Dragon Age 2

[Monte Carlo]

Given these changes, can somebody point out to me or rebut the DA2 = ME2 with swords? For the record I haven't played ME2 so an explanation of the argument would be helpful.

 

In any case, this looks like a slam-dunk© console action RPG with a ponderous storyline bolted to it. It will sell well, I'm sure, but it belies the myth that Bio now make CRPGs as we know them.

[Volourn]

"EA disagrees with you (as you've been told multiple times the figure they have is 1.6 million sold after three months, 2 million shipped, the link has been provided multiple times too) and in a battle of credibility between an EA quarterly report and some random guy on the Codex via Volo filter it's, well, not even a contest."

 

I don't believe you.

 

 

 

"but it belies the myth that Bio now make CRPGs as we know them.

"

 

They make RPGs, and action rpgs, and other game they want. DA = rpg. ME2 = action rpg

[Tale]

top down view is pretty much required for strategic rpg games like this

 

only it's not a strategic game

Considering Dragon Age was created (or at least heavily hyped) as a throwback to Baldur's Gate 2, where Baldur's Gate 2 was expliticly an RTS/RPG hybrid, I'd say that it is.

 

I'll concede the point if you're saying that it's not if they don't want it to be.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tale

[HoonDing]

Ironically, if DA 2 was more like Demon's Souls, it would've been more hardcore than DA:O ever was.

[Thorton_AP]

"EA disagrees with you (as you've been told multiple times the figure they have is 1.6 million sold after three months, 2 million shipped, the link has been provided multiple times too) and in a battle of credibility between an EA quarterly report and some random guy on the Codex via Volo filter it's, well, not even a contest."

 

I don't believe you.

 

Why not?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[sorophx]

Dragon Age was created (or at least heavily hyped) as a throwback to Baldur's Gate 2

 

well, it still doesn't mean Bio succedeed BG2 had a fair amount of tactical combat (IWD had a lot more, though, now there's a strategic game). but DA didn't even come close to that. I mean, I remember the epic battles I used to have in BG2 and it's expansion, and my custom-made party only made it all better. I can't say I had too many of those in DA. like I said I can only remember two (well, 3, but the third didn't involve a lot of tactics, just lasted for 30 minutes): the random encounter somewhere inside capital city during my first visit - with one of those lich-things popping out of phylacteries; and the battle with Flemeth. everything else in DA looked like this: you spot an enemy, send your whole team over there, keep switching targets - all enemies dead. not exactly what I'd call strategic gaming.

[Volourn]

"everything else in DA looked like this: you spot an enemy, send your whole team over there, keep switching targets - all enemies dead. not exactly what I'd call strategic gaming."

 

You just described BG's combat to a tee. Heck, I would clear entire BG maps by simply popint and click and meleeing with all my characters including mages. You certainly can't do that with DA mages who would be killed if they are targetd for more than 6 seconds. In DA, you actually have to use talenst and whatnot to give yourself a shot to win many fights. In BG, just click and watch.

 

Sorry, DA has more depth, and tatics, and strategy in it spinkyn finger than BG or BG2) has in their entirety.

[sorophx]

meleeing with mages. You certainly can't do that with DA mages who would be killed if they are targetd for more than 6 seconds

 

only that's exactly what I did in DA, you know, there's a trait that makes knowlege count as strenght towards weapon and armor checks. well, I used it with both my mages and meleed all the way home.

 

not sure why'd you want to neglect spells in BG2, there were a lot of kick-ass scrolls lying around just waiting to be used. mages are actually overpowered in most Bio games, always make the endgame a walk in the park. not the case with DA though, and that sucks

[Thorton_AP]

only that's exactly what I did in DA, you know, there's a trait that makes knowlege count as strenght towards weapon and armor checks. well, I used it with both my mages and meleed all the way home.

 

Not sure I am following. You are complaining because you built your characters a particular way and then... were able to play them that way?

[HoonDing]

Only 'tactics' required in BG2 is using the occasional Breach/Warding Whip/Ruby Ray to take down enemy mage's spell defenses. For the rest, basic hack 'n slash.

[sorophx]

Not sure I am following. You are complaining because you built your characters a particular way and then... were able to play them that way?

ah, I should've made it more clear: that was on my second playthrough (or third...). the first time I did it by the book and it didn't provide a challenge.

 

anyway, in my wxperience BG2 had a lot to offer combat-wise. maybe it's a matter of approaching the game from a certain point of view. it didn't work in DA for me. can't say BG2 felt like hack n slash. DA did

[Thorton_AP]

I enjoyed the combat in BG2 as well, but I found it similar to DAO's (which I also enjoyed).

 

Your mileage may vary I guess.

[HoonDing]

mages are actually overpowered in most Bio games, always make the endgame a walk in the park. not the case with DA though, and that sucks

Huh? Mages are even more overpowered in DA than BG... even without the ridiculous Blood mage & Arcane warrior specializations, Storm of the Century + Mana Clash destroy everything.

[sorophx]

ugh, what is this "storm of century+mana clash" you speak of? don't remember my granny having those

[Volourn]

"not sure why'd you want to neglect spells in BG2"

 

I didn't;, and love the spells in BG2; but let's be honest that there were a lot of battles that you simply did not need them. Sure, the boss battles you certainly did, but not your typical encounter. In DA, your best bet to survive is to use your characters' talents or else you could very well die even aagainst 'easy' enemies.

 

 

"Huh? Mages are even more overpowered in DA than BG"

 

No. No, they aren't.

 

 

"Only 'tactics' required in BG2 is using the occasional Breach/Warding Whip/Ruby Ray to take down enemy mage's spell defenses."

 

Required? LOL I never needed to use that 'tatic' ever. I only used those spells once or twice to test them out. I just found it wasetful to memorize and/or use those spells in BG2.

 

 

"only that's exactly what I did in DA, you know, there's a trait that makes knowlege count as strenght towards weapon and armor checks. well, I used it with both my mages and meleed all the way home."

 

So, you purposefully trained/turned your mage into basically a fighter-mage and were SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED that it could melee like a fighter? WOW Talk about the exception to prove the rule. I could take my BG2 mage and falt out melee an ogre without turning him into a fighter. Try doing that with a DA mage that isn't a fighter.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Volourn

[sorophx]

So, you purposefully trained/turned your mage into basically a fighter-mage and were SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED that it could melee like a fighter?

read above

[Gromnir]

Not sure I am following. You are complaining because you built your characters a particular way and then... were able to play them that way?

ah, I should've made it more clear: that was on my second playthrough (or third...). the first time I did it by the book and it didn't provide a challenge.

 

anyway, in my wxperience BG2 had a lot to offer combat-wise. maybe it's a matter of approaching the game from a certain point of view. it didn't work in DA for me. can't say BG2 felt like hack n slash. DA did

 

d&d is a more robust system than da; it had decades to develop previous to the bg's release. is understandable that d&d combat, and particularly d&d magic combat, would be more complex than da. 'course, complexity ain't always a good thing.

 

for all the stuff bio fumbled regarding da magery, bio did forgo d&d-style resting and insta-kill spells. gets 'em a couple o' points.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tigranes]

There was no problem with the fact that you could play a mage-fighter, the problem was that it could become hideously overpowered.

 

Anyway, sure you could play vanilla BG on normal/core rules and just select all & click on enemy then watch them bump against each other. But the engine & general system it provides is far better suited to tactical play (which potential was then recognised & maximised by, what, 10 years of dedicated modding?)

[Zoraptor]

"EA disagrees with you (as you've been told multiple times the figure they have is 1.6 million sold after three months, 2 million shipped, the link has been provided multiple times too) and in a battle of credibility between an EA quarterly report and some random guy on the Codex via Volo filter it's, well, not even a contest."

 

I don't believe you.

 

Why not?

Probably because he refuses to read the link I've provided twice thrice. That's also a figure consistent with other available sources (NPD/ VGChartz; may be some recursion).

[Gromnir]

"EA disagrees with you (as you've been told multiple times the figure they have is 1.6 million sold after three months, 2 million shipped, the link has been provided multiple times too) and in a battle of credibility between an EA quarterly report and some random guy on the Codex via Volo filter it's, well, not even a contest."

 

I don't believe you.

 

Why not?

Probably because he refuses to read the link I've provided twice thrice. That's also a figure consistent with other available sources (NPD/ VGChartz; may be some recursion).

 

 

we will always take quarterly report findings over fanfic. however, we will note that it is disturbing if npd and ea numbers is the same, 'cause point-o'-sale numbers is always less than total sales. uncle fergie once explained to us how such stuff worked when we presented him with npd numbers for ps:t.

 

*shrug*

 

am just saying...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

They aren't identical but they are consistent- NPD gives ~800k over two months, which is consistent with 1.6 million total sales over three months (but would be very hard to reconcile with 2.8 million sales).

[Gromnir]

They aren't identical but they are consistent- NPD gives ~800k over two months, which is consistent with 1.6 million total sales over three months (but would be very hard to reconcile with 2.8 million sales).

 

according to fergie, npd accounts for approx. 1/2 total sales. dunno, all things being equal, we take the quarterly report over npd or vol... but fergie were pretty convincing when he suggested that npd were telling only half the story. as we said, we don't rely on vol. heck, vol and chris priestly were probable the only two folks we recollect as having suggested that jade empire were a big financial win. perhaps vol gets his data via priestly? were kinda funny watching as vol and sawyer argued jade empire success v. failure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that fergie's info didn't help him in his defense o' ps:t success. if ps:t npd numbers needed to be doubled, then so did virtual all other competing games. npd may not give an accurate measure o' total sales, but it is still a useful tool when trying to gauge relative success.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

JE sold over a mil copies. It may not be the success of other BIO games but it certainly isn't a failure.

 

The so called report is false. Trust me on this.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

[Tale]

They look good to me.