in RPGs. It's not Civilization you know.

[Clock King]

Most of a D&D game, though, is not in the rolling of dice but in the imagination of the players, the choices they make (including small ones) and how much the various people there get into it.

Brilliantly put. A point lost on most people in the gaming industry today.

Firstly, video games are not paper RPG for one huge reason. You are not imagining it, it's unfolding in front of your eyes. This changes everything. You're no longer filling in the blanks,

I disagree. You have to be imagining it, otherwise you see pixels on a liquid crystal display screen, animated by lines written in C#, by some dudes in a drab office block on the outskirts of Moscow. Processed by some silicon made in Taiwan on your desk.

Your imagination fills in the missing blanks, but there are simply fewer blanks missing. But I'm not sure of the point you were making with this...

What people get excited about, no matter how hardcore they are, is really the quest, the unexpected events, the ROLE PLAYING. It doesn't matter if a game emulates dice to make sure it isn't desecrating the holy canon of role playing. .

Rolling proverbial dice in the background does not make a game a RPG or at least it doesn't make it deserving of the term, nor does omitting that mechanic forbid a game from being one. There's nothing wrong with exploring a new route of providing a comparable level of engagement with an entirely different medium,

Agreed. But do you suggest replacing the 'proverbial dice' with something based on the real life reflexes of the player ? So if I am role-playing a rogue, for example, the likelihood of my being able to pickpocket a town guard is exactly equal to the likelihood of me, Clock King, being able to pickpocket my local policeman? I would hope that my rogue would be slightly better at it than me!

Now apply this logic to combat. Should it be based on my skill in aiming an imaginary bow (targetting reticle) at a pixel, or on the dexterity score of the elf-archer I am roleplaying?

To me, Dragon Age was not really an RPG any more than Mass Effect was.

Well they came close, given the limitation of computers and the budgets of developers. If you start picking these games apart as not meeting a far higher standard, then be prepared to do a lot of shooting and ducking in the games that you'll be playing in the future.

[schism84]

The point I was essentially trying to get across is that the D&D die & stat model is the best medium there is for impersonating a character for real life games, bar costume and liveplay of course. There are things for which a game will always have to make concessions. Some things are drasticly horrible to improve, others less so. For instance, a common mechanic in games is lockpicking. Now suppose a game integrates that as a minigame (many do and it's not necessarily horrible if well done), but depending on your skill at doing this, the time you get to do it increases. So essentially the harder locks are impossible, or rather extremely hard to the point of impossible, until you improve. It's a simple example of how the character's/your skill can synch up in a practical way. This isn't possible for everything of course, but it is an interesting direction to explore when possible.

What I meant about Dragon Age and Mass Effect not being truly RPG was not really about their gameplay mechanics or anything like that, but about your freedom to build your experience. They're both rather linear adventure games with dialogue and fighting of some sort which they do very well, but that's really about it. I'd credit games like the Fallout franchise or Elder Scrolls with much more of a true RPG thing going for them or in a completely unrelated genre, Deus Ex which really allowed you, gameplaywise, to play (actually play) the character and abilities you had chosen for your preference.

I get what you mean about melding character and player. It's a big challenge for any designer I think, because everyone wants to play as a character that has skills they don't possess. So on one hand you have a clear disconnect but on the other you're trying to get the player engaged into the world. My feeling though is that many games adapt the mechanics of D&D without much thought about which other options they have as a different medium, but more importantly that they they fail to extract what was good about the actual experience, which is that it was different and memorable every time, wholly dependant on who you were. Overall my main point is that some games can be a deeply engaging role-playing experience while only accomplishing it through deep thoughtful gameplay while others (Fallout for instance, 1&2) can accomplish it with more traditional mechanics. But those mechanics alone do not determine what is or isn't worthy of being considered RPG. Prime example: nobody ever spent hours of D&D farming like they do in WoW ... that is just the complete opposite of being engaged in the world and character.

[jfunk825]

Look, the bottom line is this game is not of the same type as DA:O. That is why fans of the original and "traditional" cRPGs are annoyed. Games that fit that "traditional" style are few and far between. DA:O may not REALLY have measured up the classics in every way, but it was/is loved because it was a modern game with high production values that actually catered to people who enjoy that style of game.

There's no point to arguing which style is better. Neither. They're different. People who arguing that the changes here are "progress" are missing the point. It's not an evolution that's happened here, it's taking the name Dragon Age and making a completely different type of game based on the same setting.

That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But fans of traditional cRPGs feel left out in the cold because what one year ago appeared to finally be a new series of games targeted at their group has been taken away.

You know what would have made this whole thing a non-issue? If they just hadn't called it DA2. They should have called it "Hawke: A Dragon Age Story" or "Dragon Age Adventures: Hawke". Then they wouldn't have had to spend so much time trying to explain why this isn't a continuation of the Dragon Age series they started with DA:O, but a completely different game that has nothing to do with the first except the lore.

Different people like different styles of games. This is not a "traditional cRPG" like Dragon Age: Origins was. And traditional cRPGs are almost never made by anyone any more, which is why fans of them are heartbroken to see this one taken away.

[Sonris89]

I don't see the appeal of D&D rulesets in games anymore. After 6 years of WOW and wow clones in the MMO market all following that scheme of dice rolling to determine if hit/missed/crit a monster two feet in front of you I'm a little sick of it.

It adds a random chance element that seems blown out of proportion, it detracts from ability play and rewards/punishes you based on luck or stat speccing rather then tactics or combat ability.

Elder scrolls is a good example of how well RPGs can function with a limited D&D play set that allows ability to show more.

[jfunk825]

I don't see the appeal of D&D rulesets in games anymore. After 6 years of WOW and wow clones in the MMO market all following that scheme of dice rolling to determine if hit/missed/crit a monster two feet in front of you I'm a little sick of it.

It adds a random chance element that seems blown out of proportion, it detracts from ability play and rewards/punishes you based on luck or stat speccing rather then tactics or combat ability.

Elder scrolls is a good example of how well RPGs can function with a limited D&D play set that allows ability to show more.

That's fine that you don't like that style, but you're missing the point. The REASON for that style is specifically to remove the human player's "talent" from the success/failure of their character.

Not everybody wants every game they play to be an action game. Some people actually enjoy slow-paced, pondering games with lots of reading and back story.

It's no better or worse, it's just different. Why does EVERY game have to be an action game? Can't you just be happy that 99% of the games out there cater to the action crowd and let the old farts who don't want to have to actually "swing the sword themselves" have their fun too?

[Prince of Space]

lol ME2 FPS..

Wow, a meaningless sentence fragment comprised entirely of acronyms that trails off in ellipses. You just established a new low for the English language, if we can even call it that anymore.

[HorrorScope]

That's fine that you don't like that style, but you're missing the point. The REASON for that style is specifically to remove the human player's "talent" from the success/failure of their character.

Not everybody wants every game they play to be an action game. Some people actually enjoy slow-paced, pondering games with lots of reading and back story.

It's no better or worse, it's just different. Why does EVERY game have to be an action game? Can't you just be happy that 99% of the games out there cater to the action crowd and let the old farts who don't want to have to actually "swing the sword themselves" have their fun too?

You can, just not games that Wall Street develop, yes it's too important. You need to look to smaller houses for your niche. - Cold Hard Facts

[jfunk825]

You can, just not games that Wall Street develop, yes it's too important. You need to look to smaller houses for your niche. - Cold Hard Facts

But didn't DA:O prove that there CAN still be large scale commercial success catering to us?

[Sonris89]

But didn't DA:O prove that there CAN still be large scale commercial success catering to us?

Dragon age got quite a few mixxed opinions on it in my experience. But yeah it can reach success, but the more D&D like it gets I think the harder it will be to sell to the general public.

I liked Neverwinter nights for example but I don't think it would be quite as popular as Oblivion because its more complex and much less user friendly.

Dice roll combat generally tends to give people a feeling of disconnection with combat and it can make games dull especially if you feel like half your tactics are based in a spread sheet rather then a fight.

I'd expect to see it get phased out more and more with time. Or more attempts are trying to combine the two, like fallout three attempted to with the FPS/VATS system.

[Prince of Space]

You can, just not games that Wall Street develop, yes it's too important. You need to look to smaller houses for your niche. - Cold Hard Facts

You're not wrong. I think a lot of the grief here is mourning the loss of the real RPG with polish.

With DA:O it looked like we might still get some RPG's with polish and budget. Yeah, you can have a great RPG with neither of those, but it's nice to have your cake and eat it to.

If it wasn't at least a possibility though, I don't think EA would have bothered buying Bioware in the first place.

Will there ever BE another bioware? Not any time soon, I wager.

[jfunk825]

Dragon age got quite a few mixxed opinions on it in my experience. But yeah it can reach success, but the more D&D like it gets I think the harder it will be to sell to the general public.

I liked Neverwinter nights for example but I don't think it would be quite as popular as Oblivion because its more complex and much less user friendly.

Dice roll combat generally tends to give people a feeling of disconnection with combat and it can make games dull especially if you feel like half your tactics are based in a spread sheet rather then a fight.

I'd expect to see it get phased out more and more with time. Or more attempts are trying to combine the two, like fallout three attempted to with the FPS/VATS system.

If statistics based combat is dead, you've got a whole lot of other genres that need to be converted to button mashers too.

I guess the Civilization, Hearts of Iron, Starcraft, and the Total War series are all such miserable failures because they haven't figured this out yet.

Who needs strategic or tactical combat when you can just "press a button and something awesome happens" instead, right?

[jfunk825]

I still contend simply using a different name to differentiate this product would have been the simple solution. No confusion. Why the hell did they call it DA2 and then start telling everybody that it isn't a sequel?

They should have made it a whole different DA series of games, like "Dragon Age Adventures" or something.

When they wanted to make a turned based strategy game based on the Might & Magic world, they called it "Heroes of Might & Magic", not "Might & Magic X"

[yvu]

If statistics based combat is dead [...] Who needs strategic or tactical combat when you can just "press a button and something awesome happens" instead, right?

Guys. You keep exaggerating too much.

Combat in DA2 is stats-based. It's pausable. It's tactical. Switch to higher level of difficulty and enjoy. Try different builds of classes, combos of party members.

Different items though, are another story. The whole BG-NWN-DA:O-DA2 bunch of games are seriously hampered by items being static and predictable. No random loot here. No random stats on the items, like in Diablo, Titan Quest, Dungeon Siege. In those games change of equipment could seriously affect your tactics. In DA? Forget about it. All items are pre-defined, in exactly the same monsters/chests, and no random factor in their stats.

But still, you can experiment with skill/specialisation trees and party combos. There is no “experimenting” with items either in DA:O or DA2 (judging by demo). It's just a sword. Then a little better sword. Then a little better again. What do you call that? True RPG? Looks really backwards to me. “Bones of ancestors”, my ♥♥♥.

[jfunk825]

Guys. You keep exaggerating too much.

I never said there were no statistics in DA2. Did you even read the post I quoted which that was a response to? He said part of the issue is that "spreadsheet" combat is dull.

I was merely pointing out that there plenty of AAA, wildly successful franchises that offer evidence to the contrary.

I just don't understand how Dragon Age: Origins did so well when so many of you seem to believe that the traditional cRPG genre is dead. This game exists BECAUSE of how successful the DAO was, yet most of the DA2 supporters are arguing that these changes were made explicitly because commercial success of a game like DAO is impossible "these days".

Does not compute. We're here having this conversation because it DID succeed commercially.

[Prince of Space]

Guys. You keep exaggerating too much.

Combat in DA2 is stats-based. It's pausable. It's tactical. Switch to higher level of difficulty and enjoy. Try different builds of classes, combos of party members.

Different items though, are another story. The whole BG-NWN-DA:O-DA2 bunch of games are seriously hampered by items being static and predictable. No random loot here. No random stats on the items, like in Diablo, Titan Quest, Dungeon Siege. In those games change of equipment could seriously affect your tactics. In DA? Forget about it. All items are pre-defined, in exactly the same monsters/chests, and no random factor in their stats.

But still, you can experiment with skill/specialisation trees and party combos. There is no “experimenting” with items either in DA:O or DA2 (judging by demo). It's just a sword. Then a little better sword. Then a little better again. What do you call that? True RPG? Looks really backwards to me. “Bones of ancestors”, my ♥♥♥.

The biggest deal is the fact that DAO was stealthily semi turn based. Either you understand what I'm talking about here or you have no clue so I won't bother to elaborate.

This game is fully real-time twitch. The faster you hit buttons, the faster "awesome stuff happens" and "darkspawn explode." The XBOX demo is all about hitting A as fast as you can, from what I have been told.

It's an action game. It's Dynasty Warriors with an RPG overlay and probably pretty good writing. On top of all that, it doesn't even look nice.

The writing is on the wall when the diehard bioware Hammer Legion Members are in denial about how "it's just a demo" as their last defense as though the game isn't basically finished and waiting to be shipped.

History repeats itself.

[Hagen]

Now suppose a game integrates that as a minigame (many do and it's not necessarily horrible if well done), but depending on your skill at doing this, the time you get to do it increases. So essentially the harder locks are impossible, or rather extremely hard to the point of impossible, until you improve. It's a simple example of how the character's/your skill can synch up in a practical way. This isn't possible for everything of course, but it is an interesting direction to explore when possible.
I disagree. Even if it is funny at first, I don't want my master thief to be limited by my own reflexes or intelligence. This is a critical difference between action/simulation and RPG; in the latter, your character has his own skills and does not rely on your abilities. Moreover, after a few dozens picked locks, lockpicking minigame becomes tedious (like the one in Gothic 4, and action/adventure game).

When I click on an opponent in a CRPG, I do not expect my character to hit it immediately, I expect him to try to hit during his next action phase. This is definitively different from an action game; I order my character to do something (or at least try to do it) but I don't act for him. This does not prevent me from identifying to my character; I just do not confuse my owns skills and my character's skills.

Look, the bottom line is this game is not of the same type as DA:O. That is why fans of the original and "traditional" cRPGs are annoyed. Games that fit that "traditional" style are few and far between. DA:O may not REALLY have measured up the classics in every way, but it was/is loved because it was a modern game with high production values that actually catered to people who enjoy that style of game.

There's no point to arguing which style is better. Neither. They're different. People who arguing that the changes here are "progress" are missing the point. It's not an evolution that's happened here, it's taking the name Dragon Age and making a completely different type of game based on the same setting.

That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But fans of traditional cRPGs feel left out in the cold because what one year ago appeared to finally be a new series of games targeted at their group has been taken away.
Well said. I hope EA/Bioware read this.

I think a lot of the grief here is mourning the loss of the real RPG with polish.
I totally agree. I am even more disappointed because DAO has shown that CRPG genre was still viable and even very profitable.

For EA/Bioware: I would gladly pay $100 for Baldur's Gate 3 (same spirit, depth and length than the previous ones but with modern technology).

[Aemony]

Well said. I hope EA/Bioware read this.

Sadly, I seriously doubt they even care. Each and every thread being created on the official DA2 board about the changes are first overrun by hordes of ignorant elitist fanboys until finally closed and removed by a moderator...

[DTKT]

Sadly, I seriously doubt they even care. Each and every thread being created on the official DA2 board about the changes are first overrun by hordes of ignorant elitist Hammer Legion Members until finally closed and removed by a moderator...

Most of the threads I have seen were derailed by members of both "faction".

[Sonris89]

If statistics based combat is dead, you've got a whole lot of other genres that need to be converted to button mashers too.

I guess the Civilization, Hearts of Iron, Starcraft, and the Total War series are all such miserable failures because they haven't figured this out yet.

Who needs strategic or tactical combat when you can just "press a button and something awesome happens" instead, right?

Not saying statistics is completly dead I'm saying its going to be merged with more real time combat. I think Berthseda games are the prime example of this, statistics play a roll in if you pass a speech check or lockpick attempt but combat is more real time where you aim spells swing swords block with shields or dodge attacks.

[heretohelp]

My impressions?

MILF witches, big boobs and gay drama scenes... all the needs for a console gamer, lol!

combat? gameplay? what are those? just hold W and mash buttons 1 to 0, press space... ALOT - there's your gameplay in a nutshell!

first game made me rage after the 10th minute, this one after the 10th second... good thing there are big boobs in this game couse i dunno what else will sell it...

[jfunk825]

Not saying statistics is completly dead I'm saying its going to be merged with more real time combat. I think Berthseda games are the prime example of this, statistics play a roll in if you pass a speech check or lockpick attempt but combat is more real time where you aim spells swing swords block with shields or dodge attacks.

It's completely incomprehensible to you that somebody might not want every game they play to be an action game, huh?

Oh yeah, I forgot that "all things shall merge with the action genre". Apparently, action based game mechanics were just discovered recently. Previously, game developers were unaware that it was possible to have action based gameplay. Now that the power of this new world has been made available to them, they must work feverishly to eliminate all the other inferior play styles and replace them with this superior "action" style they did not previously have access to.