meomao

I've played both DA2 DLCs in the last days. They are both very good because they fix the most discussed shortcomings of the main game: no area recycle, more variety in terms of gameplay, less filler combat, solid encounter design (they completely reworked the wave mechanic), more interaction in the party. I think that DA2's DLCs are lot worth my money than DA:O ones and they are basically fun and well written. Legacy is more "serious" and more focused on combat (it remembers Awakenings atmosphere a lot). MotA is more lighthearted and more varied and combat is focused on some hard and fun boss fights. But the second one suffers of all the Felicia Day bull**** marketing so I liked it a little less. I think that if Bioware would have developed the game with the same resources and attention to detail the reception could have been different and more neutral. Having said that, the game remains flawed for me and no DLC could fix the issues I disliked about its design: no choice and consequences, excessive linearity and combat designed with too many compromises. I mean, it's too fast paced and actiony to be a satisfactory tactical party based game, but it's too stat/skill driven and requires too much micro-management to be a fun action RPG. DA:O's combat remains a better compromise (at least on PC).

I wasn't planning to play the MP too. But yesterday I've read that you can solo those missions: co-op mode is not forced on players. While the connection with the main game with all the "galaxy readiness" stuff does not make a lot of sense to me and I would preferred them being completely separated experiences, now I think that I could give it a go since I find that ME2 combat is quite fun and it could be even funnier to play as a Krogan or an Asari without all the cinematic interrupting a mission. Honestly, if EA would force online content on all their game and stop with the day 1 DLC stuff, I would be happier.

I don't know: at the end both those results are not exclusive and that's why EA is forcing MP in most franchise they own. They are making money out of MP. They want their share of the used market: they know that they cannot fight second hand sales. A used copy of a consolle game costs 20-30 euros (and you can rent them for less). A new copy of a game costs 60 euros. If I'm in the mood for used games and waiting a couple of weeks, the choice is a no brainer. Then, if I really like the game and want to try the MP, I will spend 10 dollars for the EA online pass. It's still 30-40 euros against 60.

But the point is not only to prevent, but to make 10 dollars out of every used copy. Consider that you will be even able to go "solo" with the missions in the MP part. But you will have to do it online, wich is a bit of a nonsense if not in sight of the unfamous "project 10 dollars".

I do agree but ME is a consolle title: at least, it sells mostly on consolle and it's developed with the consolles in mind. ME2's PC sales were very low AFAIK. Maybe on PC they see the MP as anti-piracy measure.

I believe that MP is just a feature added on request of EA to make some dollars out of the second hand market (online pass, project ten dollar and so on). I believe that it won't affect the game and that the "galaxy readiness" thing was created just to blend the viral marketing on the web with the main game. They should have called it ME2 readiness.. Imho, if you buy the game and does not care for anything but SP, you will have the complete experience without any kind of problem.

I have completely misunderstood the "it was made with you in mind" part. Sorry. I respect your opinion but I think that the opposite is true. The game was developed with the consolle crowd in mind (infact, it plays better with a controller) and have just conserved the minimal tropes in terms of story to be taken in consideration by the niche old school rpg market. I mean, in term of combat and mechanic TW2 is pretty actiony and mainstream. The story is more complex but not that much if you analize it well (at the end, even if the plot has two branches, it's a very linear and heavy handed experience with lots of cinematics). Imho, the hardcore fame of TW2 has more to do with good communication (and PC player willingness to believe CDRed marketing) than actual game design.

Even if very late, I just want to add myself to the party. I've bought the game for 5

I'm not questioning the fact that an action RPG should keep skills to a reasonable limit. DX is very good in that sense (never played Bloodlines: I will sooner or later). But I think that there is a middle ground between a system with the right amount of skills gained while levelling and a system where you start with all the relevant stuff and you level just to add 36 out of 51x2 skills of passive and redundant bonus that never affects the gameplay (if not for Whirlwhind, wich is still a passive, Knives and the Awesome Button X). I abused the gargoyle move you are talking about, nearly spammed it. It was the best way to thin enemy numbers in stealth areas. You add to use the sonic batarang or other means to lure enemies. I'm not sure to understand here. The skills in the "combo upgrades" makes combat way more interesting and fluid along the way and pushes you to improove your combat skill adding an optional level of challenge. Most tech and batarang upgrades were mostly usefull in stealth missions and exploration. Oh, those sucker with electric prods . But it was fun learning to deal with them: at the beginning it was reall hard to remember to use the "A" button on my gamepad without breaking the combo. Harder? I'm not that sure. B:AA is quite easy to learn and to get into but it's difficult to master and the game pushes you to master the freeflow combat and to learn building combos while not punishing you during the learning phase. While TW2 is harder to grasp (because it's less intuitive) but if you survive the unfamous wave in the prologue and learn that basically it's all about dodging like crazy, it's way easier during the rest of the game. The QTE boss at the end of act 1 is an abomination to gods and man... Having said that, even TW2 artificially hardened difficulty with immunities and auto-parry weapons (like shield fighters or Letho and his Quen). But it allready depends all on human action, doesn't it? The point is that you can choose to go action all the way like TW2 and remove most kind of classic RPG feature from the gameplay, but then the combat must be as fun, as addicting and as fluid as a AAA action game. Otherwise you got the "worst of both words". That's not what I'm saying. Was it for me, TW2 gameplay would have been an improved, more tactical and less twitchy version of TW1. TW1 was not perfect but show promises. Instead the devs choose to go action all the way and applied the unfamous "stramline treatment" to TW1 system. So, I'm just saying that starting from the goals that the devs have in mind, a levelling system with 51*2 redundant and passive bonus does not add any kind of real depth, just the illusion of it. And that it's in contrast with the overall goal they were trying to to achieve. I'm not excited by that kind of design, but if you have a vision, stick to it.

Sadly enough, that's not even a given these days. Plenty of titles that still needed patches never got any. Or inferior ones. We even seen it with The Sith Lords, right? I'm just saying that it would be more elegant and a lot more in line with their "indie" and "hardcore" branding if they patch the game and offer small features for free without announcements and acts. Good actions and good will speak for themselves and word of mouth do the rest. At the long run, when they could not play the "indie" card anymore, when they inevitably jump in the consolle market and play on the same ground of the big names, that whole process of turning patches in to marketing will backleash to them. I would like them more keeping it low key. More RPG's should do this IMO. I am always getting stuck with dozens of useless skills cluthering up whatever it is you need to cycle through skills (taskbar for Divinity and Drakensang, menu for TSL, etc.) Personally, I hope not. I believe that there is still some place left for multi-stats and in-depth skill/rule system in RPGs and that they will not play all like action games with dialogues and branching plots. Having said that, even for streamlined action rpgs standard, I think that TW2 has gone too far with its "all passive bonus" system . It kills of sense of meaningfull and structured progression typical of RPGs and as a result combat plays out exactly the same from the beginning to the end. Let's take a look at the games that inspires TW2 gameplay: Batman Arkham Asylum and Assassin Creed (there is even a funny reference in game). In those games there are levels too (explicit or not), in BA:A there are even experience points but you learn new moves and new skills along the way, you have not just passive bonus. That way, you have a feeling of progression and the combat does not stale (at least in B:AA). There are allways new tecnique to use and incorporate in your strategies and combos. Instead, in TW2 you allways play the same. You just become less crappy along the way. Btw, if the skill system is flat, you should do something to balance the loss in term of depth with pure "fun" factor and addictivity. Let's allways use B:AA and AC as a reference, since the dev have used those games as a reference themselves. Play those games and then try TW2 combat. The only possible reaction is LOL. I mean, if you remove all depth with a flat passive skill system, your combat should be fluid and addictive, like ME2 ones for example. It should not play like a clumsy rpgish version of an action game but should try to rival with their action games counterpart on their terms. Last criticism: what is the point of 51 skills with two levels each, if the point is to "keep it simple", to streamline and to avoid useless skills? I think that a skill system with say 8-10 more general skill (steel sword, silver sword, atlethics, alchemy + the signs) with 4 levels each would have been more than enough. Sorry for the lenght !

Patching a bug or refining a feature that it's not working like it's supposed to be is a must, not a bone that you throw to your customer like a bonus. Adding small features like arena or a new mode that addresses a problem in the game in terms of difficulty setting it's good but it's not such a big deal. Blizzard patch their games to no end, the last NWN1 patch is 3 years old, but Blizzard or Bioware has never made such a clamour out of their patches because they owe it to us. I'm not discussing the level of CDRed ethics toward their customers. I'm just saying that it's funny to see them allways turning their patches in some sorts of internet or press events... I do not agree here, but it's very personal. In terms of writing and videogame storytelling DA:O and the average Bioware game are quite superior to TW2 imho. I liked the writing and the story in TW2 and it's a great improvement over TW1. But it's far from perfect and it has his good share of flaws in term of storytelling and narrative. Am I? You are listing the parts that are universally praised by the press and the players (I've praised them too in my first post). I'm replying that (with the exception of the codex's review) you cannot find a serious criticism about its gameplay. In my book, gameplay is a very important part of CRPG, especially of an action RPG. A bad story or low graphics hardly ruins a good game, infact people are still playing Ultima, Deus Ex and BG. While in my book bad gameplay allways ruins a good story or good looking graphics. I am talking about the same reviews that are used without problems when they destroy a game or a company we did not like. Reviews are a part of the general consensum and they help to estabilish the reputation of videogames. I am skeptic too about the ethic behind gaming journalism, and I know better than to trust them blindly, but they are a part of the game and you cannot dissmiss their importance. Am I wrong or there's a thread in those same forum devoted to the discussion of Zero Punctuation? From my first post: "I don't understand why TW2 is considered such a masterpiece or in what sense it should set the trend for the CRPG genre in the future". I'm not going to argue those facts but I would like to understand the reasons, what CDRed has done to deserve that respect and especially in what sense other developers should be influenced by TW2, a part from the "caring for your games/customer" thing. I respect your view but I imagine that we will agree to disagree on that point. TW2 is a dumbed down game made with consolle in mind. Proof of it: it plays way better with a controller than the keyboard. The skill system is flat, gives only passive bonus excpet for the "X" power (the awesome button of TW2) and it's not critical to complete the game at Hard difficulty, since it's only about "un-crapping" your version of Geralt. Take a look in the web, you cannot find a well reasoned "build" discussion, because there is no way to go wrong with your charachter build ad because what's the point if you are just handling two visible stats: damage and damage reduction. The combat is all about learning to roll and attack mixing bombs and signs in the process. The difficulty curve plays the same since the begnning to the end. There are plenty of JRPG or pure action games on the consolle that are way harder or more demanding than TW2.

They actually used the "awesome button" in marketing?! I've been under the impression it was another one of the gaming forum "witticisms"? Are you joking me ? "When you press a button, something awesome happens". Laidlaw himself used the slogan right after DA2's announcement in interviews and such, when the devs were still in "honeymoon" with the fanbase. There was even that terrible video of a Bioware's PR rambling about "awesome and button combined in DA2". You could find it on youtube, but be wary: your IQ will decrease of 10 points after the viewing. Now they are acting like it never existed . In general, DA2's had one of the worst marketing plan I've seen in years. Trying to sell the sequel of a game that promoted a return to the golden era of D&D CRPGs, telling your players that well... "our game is stupidly rewarding"... it's really one of the dumbest move I've seen.

You are right, they never directly talked trash about Bioware or Bethesda. But their April's fool video was indirectly a criticism of Bioware's and Bethesda's games. But I think that smart PR has a lot to do with TW2 reception and reputation. For example, it's incredible how CDRed is using patches as marketing tools calling them "enhancement" or "free improved version 2.0" and to see the excited reaction of the player base. "You see, they really care for us!", I see it over and over again in gaming forums. But more power to them, PR it's a part of the business and in case of CDRed it's working well because they understand their players, while (for example) the "awesome button" is probably the worst marketing slogan in the history of gaming. Well, I can see the intention too: in short, they wanted to make the rpg version of Batman Arkham Asylum. But I can see the good intention behind Oblivion or Dragon Age 2 gameplay too, but it's the execution that damned those game in my eyes. Rightly so and I was very optimistic about DA2, so it's not confirmation bias in my part. Developers like Blizzard or Valve teach us that execution is everything. So, why the double standard? The story, the writing, and the moral maturity of other games it's not inferior to TW2 if you separate it artificially from the gameplay. Well, while I agree on the pros you mention, TW2 is praised pretty higlly in general. A review or an opinion is about the whole game, wich is not the simple sum of its part. Normally, a game with good stuff on the "creative" side and bad gameplay is not treated that way. As I said before, if you remove gameplay from a storydriven RPG, what remains? Heavy Rain with some persuasion check... Don't misunderstand me, I see why they are having fun too. I had fun. I don't want to sound polemic, TW2 is a good game crafted with lot of love and care. I'm simply discussing the claim about the importance of TW2 in the history of the genre and I really do not get in what sense a CRPG with bad and dumb gameplay should set the standard of the genre, considering that gameplay is such an integral part of a CRPG. They are allready the standard, we do not need TW2 to remember us .

It does not hurt. Try to be more hardcore next time.

So, I finished TW2. Overall, it's been fun and all and I liked very much the graphics, the setting and the charachters. What they have done with the branching story and so on was interesting too. Not revolutionary but well done. The quest design isn't allways linear like TW1 and I liked that too. Maybe, the game is too driven but it fits the pace of the story well. TW2 was made with a lot of love and attention to details, so I'm happy that it's doing relatively well for a PC exclusive (at least, an exclusive for now...). But honestly, the gameplay is abysmal. It's one of the dumbest and most consoll oriented action RPG I've ever played. The combat is so stupid, repetive, boring, dull, unresponsive and badly designed that I could not stand a second playthrough even if I was very curios to see what happens after act. 1 if you change side. The skill system is so flat and dumb that it's ridiculous. The stealth part looked like a poor man action/adventure game. I know, combat and gameplay are not all but what remains if you remove them? A fantasy version of Heavy Rain? So, while I wish the best to CDRed and I will continue to support them with future releases, I don't understand why TW2 is considered such a masterpiece or in what sense it should set the trend for the CRPG genre in the future. I especially fail to understand the double standards about TW2's gameplay if we compare its very positive reception with other "dumbed down" games of the recent past that has been destroyed by critics and fans alike. I hope that CDRed will be able to refine their formula in the future but at the same time I do not believe that TW2 will be so influential.

Hardcore RPG? The game has 3 stats: damage, damage reduction and persuasion/intimidation.

Personally, I believe that the only strategic element of DA:O's combat (at least on paper) were mana/stamina and health management but with the amount of potions avaible in the game, the short cooldowns and the effectiveness of spell combos routines, it was really trivial and boring. Everything was tactical in DA:O's combat and once you understood the most usefull tactical combos, you could repeat them ad nauseam. In DA2 you know that there will be from 2 to 4 waves in each fight (3 waves most time). But you do not know how those waves will be composed, so you have to think carefully before you use a certain skill or CCC. You cannot spam them because colldowns are longer and heals and potions are less effective. Since enemies attacks you from many sides and are generally smarter than their DA:O's counterpart, you have to position carefully and to make full use of threat management skills. The situation could vary a lot from fights to fights. Problem is: with the recycle of areas, fights happens allways in the same 20 places, so after a while you can anticipate how it's going to play out and it becomes a little bit boring too. For me the most problematic elements of DA2 combat system were boring boss fights (that used different rules than the normal fights of the game), the importance of positioning/kiting (allways a problem of boss fights) and the stupidity of level scaling (a problem of DA:O too, at leat in DA2 it's handled better since scaling it's not asymmetrical). I do agree with your criticism: the lack of iso camera was really a weakness in the controll department. But when I talk about responsivity, I mean that charachters now do things when needed and not an hour after when it's not needed anymore and the situation has changed. I respect your view and think that we'll agree to disagree. Imho, DA2 combat is way better on mostly any level if not controll for the beloved iso view. At least, in DA2 (PC) all skills/powers work as intended. You don't know the amount of bugs/unresolved issues in DA:O's skill/item system.

No. I must repeat myself then . The game played like a (bad) button masher before the patch on the consolle. Yes, it was foolish and delusional to think that it could work and the idiotic "button/awesome" marketing campaign has not helped at all. But it's nothing like God of War: I'm playing GoW right now thanks to the nice PS2 simulator and the difference is auto-evident (btw, I GoW is really fun and well made if you take it for what it is). You can't understand the amount of rules and mechanic hidden behind that animation's orge that is DA2 combat. I read all the post of Peter Thomas (the mechanic developer) and it's not a dumbed down RPG. It's a very smart, elegant, deep and well thought RPG system that mixes accessibility and depth. It has some flaws but nothing that could not be solved or tweaked. For example, you don't know how many rules govern the Fortitude check that the game makes each time you receive a blow and how everything you see is correlated to numeric values running underground. That's a classic RPG as you can get, not a GoW clone. Problem is: it seems like the game is afraid to show that system to the player and on consolle the devs tried to support a button mashing gameplay style that hides the depth of the mechanics while not having the simplicity/fluidity of GoW/Diablo2 gameplay.

I really don't get the decision they make about autoattack on consolle. I mean... I know that it was not intentional to exclude it from the game at release (but still, what an error!) and I've read that the inclusion of it with the first consolle patch really improved the experience. But the fact that they could consider the game playable with autoattack as a simple option leave me really perplexed. I would had understand more the opposit approach (autoattack as a rule and an "awesome button" option for the players who do not like party based/pause and play gameplay). I mean, the structure of the gameplay and the sheer amount of rules and mechanics hidden behind jumps and animations (cross class combos, different kind of powers and so on, general sinergies between charachters, different patterns in enemy behaviour and tactics to avoid the most serious threats) has really nothing to do with a button musher. For me the combat system (with most NPCs and the quality of the writing/voice acting) was the redeeming factor of the experience... but at the long run I was tired of it too because the game has little else to offer than combat. And it was really hard to pass from endless fights with silly animations and body exploding to supposed serious and personal dialogues while your face was painted in fake blood like a black metal fan . The scene of the death of your mother was really akward. DA:O has similar issues, but at least the more epic theme and the slower pace of the game, allowed more space for immersion and suspension of incredulity. The lack of variety in the environments was an objective problem too. I read an interview of the lead level designer of DA2. He said something like "we wanted DA2 to be a city adventure like the AC/GTA IV games". I really cannot believe that a lead level designer can make such a comparison. It's not even worth to discuss: I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Moreover, the amount of combat you have to face in such a small setting, result in an oppressive and claustrophobic game experience that completely ruined the pace of the narrative. But I could have lived with the (lack of) environment issue and the recycle if Bioware would have not "forget" to develop some sort of roleplaying/interaction between your Hawke, the story and the city. The premise are all there (from the framed narrative to the various storylines and the NPCs). But there's mostly nothing (at least, nothing really interactive and significant) and that was the biggest disappointment for me. The rushed and driven nature of act 3 was the result of such bad design decisions. Honestly, while I had fun with AP (maybe because I payed it the right price), I do not believe that they are really comparable in terms of quality. AP was buddged to death and "balanced like a dog with 3 legs" (to quote Yathzee). DA2 has many flaws but at least its gameplay was balanced, the enemy AI was developed decently and the bugs on PC were very light (if not for the slo-mo one that I solved with the editor).

I do not agree. I suppose we played two different games. I've played DA2 on PC and it's nothing like a button musher. It's mostly DA:O on steroid with more responsivity, more singergies between classes and more stretegic elements (since the wave mechanich, while abused and not refined, introduces a strategic element that DA:O completely missed). I assume that you have played it on consolle and I think that the consolle version of the game suffered badly because of the lack of autoattack.

The demo: it's something I continue to hear and I don't understand. Maybe for me it's just the fact that I had allready played it in a fair, followed the development of the game very closesly and know what to expect. What's so wrong with the demo? You know it's a demo and should be taken as such. You got the basic of the combat, low levels and high levels (wawe mechanic, importance of movement, responsivity and quickness). You get a feel of the dialogue wheel/voice over. You get the very narrow scope of roleplaying and the general style in term of cinematic storytelling and framed narrative. Yep, the setting is not that good, the npcs (except Aveline) are mostly lame and the new darkspawn are really ugly. But, still, it's a demo and a person should judge it as such. If a person does not like the chore of the game in the demo (combat, dialogue wheel, lack of proper roleplaying and storydriven/cinematic narrative) I really cannot understand how could he enjoy the finished product. I do not believe that cross class combos can change the feel of the game so much. The only real difference are the party members and the theme of the story but honestly you cannot expect to find such things in a demo. I would say that as a demo, it's not that bad. Instead is really_really_really bad as a game introduction.

It's not THAT bad but it's a very divisive game and a very strange gaming experience. The dev did some things really right and other things really badly... but mostly what hurts the game are the things that were not developed/refined because the lack of time and resources. Or because they have not gave the right interpretation to the metrics of DA:O when they choose how to allocate resources: for example, I assume that 90% of the players of DA:O has made the same choices in the game. So, boom, the devs removed all the choices that could influence the politics of Kirkwall because they looked like a waste. But the point is not what choice you make but the fact that you can make those choices. So, I would not give all the faults to EA: it's too easy. Bioware have its fault for the flaws of the game. About the metacritic user scores... sorry but it's not reliable. Half of those review were written in the first days since the publication of the game and I do not believe that all those people actually played the game. Look, even Portal 2 had a very low metacritic score at release because of fans having issues with DLCs and the such. And it's the best game of the year so far. In general, if you want to make an opinion of the game without paying for it, try the demo. It has its fault too but it's a good rapresentation of what the game has to offer. The good and the bad.

is not "fence-sitting" for Gromnir. we is using the primary definition o' ambivalent: we has conflicting opinions 'bout da2. is some things that da2 did well. is some things 'bout da2 that is irredeemable. is not that we cannot decide or choose, but rather that we is surprised by the degree that da2 is good And bad. HA! Good Fun! I have finished the game a month ago or so. And I completely agree with your position: it's really difficult to find a game that do some things so well as DA2 and other so badly. I'm ambivalent too and I can't make my mind about it once and for all. But wait to play act. 3. That could really influence your opinion of the game (I don't want to spoil or influence your opinion, but I mean that act. 3 could influence your opinion in the negative sense off course). In general, it seems to me that DA2 would have been a great game with another year of development to change/refine the things that do not work as intended, that are plain bad or that simply fail to deliver. Because the bad ideas/feature of the game, are so bad that's impossible that it's what they wanted to make or at least I hope so. But judging the game for what it is, the negative are more than the positive at the end. At the same time, there's so much wasted potential that it makes me really sad. It could have been eassily Bioware best game since BG2 (yep, better than ME2). PS: It's fun. Now that the game is out and that the interweb masses are attacking it for whatever reason, one of the few place where you can read senstive, intelligent and open minded criticism/appreciation are the Obsidian boards that were pretty anti-DA2 pre-release. You snob!

Just wanted to say that while the game was in development I discussed with you once on the issue and I didn't agree with you and I was very defensive toward bio's position on the issue. Having played the game, I changed my mind and I must admit that I was wrong. DA2 is not a bad titlte and not Bioware's worse. There are some decisions that I don't understand (the amount of filler combat, the removal of most roleplaying aspect of DA:O and the way act. 3 is designed) but the game is not as bad as many people make it and I've got more fun than DA:O playing it. Still, it screams "rush" and "economic" from any point of view. So, you were right, sorry if I was so defensive (maybe you do not even remember but I think that it's honest to admit it).

From what I'm seeing on the forums and in the strategy guide, there are certain quests that aren't offered unless your DA:O save game including Awakenings. And one of those quests Also, I get the idea that Anders has significant dialog about goings-on during Awakenings that isn't available otherwise. Even if you have Awakeing (as I do) you got that quest only if you spared the Architect at the end of DA:A. So, I do not get it too, cause I killed the poor thing. You get the Fool's Gold quest oly if the Architect is dead. Btw, I think that there is a bug and that in case that you do not make the Finding Nathaniel quest, you should receive the last armour upgrade for Varric in his last personal quest. Only, it doesn't trigeer. Nothing that Vaddiin could not solve with developer consolle :D.