meomao

Based on that pic or is there a vid somewhere where you can see them? Either way, hopefully they are at least better than in DA. Based on this video Hawke has about the same wealth of expressions that the Grey Warden had.. except with the voice acting it's all the more jarring. A dev on Bio boards (you know, I'm one of them freaks...) have allready explained that facial expression are not in and that they will only be added in the last build of the game. And the difference with DA:O is? And that's not completely true since in the PC footage there is a pulled up camera view that is completely absent in the consolle game. And I would say that it's difficult to show in a gameplay footage how point and click works compared to a controller...

Care to explain why? I mean... the whole concept of Thaco in old D&D was armor class scaling to level. I don't see a huge step forward or inward, simply they have changed from absolute number to relative numbers so they can scale the damage in a more balanced way for all classes (just like 99% of RPGs after D&D). Rules are abstactions. A rule is bad if it do not work as intended or if it's broken.

Right I have misunderstood. Maybe you can expalin better than me since you've played DA:O on the xbox too. But if I understand, the problem is that it's more difficult to position charachters using the analogue stick while the game is paused.

Well, I get your point and I really sympathize with some of your concerns. But you should realize that all we have seen now is consolle gameplay. And the consolle really needed some kind of rework because it received a lot of criticism (just my experience, I know that Volo thinks that is bull****). I hope that with autoattack, point and click gameplay and somekind of tactical view, the game will feel more true to the original (even if more paced and more action oriented). Blank slate protagonist: a part from the race option (wich is big off course), the protagonist is not different from BG. The nameless one was more defined than what Hawke ever be for example. Dialogue: honestly, in a game where everyone is voiced, I prefer voice over for the protagonist too. The dialogue wheel is not bad in itself, a lot depends how the writer uses it. But still, I understand why you prefer full dialogue options and thinks that they are better for an RPG. Unfortunately, that's not the way Bioware wants to go.

that's what made it so good. because in TW you don't have a party to control. Bioware is fiddling with stuff they can't handle They are very different system and everyone have different tastes off course. For me the combat was the weakest part of TW. A game that otherwise I liked very much. I find it dull, repetitive and not engaging. Moreover, with the amount of respawn and mandatory combat it becomes trival and painfull and really ampered my enjoyement of the game. DA:O's combat was somewhat painfull too for me. I enjoyed the game overall, but not for its combat that was mediocre at best (IMHO). I could explain in detail why I believe so, but I would probably bore you to death with my design ideals :D. Long way short: pause and play system can work only if the action are synchronized, thanks to a turn base system running underneath. If the system is not synchronized, it became an ugly and not rewarding mess that it's worse than Titan Quest :D. So, I understand the direction they have taken with DA 2, trying to have a gameplay that while being faithfull to the original, is more fluid, more actiony and that relies a little less on the pause feature. I played the demo on the consolle and even if it's not my ideal kind of RPG, I must admit that it was fun. More fun than DA:O.

This. Boo has actually come out and stated so explicitly. He holds BioWare to a higher standard than other game companies because of their history with the Baldur's Gate games. Well, I understand... BG games are my favourite games too. I would buy an IE game with updated graphics any day of the year (I mean a true IE game, not DA:O). But Bioware has changed a lot from that times. There has been a lot of action games between BG 2 and DA 2. And while I can understand a loss of interest toward a company and its games, I do not get the grudge. I'm here because I really like Obsidian games too (except Alpha Protocol). But the criticism toward Bioware is so sistematic here that feels odd on codex level.

I don't know, maybe you're right. The game is clearly more action oriented than DA:O and the combat animations are flashy and over the top. Still, the game is stat based and not twitch based, in the PC you'll still play point and click with some kind of tactical view, so I do not understand the reference to Final Fantasy and for me that's uncorrect from any point of view. PS: About TW... I liked the game but the combat was really ****ty and more action oriented than DA:O since it was not based on stats but on skills combo and timing. TW2 is even going to have more action elements with real time events (or whatever they call them). So, I really do not get why DA2 get all the hate and TW2 get all the praise... maybe only because one game is made by Bioware.

Yep, it was "so bad". Consolle does not have iso view and the camera was fixed to 3rd person view. And you can't select moves while the game was paused so it allready played like an action RPG since every movement has to be done in real time using the analog stick. I've played DA:O on the PC but that's what I read about the consolle version. PS: Autoattack are still present in the game. Only, for the person who likes to play in real time and do not controll other charachters in the party (and there are a lot of them) you can decide to avoid using autoattack and press a button for each swing of the sword/staff.

So, instead of having all skills on a single page you know have to browse pages? I do not think so: in the demo there was a single skill page just like DA:O. I imagine that the screen in question is just a photoshop "cut".

David Gaider on the matter: Seeing as most of the props and ambient cityfolk have only recently begun going into the build, yeah, I don't doubt it seemed pretty empty to him. No doubt he was told this when he was shown the demo, but some people are going to comment regardless. Nothing we can do about that.

PS: Also, consider that DA2 will be half the size of DAO (so roughly 1/4 of BG 2) and that Bioware has not even a part of the actual work force at the time of BG2. So, it's not rushed. Like it or not, it's the game that they want to develop.

Uncorrect: check your source. DA2 began its dev cycle at february of 2010, when the PC version was delayed to november for a multiplatform simultaneous exit.

This. Since when does Bio suddenly rush their games? Since BG II... same development time.

No worries, I know that my english is very limited but since I explained that I'm italian at the beginning of the post, I hoped for some kind of tolerance. At least I hope that my review is understandable. My opinion about your doubts: Combat: Honest, if DA2 plays on PC like the Xbox version and you only want another DA:O, then you ain't going to like DA2 because there are many changes. Dialogue: as far as I was able to see playing the demo, the dialogue wheel works in a different way than ME2. It's not Paragon and Renegade, but more about choiches and consequences. Hawke felt less fixed than Shepard. A lot.

I agree it's insulting to suggest someone's a shill because they're enthusiastic about the game. I apologize for that, and would like to say I appreciate you posting your impressions of playing the game. It's useful for those of us who can't go to the various cons ourselves. Don't worry: no problem. I understand why my review could be seen as enthusiastic (especially here...) but it's really a matter of perspective. I liked the demo because it seems to me that the devs have tried to address some of the most popular critics about DA:O wich I indeed considered founded criticism. If you considered DA:O to be a game that doesn't need any change, you won't like it.

I don't know: as far as I know, DA:O is the best selling title in Bioware's history. Changing formula so much and causing so much trouble in the community it's a bold move in my book. I don't know the reason (greed, design or something in between) but still it's not playing safe. Making another BG2 would be bold? I don't know, I should understand what you consider to be "another BG2". DA:O was very close to be another BG2 under most aspects.

It is bold because in my opinion it would have been simpler and more economic to do just more of the same. Yet another blight, some minor change here and there and the game would have been ready to ship. It is bold because that game risks to loose the old BG crowd without gaining new players. I'm aware of that even if I like DA2 direction.

Since the person who has written the original post is me, I can assure you that it's not a PR piece and just suggesting it, it's a little bit insulting. I'm not enthusiastic: too old for that. I've only said that the game look good and promising and that I like the general direction of design more than DA:O. For me DA2 seems to be better than DA:O under most aspect and I do not say it because of fanboysm (again, too old for that) but only because I do not like DA:O a lot in terms of gameplay (DA:O is a good game but not my favourite Bioware's title). Having followed the development of DA:O and DA2 since the beginning, I allready know a lot of things and I was able to use the demo to test all the things I've read along the way. Moreover, I played the demo twice. They're just my opinions and you could have different ones: I'm not a journalist and I only express a very personal view. Btw, I'm sorry for my english but english is not my native language. For the poster who has questioned the validity of my opinion because of my prose/gramatic, try to write in italian and we will se what you'll pull out...

Playing games (especially CRPGs) since the beginning of the 90's (yes, I'm that old :D) I think that quality is generally improved over the years. At least if for quality we mean polish, accessibility, game testing, graphics and technical advancements: the only objective standars I know that can define the quality of a game. In terms of game design, it's harder to say since I'm not game designer myself but maybe quality is not the right angle to look at it. Creativity? Yes, there is a decline, at least talking about CRPGs. There has been more experimentation and novelty during the development of the Ultima series than in the last 10 years of the genre considered as a whole (maybe I'm exagerating things a bit, but that's my feeling). I don't know, in part that's the nature of video gaming. The design standard of each genre have been allready developed in the '80s or in the beginning of the '90s. Now it's more a question of refinement and tech progress.

I forgot one important thing to mention in my previous post. DA2 development begun in the february of 2009, when the PC game was ready to be shipped and they decided to hold on 6 months to launch the game as multiplatform (Laidlaw's and Gaider's words in the Bio board). So, 2 years: just like BG 2.

I don't know, I repeat that maybe you're right. I agree that the dev cycle is very short and I would not be surprised if they take another 6 months: but more for polish and design things and not for actual content. Imho you are understimating that a) Bioware is triple the size it was on 1998 b) DA:O optional content was in charge of a different team c) that BG I has an expansion pack too developed by the same team and that d) DA2 will be way shorter and more cineamtic than DA:O (I expect the half of it if not more with lots of dialogues and videos) and so it will be easier to test the game while BG 2 was.. what, 4 times the size of BGI? Yep there is the port thing (but they allready have the experience and it's not first time) and the gameplay changes but at the end it seems to me that BG 2 was more ambitious than DA 2 as a project.

Yes, sure, I made many mistakes off course. But "Errare humanum est sed perseverare est diabolicum". I would not even replied to you if you at least presented the news with some kind of doubts about the source. Instead it sounded to me like you were presenting that anonymous blog entry as a fact, just like the third company thing, happy for the imminent Bioware end. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong. I do not want to convince you: I never played MMOs and will never play a monthly fee based game. TOR lies in the same category sadly. I could try LOTRO when it goes F2P in Europe but that's all. Btw, my opinion is that TOR won't come even close to WoW success (just like DA2 will never reach Diablo III success) but it will build a pretty solid player base and become profitable over reasonable time because it does not try to be just another WoW, but something different that appeals to different kind of players. To all the people who dismiss the game simply because you do not believe that people are willing to pay for a single player game with a monthly fee only for its social aspects: imho, you are understimating the allure of vanity and the need of a "friendly" community for the very people TOR is made for. Some people will love facebook in a Star Wars universe/movie where you are the Luke Skywalker of the situation. Not many as the Wow player base off course, but enough to pay the bills.

Sorry, I must apolgize. You never said such a thing. You only said that the game was received very well critically on both platforms. Wich is mostly true off course. But even in the most enthusiastic revievws (and I read a lot of them) there were a lot of mention on the disparity between PC and Consolle version for the combat part. Well, everyone is entitled to his opinions. I believe that if Bioware is changing combat so much is because they have received some negative feedback about it, were not pleased by its reception or simply do not like how it played out from a design point of view. Same for ME2. I don't think that it's because they listen to fan rants, otherwise they would still be a "PC/D&D centric" developer . Right or wrong, they fell that they are important to reach people who are not internet geeks and that normaly would not not express their opinion in forums. I do agree. DA:O was mostly a very good game and deserved its success. But personally, I was not in love with DA:O's combat even if I enjoyed the game very much in general. I was not expecting them to go action and I would have prefereed something else, but who am I to discuss the design of their game? I will play it and make my mind about it. Off, course (even if in Bioware forums they are more moderate about those changes, maybe just to avoid displeasing the old fans). But (imho) it's interesting to speculate on the reason why they have changed DA:O's formula so much. You know, while the VO change is obvious (again, like it or not) it's difficult to understand why they have changed the combat system so much if not taking consolle in consideration (imho, off course).

The article to me seems more about how Mythic failed on Warhammer than anything else. At least when the guy speaks about Mythic he knows the thing first hand. He does not know anything about TOR... only that he wasn't choose to work for it, otherwise you would not ever seen that blog at all. Assuming that the guy is for real and not fake. And I'm afraid he is clearly fake, since an article like that means: end of your career. But for some people spitting on Bioware is funnier than cheking reality off course... btw, you are the one who said that DA2 was developed by a third party company, right?

I remember many review that stated that the combat system in the consolle version was inferior and not developed as well as the PC version. I remember many complaints on Bio board too about that. I never played it on the consolle so I can't really say, but knowing that it was without iso view I really do not understand how it could play out (not that my position matters much, just to say). If the system was indeed perfect as you say, they would have not feel the need to change it so much with such a short dev cycle ahead. And if Bioware feel indeed the need to change the combat system to come "in the way of the audience" (Laidlaw's words in a famous interview) it seems to me that those change were needed to adjust the game to the consolle (even the first DA2's preview in Game Informer imply such things talking about focus group feedback's and such). Then, if you believe that my position is "they are dumbing down the game for consolle" your'e wrong and maybe I did not explained my self. I'm far to believe that and I think that's a pretty stupid generalization.