Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?

[Stun]

Then fix it instead of complaining.

If we fix your DA:O list, it will shrink right back down to about 30, where it accurately belongs. Edited April 28, 2014 by Stun

[Bryy]

I have no idea how this got so hostile so fast.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't know what the numbers are, but DA:O certainly felt much more same-y than BG, in terms of enemy variety.

 

On the other hand, IWD2 is feeling pretty DA:O-ey in terms of same-yness so far, although I'm sure that it has a huge variety of things, since it benefits from and builds on the bestiary from its elder siblings.

 

I think that feeling of same-yness is created by having lots of near-identical encounters strung together, even if in the end you have so many that the total variety is pretty big. I think two or three similar encounters, tops, should be enough; after that it just becomes rote, a chore, even if by then you've figured out the tactics to get through it quickly. A thing that adds to it is having many variants of the same type of critter that only differ in power, even if it's not actually mechanically done via level scaling.

 

DA:O had both. In spades.

[Volourn]

BG2 L0L I said DA had as much if not more enemies than BG1. BG1 not BG2. Because, as Gromnir pointed out, it's silly to bring BG2 into it sicne it's the 29,00th game of a series while DA was first. But, DA vs BG?  About the same numbers give or take. This is FACT.

[nipsen]

 

Why all the argument and angst? Can't we all just get along...?

Mm. I don't see the problem either. As long as we simply agree that DA:O is a great game in every respect that counts, all will be well.

[Suburban-Fox]

The combat should be fairly different then Dragon Age. Due to DA being a 3rd person action rpg title with cool-downs.

 

But...isn't this also a 3rd person action RPG with cool-downs? At the moment, I'm not sure what the difference is, unless I missed something. Will this not have cool-downs? Or will it not have lots of action? Or will it not be 3rd person?

 

From what I've seen, it will have special abilities in combat, which, logically, means there'll probably be cool-downs of some sort (because something has to stop you from spamming your best ability as quickly as you can mash the button). Special abilities in combat tends to mean you'll be killing lots of things (rather than killing a few things, as was the case in Baldur's Gate), which indicates action-heavy. And doesn't 3rd person mean viewing the character from somebody else's point of view, as opposed to 1st person?

[tajerio]

 

The combat should be fairly different then Dragon Age. Due to DA being a 3rd person action rpg title with cool-downs.

 

But...isn't this also a 3rd person action RPG with cool-downs? At the moment, I'm not sure what the difference is, unless I missed something. Will this not have cool-downs? Or will it not have lots of action? Or will it not be 3rd person?

 

From what I've seen, it will have special abilities in combat, which, logically, means there'll probably be cool-downs of some sort (because something has to stop you from spamming your best ability as quickly as you can mash the button). Special abilities in combat tends to mean you'll be killing lots of things (rather than killing a few things, as was the case in Baldur's Gate), which indicates action-heavy. And doesn't 3rd person mean viewing the character from somebody else's point of view, as opposed to 1st person?

 

That's not the definition of "action" used in "action RPG" and I know you know it.

 

As for cooldowns, if you, for instance, look at update 71 you'll see that the anti-spamming mechanism appears to be limiting abilities on a per-encounter and per-rest basis.

[Sedrefilos]

What kind of question is this?

We ALL hope so, I guess. Why would you want to be worst?

But how could we know right now so to answer this?

[Eleneithel]

To answer to diverse opinions made all along this thread, I would say that the combat mechanics of Baldur's Gate were indeed quite archaic because of the lack of special abilities. Was it due to the second edition of D&D rules? I can't honestly say, I only know the rules of the third edition.

 

I believe that the main focus for the combats in Baldur's Gate was the management of the spellcasters and the positioning of each companion. If your fighters and thiefs were well positioned, they would do their job and you could then focusing yourself on the management of the spellcasters to protect them (as they were more vulnerable in low levels) and use their spells to support your fighting line. The tactical aspect of the gameplay came from the spellcasters which enjoyed a quite large diversity of spells with a diversity of effects. Your mages and sorcerers could immobilise /confuse the main threat amongst your foes or summon creatures to lessen the pressure on your fighters, your priests and druids could heal your fighters or strengthen their abilities to fight. All spellcasters could shift between a supporting role or a more agressive role and it was up to you to decide which strategy to adopt, knowing that they only enjoyed a limited number of spells to cast. Baldur's Gate had sadly not much possibilities to customise the character, their skills and feats. Later games based on the third edition of D&D (such as Icewind Dale 2, Neverwinter Nights and its sequels) were far more flexible on that aspect while remaining limited by the weaknesses of the D&D system. Gameplay-wise, the adoption of the third edition ruleset was a peak for the D&D games. If Baldur's Gate had enjoyed the third edition ruleset, I think it would have been better still: combining a better combat gameplay and a greater character customisation with his well written quests, plots, and characters.

 

Dragon Age tried to preserve the tactical aspect of the Baldur's Gate series, while making the game far more  action /combat-oriented and more accessible to the masses. Doing so, Bioware have sadly rejected many good things of the D&D system that they know quitte well. The classes are more limited and their customisation is very rigid compared to D&D 3.0 /3.5: less classes, less skills, less feats, less spells, and a multiclassing system very restrictive. The magic system is much more agressive by nature with the mage class being a variation of the sorcerer of Baldur's Gate, except the "number of spells per day" mechanic has been replaced by a cooldown casting system fueled by mana. The warrior is typicaly a one-handed weapon and shield /a two-handed weapon wielder and heavy-armored tank ; the rogue being the mobile and ligthly armored two-weapons fighter or archer. In some ways, I find Dragon Age combat system /classes system even more archaic and less subtle than Baldur's Gate. It has a very pronounced MMORPG feel, while being party-based, and I think it is a mechanically inferior system that is inadequate for a party-based tactical RPG. That is why I am quite disappointed with Dragon Age and I do not hold Bioware in high esteem anymore: they had the skills and experience to create a much deeper and far more subtle system for Dragon Age and they only came up with an MMORPG-inspired system for their game. Quite a drawback compared to the third edition of D&D for a tactical party-based RPG. I do not see Dragon Age as a tactical party-based RPG, but rather a party-based action-RPG. The direction taken by Dragon Age 2 is surely proof of that and I do not expect Dragon Age: Inquisition to be much more tactical and profound than his predecessors.

 

I think that the best system by far I have seen this recent years for a tactical party-based RPG was the adaptation of the ruleset of The Dark Eye by the Drakensang series. The system has its drawbacks and weaknesses (I found the spells not that useful in combat compared to Baldur's Gate) , but it allowed a great customisation of the player character and the companions and a very tactical and very deep combat system. Not every character could learn to cast spells (if they were of a non-caster classes), but they could learn every weapon, every skill, every feat you want them to. I liked such freedom about this game because you could tailor your companions to better suit your gameplay style. And I very much hope than Obsidean goes for a similar system for Pillars of Eternity because it is better suited to a tactical party-base RPG in my opinion. The character and his companions must be customisable to a certain degree to allow the player to create his own playstyle, the mechanics must be deep enough and well-used enough by the AI to offer various challenges for the player (not only combat-oriented challenges like Dragon Age), and the mechanics must be complex enough to allow true tactics rather than only bashing the ennemi with hand-to-hand weapons and agressive spells.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Eleneithel

[Malignacious]

FFS, what's the argument about? Who gives a flying fart whether BG2 or DA:O has more monster types? With regard to the actual thread title, I have to ask (again): who cares? If PoE were intended as a nod to or a spiritual successor to DA:O, then the question might have merit. But since the inspiration for PoE are the Infinity Engine games (PS:T, IWD, and BG), I think the original question is meaningless.

 

 

That's a pretty silly position to take, those ancient games are completely irrelevant. If PoE wants to be a success, modern RPGs that renewed the genre must be taken into account foremost. Surely, is there anything more obvious than this?

[MReed]

.... And I very much hope than Obsidian goes for a similar system for Pillars of Eternity because it is better suited to a tactical party-base RPG in my opinion. The character and his companions must be customizable to a certain degree to allow the player to create his own play style, the mechanics must be deep enough and well-used enough by the AI to offer various challenges for the player (not only combat-oriented challenges like Dragon Age), and the mechanics must be complex enough to allow true tactics rather than only bashing the ennemi with hand-to-hand weapons and aggressive spells.

 

I agree with your post in its entirety, but I see very little hope that Obsidian agrees with you.  Based on the various posts & interviews that I've seen from the project team, it seems obvious to me that the team feels that DA:O was mechanically far superior to any of the Infinity Engine games, and the reason that it was superior are the same issues that you cited as deficiencies in DA:O in your third paragraph.

 

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again -- my expectation of this game at this point is an inferior copy of DA:O (inferior only  because the budget of this game is a fraction of the DA:O budget).

[MReed]

That's a pretty silly position to take, those ancient games are completely irrelevant. If PoE wants to be a success, modern RPGs that renewed the genre must be taken into account foremost. Surely, is there anything more obvious than this?

 

 

From your point of view, the good news is that Obsidian agrees with you 100%.

 

From the point of view of the backers, who backed this game because it was going to be an "old-style" game...  Well, we are feeling a bit disappointed.  After all, if that's what we wanted, we could have simply waited for DA:I and paid a fraction of the $$$.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

LOL. The idea that PoE is going to be a lesser imitation of DAO is risible.

[Ink Blot]

 

That's a pretty silly position to take, those ancient games are completely irrelevant. If PoE wants to be a success, modern RPGs that renewed the genre must be taken into account foremost. Surely, is there anything more obvious than this?

 

That would fly in the face of the specific inspiration and design goals for PoE that Obsidian themselves stated. The whole idea of the Kickstarter campaign for this game was so they could make an isometric RPG in the vein of the Infinity Engine games because publishers weren't interested in backing this sort of project.

[MReed]

LOL. The idea that PoE is going to be a lesser imitation of DAO is risible.

 

I can certainly understand why you would want to hold this belief, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise:

 

* We know that there will be no buffs that last for multiple combats, which (like it or not) was certainly a major part of the gameplay in the IE games.

* We know that there will be no abilities in combat that are serious enough to require the use of "antidotes" (hard counters), as such abilities reduce player freedom.

* We know that all classes will have (roughly) equal roles to play in combat -- so, if a spellcaster has 10 abilities available to him/her at level 5, fighters and rogues will also have a similar number of active abilities, and the impact of invoking these abilities on the flow of combat will be (again, roughly) the same.

* We know that (regardless of how good the monster's AI is) that the player will have the ability to disable / interfere with it -- there was a recent interview that proudly reported that there would be a "flypaper" ability for fighters that prevent enemies from disengaging.

 

 

All of these mechanics would be right at home in DA:O.

 

Given the limitation of funding associated with this game, it seems very unlikely that we will end up with more abilities (for this purpose, spells are simply a special type of ability) total than DA:O had -- but these abilities will have be divided among twice as many classes.  That means that either most abilities will be shared shared between classes, or there simply won't be very many abilities available to each class.  If the former, then the classes will tend to blur together (differing only in look and feel, rather than functionally) -- if the latter, leveling up will be a very simple process indeed.  This fits in with another promised feature:  All builds are viable, there is no such thing as a "bad build".

 

Remember, non-combat abilities are open to all classes:  the only reason one class would be better at certain abilities than another is due to complimentary stat requirements (a rogue would be expected to have a high dexterity, so would be good at non-combat skills that are dexterity based).  However, since there won't be any bad builds in this game, there is nothing stopping the player from making (say) a dex-based spellcaster, who would then be just as good as the rogue at dexterity based non-combat skills.  This is, shocking enough, very similar to the way in which DA:O handled non-combat skills.

 

So....

 

Other than a desire not to have wasted your money, what reasons do you have to believe that mechanically PoE will not be far closer to DAO than any of the Infinity Engine games?

[Stun]

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again -- my expectation of this game at this point is an inferior copy of DA:O (inferior only  because the budget of this game is a fraction of the DA:O budget).

What? I don't agree with this. DA:O's massive budget was the result of bloated voice acting costs, cinematics, 3d graphics, development of an in-house engine, 4 1/2 years of on-again, off-again development time, and of course, the costs required to make an Xbox 360 and PS3 version. None of that is needed to produce a masterpiece RPG.

 

Dragon Age 2 probably cost more to make than All of the IE games... COMBINED. Is it a better game?

Edited April 28, 2014 by Stun

[MReed]

 

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again -- my expectation of this game at this point is an inferior copy of DA:O (inferior only  because the budget of this game is a fraction of the DA:O budget).

What? I don't agree with this. DA:O's massive budget was the result of bloated voice acting costs, cinematics, 3d graphics, development of an in-house engine, 4 1/2 years of on-again, off-again development time, and of course, the costs required to make an Xbox 360 and PS3 version. None of which is needed to produce a masterpiece RPG.

 

Dragon Age 2 probably cost more to make than All of the IE games... COMBINED. Is it a better game?

 

 

That's a reasonable point -- there was certainly loads of wasted effort in DA:O's budget, so only some fraction of the budget was actually spent on the game that we received.  I'm fairly confident, though, that the "effective budget" for DA:O was at least 10x the PoE budget, and at least 5x once you throw out the money spent on voice acting (remember, DA:O only had partial voice acting).

 

I hate DA2 with a passion, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this discussion.  A small budget spent well can produce a superior game -- if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be participating in kickstarter to begin with.  However, budget limitations do have consequences, and if you set out with the goal of imitating a product with a much larger budget then you are setting yourself up for failure.  That's what I believe Obsidian is doing with PoE.

 

For the record:  I don't dislike DA:O -- it was, despite its inferior mechanics, a pretty good game.  If PoE can achieve the same results then I'll likely enjoy the game.  I just had higher expectations than that.

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

LOL. The idea that PoE is going to be a lesser imitation of DAO is risible.

 

I can certainly understand why you would want to hold this belief, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise:

 

* We know that there will be no buffs that last for multiple combats, which (like it or not) was certainly a major part of the gameplay in the IE games.

* We know that there will be no abilities in combat that are serious enough to require the use of "antidotes" (hard counters), as such abilities reduce player freedom.

* We know that all classes will have (roughly) equal roles to play in combat -- so, if a spellcaster has 10 abilities available to him/her at level 5, fighters and rogues will also have a similar number of active abilities, and the impact of invoking these abilities on the flow of combat will be (again, roughly) the same.

* We know that (regardless of how good the monster's AI is) that the player will have the ability to disable / interfere with it -- there was a recent interview that proudly reported that there would be a "flypaper" ability for fighters that prevent enemies from disengaging.

 

 

All of these mechanics would be right at home in DA:O.

 

Given the limitation of funding associated with this game, it seems very unlikely that we will end up with more abilities (for this purpose, spells are simply a special type of ability) total than DA:O had -- but these abilities will have be divided among twice as many classes.  That means that either most abilities will be shared shared between classes, or there simply won't be very many abilities available to each class.  If the former, then the classes will tend to blur together (differing only in look and feel, rather than functionally) -- if the latter, leveling up will be a very simple process indeed.  This fits in with another promised feature:  All builds are viable, there is no such thing as a "bad build".

 

Remember, non-combat abilities are open to all classes:  the only reason one class would be better at certain abilities than another is due to complimentary stat requirements (a rogue would be expected to have a high dexterity, so would be good at non-combat skills that are dexterity based).  However, since there won't be any bad builds in this game, there is nothing stopping the player from making (say) a dex-based spellcaster, who would then be just as good as the rogue at dexterity based non-combat skills.  This is, shocking enough, very similar to the way in which DA:O handled non-combat skills.

 

So....

 

Other than a desire not to have wasted your money, what reasons do you have to believe that mechanically PoE will not be far closer to DAO than any of the Infinity Engine games?

 

Most of what you said here is flat-out fabricated stuff that contradicts what info has already been released about the game.

 

[PrimeJunta]

Indeed. I think only one of them is right (the first one). As to the others --

 

Hard counters. True, there won't be any. However, @MReed doesn't appear to know what "hard counter" means, since we certainly don't know that counters won't be required.

 

Equal roles. In fact, we know the contrary -- classes are more differentiated in combat than in the IE games. What we do know is that classes will be closer to each other in combat power – i.e., we won't have the situation where wizards are useless at low levels and gods at high levels, or that rogues or bards kind of suck in combat at all levels. The second part is directly contrary to what we know, i.e. that fighters will have more modal/passive abilities and fewer active abilities than, say, wizards.

 

Interfering with AI. Wut? Josh was describing disengagement attacks, not something "interfering with AI." I.e., fighters pack an extra-mean punch when an enemy tries to disengage. Presumably the AI will take this into account when deciding what to do, just like you would if you were fighting a fighter -- but this is nothing like aggro mechanics which they've said won't be in the game, and which are interfering with the AI.

 

I.e., another fine post from the Bitter Brigade. He forgot to whine about "no combat XP" though.

[MReed]

<sigh>  I really thought that this was all known and accepted stuff, but cites:

 

* No pre-combat buffs: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66073-new-pc-gamer-interview-with-josh/?hl=%2Bpre-combat+%2Bbuffs&do=findComment&comment=1441143 -- eliminating pre-combat buffs pretty clearly prohibits multi-combat buffs also -- otherwise, the player would drop into combat mode with no opponents and pre-buff that way.

* No hard counters: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62090-instant-death/page-5.  Nerfed debuffs: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65944-no-more-gm-sucker-punches-and-the-gameplay-challenges-thereof/page-6?hl=paralysis&do=findComment&comment=1437825

* Equality of classes in combat: Looks like I was somewhat off base here -- the cite is http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/ (" PC Gamer: As for the more standard RPG classes – rogue, wizard, fighter, etc. – will you be changing them in any way, or are you sticking to D&D tradition?"), but the response only indicates that fighters will have more options than they had in the IE games (not a hard task to achieve) but will still have fewer options than spellcasters.  Whether or not this is true or not depends on how strongly modeled the mechanics are on 4E mechanics, where this is true (at this point I tend to assume that if it is in 4E, it is probably going to be in this game).

* "Flypaper" ability for fighters: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/ (" PC Gamer: Will you be able to combine spells and abilities in any interesting ways?")

 

Obviously, I put a strong negative spin on these statements, but that's a matter of perception.

[PrimeJunta]

<sigh>  I really thought that this was all known and accepted stuff, but cites:

 

* No pre-combat buffs: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66073-new-pc-gamer-interview-with-josh/?hl=%2Bpre-combat+%2Bbuffs&do=findComment&comment=1441143 -- eliminating pre-combat buffs pretty clearly prohibits multi-combat buffs also -- otherwise, the player would drop into combat mode with no opponents and pre-buff that way.

Yes, that's the one you got right.

 

* No hard counters: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62090-instant-death/page-5.  Nerfed debuffs: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65944-no-more-gm-sucker-punches-and-the-gameplay-challenges-thereof/page-6?hl=paralysis&do=findComment&comment=1437825

Yes, there will be no hard counters. However, that does not mean there will be no counters, full stop, nor that there will be no effects requiring (or greatly mitigated by) counters. To take a trivial example, there will be elemental damage, and I'm pretty sure there will be counters that help resist elemental damage. They just won't be hard counters, i.e., effects that completely and reliably cancel out effects that would otherwise be immediately lethal.

 

* Equality of classes in combat: Looks like I was somewhat off base here

Somewhat, as in completely, yes.

 

* "Flypaper" ability for fighters: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/ (" PC Gamer: Will you be able to combine spells and abilities in any interesting ways?")

Yes, we know there's a "flypaper" ability for fighters. What you pulled out of your behind is that it involves messing with or switching off enemy AI. It merely means that a fighter can stickily engage multiple enemies at once. I would expect that enemy fighters have a similar ability.

 

Obviously, I put a strong negative spin on these statements, but that's a matter of perception.

Not when you get the known facts wrong, or are pulling speculations out of thin air and describing them as facts.

[MReed]

Hard counters. True, there won't be any. However, @MReed doesn't appear to know what "hard counter" means, since we certainly don't know that counters won't be required.

 

I interpret the lack of hard counters to mean that counters are never any more than "nice to haves" abilities.  Combat may be somewhat more difficult if you lack a particular class / ability, but you'll be able to succeed in combat in their absence.  Of course, I'd say that was true in the IE games as well, but obviously Sawyer feels otherwise.

 

Forgot a cite on the "no bad builds":  http://www.pcworld.com/article/2071423/deep-dive-with-pillars-of-eternity-project-lead-josh-sawyer-the-full-interview.html (directly after " Adam Brennecke (AB): And it’s really easy to make a bad character.")

 

I don't see the lack of combat XP as being a problem -- it only matters if you are grinding, and you can't really grind in either the IE games or this game.  The only real difference is that with combat XP you get 50% of your XP at the end of each combat, and the remainder comes when you turn in the quest.  By eliminating combat XP from the game it becomes easier to balance non-combat and combat resolution mechanics, which I see as a good thing.

[PrimeJunta]

I interpret the lack of hard counters to mean that counters are never any more than "nice to haves" abilities.  Combat may be somewhat more difficult if you lack a particular class / ability, but you'll be able to succeed in combat in their absence.  Of course, I'd say that was true in the IE games as well, but obviously Sawyer feels otherwise.

Yes, you do. But that interpretation is entirely yours, and not founded on anything the devs have said. Read what Josh has said about the reasons he changed that mechanic. It was not to get rid of the need for counters, but to get rid of the necessity for trial-and-error-reloading. Before, if your main caster was hit by a paralysis, petrification, or death effect, you effectively lost the battle. Now, you will have a chance to react to the turn of events after it happens. I.e., a surprise attack by basilisks suddenly becomes a possibility that won't trigger an automatic reload. It does in no way imply that you won't need protection from petrification anymore. That would be silly.

[MReed]

* "Flypaper" ability for fighters: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/ (" PC Gamer: Will you be able to combine spells and abilities in any interesting ways?")

Yes, we know there's a "flypaper" ability for fighters. What you pulled out of your behind is that it involves messing with or switching off enemy AI. It merely means that a fighter can stickily engage multiple enemies at once. I would expect that enemy fighters have a similar ability.

 

 

If the AI, without interference from the player, would accept a disengagement penalty in engage target B, but is blocked from doing so by a player activity ability, this is "disabling the AI".  "Taunt" and "Heat" mechanics work on the same principal:  granting the player an advantage by forcing the AI to make decisions than it would otherwise avoid.  If, after all, the AI would have remained engaged with the fighter without the ability, then what was the point of the ability again?

 

Just to avoid the obvious response:  I feel that the confusion / charm / domination mechanics in IE games are bad for the same reason, but at least there most enemies are highly resistant (by the time you gain the abilities), most of them are single target, and it certainly doesn't qualify as something that you would mention in an interview (not a core gameplay element).

[Gromnir]

 

 

Dragon Age tried to preserve the tactical aspect of the Baldur's Gate series, while making the game far more  action /combat-oriented and more accessible to the masses. 

 

am not complete disagreeing, but we will observe that saying "Dragon Age" in the above statement is a bit misleading. we would suggest that the tactical sophistication of bg was actual a bit inferior to da:o. we is talking 'bout a crpg version of d&d 1e/2e that only went from level 1 to 7-10. from a tactics pov, a fighter had very limited options in bg: ranged or melee. flanking didn't give you special bonuses. there were no advantages to superior elevation or cover, so once a fight started, the fighter types had few options 'tween choosing ranged or melee... 'cause choosing weapon proficiences were actual a strategic concern.  mages and clerics had a limited catalog o' spells, and the option of mass summons coupled with grease/entangle and firebals or arrows o' detonation made strategic concerns almost completely academic as there were a guaranteed win-every-battle strategy in bg.  again, comparing first game to first game seems fair.

 

now that we has removed  the rose-colored glasses regarding bg tactical sophistication, we will observe that compare da2 to bg2 is a whole different scenario. da2 greatly increased the "action/combat" focus o' the da series. whereas bg2, perhaps because o' the inclusion o' more diverse and powerful enemies, necessitated greater tactical sophistication than bg. fight spellcasters, dragons, illithid, drow, undead and fiends were requiring much more diverse tactics than previous ie offerings.  conversely, the leap in tactical sophistication 'tween da:o and da2 were not near as great as the evolution' o'  the ie offerings. furthermore, it is da2 that genuine felt more like a actiony game... not da:o. bg improved 'pon the tactical sophistication o' bg by an enormous degree. da2 chose to improve combat not by increasing tactical sophistication to a significant degree, but by making combats more actiony. da2 design goal were not nearly as focused in improving tactical sophistication as were bg2. 

 

honestly, it seemed to us that many o' the da2 combat "improvements" were the result o' a n endemic half-assery that should embarrass biowarians and ea. the extravagance o' bg2 were replaced with a sad frugality. bg2 improved bg but did not make wholesale or fundamental changes. da2 improved da:o by reducing tactical sophistication, adding the ninja pounce option for enemies, and recycling an excessive number of maps. da2 were not near as bad a game as some might suggest, but for those expecting da2 to improve da the same way bg2 improved the bg series, peoples were bound to be disappointed.

 

da:o were popular. makes one wonder why the biowarians/ea decided that changing the da formula were a better route than simply improving what worked in da:o.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps Gromnir is currently using excessive painkillers, so if our post above were insensible doggerel, we apologize in advance,

Edited April 28, 2014 by Gromnir