Poll: Dragon Age 2 'more welcoming'

[AshDesert]

The combat is exactly the same, just faster and less wooden. It actually feels like your characters and the enemies are fighting, rather than DA:O where it felt like it everyone was fighting in molasses. The only tactical bit that was in the first game that wasn't in the demo were spell combinations, which didn't even matter that much except for shattering (I'm not sure whether or not they're in the full game).

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

Considering how easy and dumbed down Origins was, I think I can safely assume that this one'll be a button mashing waifu sim like Mass effect instead of an RPG

 

[Audemas]

They got Dynasty Warriors in my Dragon Age and I don't like it. Goodbye tactical gameplay awesome finishing animations and hello hordes of enemies that can be beat by tapping A and using the odd potion.

Oh and sexing up Flemeth screw you designers I feel so insulted that the game is aimed at me under the assumption I want constant T&A in games, I live in a fantastical world where there are magical creatures called women I don't need pixilated tits thank you.

Actually I think the reason (or what I think the reason is) that Flemeth looks different is if you played Dragon Age Origins, you actually met Flemeth. Now the person telling the story, never actually met Flemeth so this could be what she looks like to the person telling the story.

 

[DSK-]

I didn't like it. There used to be a time when if something changed ever so slightly I'd hate on it or dislike it. I've worked on this and have gotten rid of it for the most part (this is irrelevant btw). I can live with the interface and the combat and even the dialogue and a talking Hawke.

However what I can't get over is the change in art style. It's way too different and it seems far inferior to that of the original.

For example, which of these two images do you think looks better?

Spoiler

 

[twistedheat15]

So i read the interview, and this is my take on it.

The guy said the game has a tutorial level. That it starts by teaching you how combat works, then lets you start your character build with an idea of how the game plays, then builds on that by adding in elements over time.

Which the demo did, because the demo was just the tutorial levels.

That's not 'dumbed down.' That's accepting there's a learning curve for new players, and letting them learn the game before they tackle the mechanics. By the time they're hooked, they're juggling stats like the rest of us.

RPGs SHOULD be doing that more. There's nothing worse than an RPG that starts off assuming you already know the mechanics and system and how to min-max it. That's terrible design for any game, and especially RPGs. Imagine that moment in Oblivion when you realize that using your primary skills could actually level the enemies faster than if you had a character concentrate on levelling secondary skills at a slower pace with primary skills that you could safely ignore? The game never tells you this. That moment of discovery wasn't a eureka. That was a 'OH GOD DAMN IT THIS IS BONEHEADED.'

The RPG genre often has the most complex mechanics in gaming, does everything it can to obscure those mechanics from the player, while absolutely requiring the player master mechanics it is constantly trying to deny them access to. That's not 'intellegent' game design.

Instead, you have a game here which says 'This is a tutorial level, which teaches you why you need these stats, and here's a screen that explains exactly what those stats do. Now create your character as you see fit' which allows you to avoid making mistakes like having too many abilities that increase your attack stat, when your attack stat is already so high you can never miss. How high is too high? Dunno, Dragon Age never told you. DA2 does.

Transperency is NOT dumbing down. Teaching the mechanics is NOT dumbing down. It's making a game that can get very complex more able to be digested by others so that more people will be able to access its complexity.

At the end... this is good for RPGs, taking it out of the 'niche' market and putting it into the common hands. i don't know why anyone would oppose this, it would mean more money is available in making RPGs, which would mean more investment in high quality RPG experiences.

That is a good thing, ladies and gentlemen, and those who for some crufty reason don't want RPGs to be accessible to more people? You're the reason we can't have nice things. Take your neckbeard and go back to your basement with your d30s you grognard.

My god, applause to you, so tired of hearing ppl ***** about how it's dumb down with no understanding of game mechanics, just bandwagon bitching of what they've heard other ppl say, then bitching of speech options because they can't "immerse" themselves as much.

 

[Hosker]

It is dumbed down. Its focused on hack and slashy combat, with less emphasis on tactics, strategy and statistics. 3 conversation options are now clearly marked for good/neutral/bad, in case you went full retard. There is fewer tactics slots available. Positional combat is non existant. And items are marked with stars now !

oh, and lets not forget the "anime" combat animations.

That's bullcrap.

Now, granted, I played both console versions of DA1, I cannot comment on the PC versions, I can say this:

1) The combat system is almost EXACTLY the same. The ONLY differences are a slightly faster pace, and there is an option to have each individual attack keyed with a button press. You can turn that off, and it will respond EXACTLY like DA1. Except less sluggish. Tactics are exactly the same. The skill wheel is exactly the same. That's not dumbed down, that's THE SAME.

2) How can it be more 'hacky slashy' if it deemphasizes weapon damage (you do a lot less damage per swing) and instead focuses on the abilities you use and when? Mages are still using Mind Blast and Cone of Cold to control enemies. Rogues are actually able to toss out stun bombs, as opposed to just backstabbing until there's a trap to disarm. I'm sorry you don't need to use the stuns as much at level 1 like you did in Dragon Age at level 20. And again, there's the same number of tactics slots as you got before. The method you use to get more is not in the demo.

3) Conversation options are not 'Good/Neutral/Bad.' They're marked for the general intent towards that individual character. There IS no Good/Neutral/Bad, or if you like Paragon/Renegade. In most of the conversations, there was 'Friendly' 'Comedic' 'Rival'. But there were other icons as well, certainly more than three. It's certainly an improvement over 'Here's five conversation options, but only one of them actually matters in any way shape or form.' that most DA conversations consisted of.

Let's be honest, most conversations in DA with your cohorts consisted of you trying to do whatever they approved of, avoid what they disapproved of, then hand them gifts to cover up whatever they didn't like during the actual game play itself. Morrigan might be a bitter *****, but at least you can make her happy with shineys. DA2 instead has a Friend/Rival system, where making them like you is good, but making them dislike you is ALSO good.

This isn't dumbed down, this is assigning importance onto conversations and making real meaningful choice possible. This is one of those things Alpha Protocol got absolutely right, and I'm DAMN glad to see more of it in other games.

4) Positional combat is not non-existant in any game with AoEs and backstabs. DA2 has AoEs and Backstabs. Try again.

5) Items were marked with twinkly bits before. Whatever.

6) "Anime" combat animations? You mean like where your rogue would leap into the air onto the ogres back, stab it in the eyes, lean forward and give it a chelsea smile?

Oh wait, that was what happened in DA1. What exactly are you talking about?

Very good post. I 100% agree. The core gameplay is still there. I don't see what people are talking about when they say it's "dumbed down".

 

[DanielDeFig]

I've played the Demo. I have to agree, i was a bit worried too. But after playing it, i know it's not dumbed down, it's still very tactical (you still have to pause every few seconds to issue commands). The combat is SO MUCH MORE FUN!!!

Then again, i play on PC, so the claims of "button mashing" may be true on consoles (doubt it, you still need to use as many abilities as possible).

 

[Smokej]

That's not 'dumbed down.' That's accepting there's a learning curve for new players, and letting them learn the game before they tackle the mechanics. By the time they're hooked, they're juggling stats like the rest of us.

RPGs SHOULD be doing that more. There's nothing worse than an RPG that starts off assuming you already know the mechanics and system and how to min-max it. That's terrible design for any game, and especially RPGs. Imagine that moment in Oblivion when you realize that using your primary skills could actually level the enemies faster than if you had a character concentrate on levelling secondary skills at a slower pace with primary skills that you could safely ignore? The game never tells you this. That moment of discovery wasn't a eureka. That was a 'OH GOD DAMN IT THIS IS BONEHEADED.'

Most of the ambitious RPG (or Strategy games) made their mechanics totally clear. Even way before the time Tutorials were implemented... With the look in the manual you could learn all aspects of the gameplay. But todays companies know the demographics and their audience so everything that looks like you need some basic skills in reading, mathematics or understanding a spreadsheet is taken out, so there is no danger of scaring their potential buyers away. An educational mechanism is always limited to its recipients and its always working in more than one direction. So a tutorial these days can only do this much, it is better to take away from the core substance of a game to make it more approachable...

The RPG genre often has the most complex mechanics in gaming, does everything it can to obscure those mechanics from the player, while absolutely requiring the player master mechanics it is constantly trying to deny them access to. That's not 'intellegent' game design.

Instead, you have a game here which says 'This is a tutorial level, which teaches you why you need these stats, and here's a screen that explains exactly what those stats do. Now create your character as you see fit' which allows you to avoid making mistakes like having too many abilities that increase your attack stat, when your attack stat is already so high you can never miss. How high is too high? Dunno, Dragon Age never told you. DA2 does.

That is not the problem a lot of players have with the game. (btw most of the sophisticated
players will try to turn all the options which are hiding the mechanics off to get all the transparency the game offers)

The problem is when you try to streamline all of the character options, gameplay etc. so there remains only some relicts of classic RPG gameplay mechanics. It would be no problem if this game had its roots in the Hack/Slash or Action Adventure Genre but it originates from games which are widely regarded as some of the best class RPG's (and even those weren't that heavy in stats or abilities in comparsion to some other good rpg's...)

Transperency is NOT dumbing down. Teaching the mechanics is NOT dumbing down. It's making a game that can get very complex more able to be digested by others so that more people will be able to access its complexity.

True but for example if you only have a handfull of character options/spells/skills etc in contrast to hundreds (if they distinguishable from each other) it's dumbed down no matter how you approach it. If you like your combat well thought out and versatile than a ME2 or DA2 is a lot dumbed down in contrast to a ToEE (even though they are more polished and better produced games)

At the end... this is good for RPGs, taking it out of the 'niche' market and putting it into the common hands. i don't know why anyone would oppose this, it would mean more money is available in making RPGs, which would mean more investment in high quality RPG experiences.

If you mean more investments in Action Adventure experiences with some RPG elements slapped on you are totally right. And i have to admit that games these days are of top quality but nevertheless i find myself always reinstalling old classics because not everyone is preferring style over substance.

 

[DracoSuave]

That's not 'dumbed down.' That's accepting there's a learning curve for new players, and letting them learn the game before they tackle the mechanics. By the time they're hooked, they're juggling stats like the rest of us.

RPGs SHOULD be doing that more. There's nothing worse than an RPG that starts off assuming you already know the mechanics and system and how to min-max it. That's terrible design for any game, and especially RPGs. Imagine that moment in Oblivion when you realize that using your primary skills could actually level the enemies faster than if you had a character concentrate on levelling secondary skills at a slower pace with primary skills that you could safely ignore? The game never tells you this. That moment of discovery wasn't a eureka. That was a 'OH GOD DAMN IT THIS IS BONEHEADED.'

Most of the ambitious RPG (or Strategy games) made their mechanics totally clear. Even way before the time Tutorials were implemented... With the look in the manual you could learn all aspects of the gameplay. But todays companies know the demographics and their audience so everything that looks like you need some basic skills in reading, mathematics or understanding a spreadsheet is taken out, so there is no danger of scaring their potential buyers away. An educational mechanism is always limited to its recipients and its always working in more than one direction. So a tutorial these days can only do this much, it is better to take away from the core substance of a game to make it more approachable...

Actually, a lot of those games are -more- arcane, not less. Let's look at a classic example, Master of Monsters. God damn there's a lot of depth in this old school strategy game, and you're right... it's all there in the manual. And that is a horrible way to teach someone how to play.

That manual doesn't teach you how to play it. The best way to learn how to play a gain is by playing it. Concepts that are incredibly complex can be built on simpler concepts. Boil it down, then build it up. You can have a game with incredible depth building on very simple concepts.

Case in point: Final Fantasy Tactics. There's a strategy RPG that is incredibly deep and involving. Tons of things are going on should you decide to delve deep enough. Its mechanics are introduced, however, slowly over time. You don't get to start the game with a calculator and all the abilities it can use and told 'Go to town with this.' You're given some soldiers, and some chemists, and you buy every ability one at a time. Then you learn how each ability works, before learning new ones. Then, you have your next tier, knights, archers, wizards, and priests. These are your bread-and-butter classes, and they do everything you need to get done. Beyond that you have your niche classes, classes which require a further mastery of the game in order to get the most out of them. All this is taking something simple, and building on top of it to make something complex.

This isn't 'dumbing down.' It's called 'Use a learning curve, not a learning cliff.' Learning Cliffs are stupid and should not be in games. Period.

The RPG genre often has the most complex mechanics in gaming, does everything it can to obscure those mechanics from the player, while absolutely requiring the player master mechanics it is constantly trying to deny them access to. That's not 'intellegent' game design.

Instead, you have a game here which says 'This is a tutorial level, which teaches you why you need these stats, and here's a screen that explains exactly what those stats do. Now create your character as you see fit' which allows you to avoid making mistakes like having too many abilities that increase your attack stat, when your attack stat is already so high you can never miss. How high is too high? Dunno, Dragon Age never told you. DA2 does.

That is not the problem a lot of players have with the game. (btw most of the sophisticated
players will try to turn all the options which are hiding the mechanics off to get all the transparency the game offers)

The problem is when you try to streamline all of the character options, gameplay etc. so there remains only some relicts of classic RPG gameplay mechanics. It would be no problem if this game had its roots in the Hack/Slash or Action Adventure Genre but it originates from games which are widely regarded as some of the best class RPG's (and even those weren't that heavy in stats or abilities in comparsion to some other good rpg's...)

There's no evidence of this streamlining taking place. You have the same stats, which actually tell you -exactly- what they do, you have abilities that say -exactly- what they do. Does Heal 'Give you back lost hit points' or does it 'Replenish 40% of the target's hp'? If you were in Dragon Age 1, you'd have no numerical comparison. In Dragon Age 2, the numbers are right there.

And, let's see, by the time I hit the end of the tutorial, my mage character had a knock down/aggro reset (Mind Blast), an AoE cone stun (Cone of Cold), AoE Damage, and some cooldowns to do damage. My rogue had an ability to remove himself from close combat, the ability to leap behind enemies to pile on damage, and an AoE Stun.

That's a LOT of depth for five levels of play, starting with no abilities and working up to that through the tutorial. And because I learned each ability on its own, I learned each ability's place.

As well, let's be honest, that's just off the trees that were open in the Demo. Each class gets a LOT more complex when you are not restricted from half your options at the get go.

I think it's doing a disservice to look at a demo with features obviously taken out and claim that the full game lacks in complexity even tho it's pretty much the same as it was before. The trees are better organized, and you don't have abilities like 'This ability exists only to buff abilities you've already gotten' as pre-requisites for abilities you -want-, rather than what they should be: offshoots for the abilities on seperate small branches.

Transperency is NOT dumbing down. Teaching the mechanics is NOT dumbing down. It's making a game that can get very complex more able to be digested by others so that more people will be able to access its complexity.

True but for example if you only have a handfull of character options/spells/skills etc in contrast to hundreds (if they distinguishable from each other) it's dumbed down no matter how you approach it. If you like your combat well thought out and versatile than a ME2 or DA2 is a lot dumbed down in contrast to a ToEE (even though they are more polished and better produced games)

Well, let's look at mages for instance. In the demo you only have 2 of the 6 trees available. Myself, I always liked a good crowdcontroller based on Creation and Entropy magic. Obviously, in the demo, I can't do that because Entropy magics and Glyphs of Paralysis aren't easily available. Big deal tho, that just tells me that Entropy Magic isn't in the demo. I can see the tree right there. It's locked. So I know I can explore it and make a character based on it later.

Specializations aren't in the demo. Changing your character's look isn't in the demo. Equipping things isn't in the demo... of course not. It's a demo for the gameplay. But what IS in the demo promises to be the Dragon Age gameplay we know, refined to its strengths, and balanced better.

I don't get the comparison to ME2. The only similiarities are that the menus are on circles and it uses the same graphics engine. That's not at all the same thing.

At the end... this is good for RPGs, taking it out of the 'niche' market and putting it into the common hands. i don't know why anyone would oppose this, it would mean more money is available in making RPGs, which would mean more investment in high quality RPG experiences.

If you mean more investments in Action Adventure experiences with some RPG elements slapped on you are totally right. And i have to admit that games these days are of top quality but nevertheless i find myself always reinstalling old classics because not everyone is preferring style over substance.

I never claimed that Action-adventureyness was the point. But whatever, RPG-fans ***** about a lack of real-time in RPGs, then ***** when you actually do things in real-time. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS. But that's truly irrelevant to the point at hand, because Dragon Age always was a real-time rpg. Dragon Age 2 is also a real-time rpg, using most of the same mechanics and interface elements.

It's not a matter of style, nor is it a matter of 'oh look pretty.' The RPG market has always been advanced by games that are accessible. The first game to make RPGs huge in the states was Final Fantasy 7. It wasn't because of the cutscenes or the graphics (which are old, dated, laughable) but actually the depth of character customization and gameplay, combined with ease of access to that depth.

Accessibility is not the antithesis of depth. In fact, it is the best friend of depth, because with accessibility, you can create games with greater mechanical depth that more people will want to play. There are barriers of entry that many players should not have to surmount in order to play your game; reading a novel of game mechanics and stats before you turn the thing on is no longer acceptable, and it's not necessary for your game to be good.

If you can make your game playable without access to that, but teach them the same information over time, concept by concept... then you have the capacity to create deeper gameplay. Again, this isn't 'dumbing down.' This is 'smartening up.'

That's all the interview said. It said the creators seek to tackle the amount of depth rpg players liked with Dragon Age, but make it more accessible and less daunting so that more players can actually get into it. Again, this is a good thing. I don't understand why people oppose making games accessible.

 

[Dana22]

snip

Oh boy, where shall we begin.

2) How can it be more 'hacky slashy'

Because, as you have noticed yourself, its more face paced. You click on a mob, it dies, you click on a next mob, it dies. You dont even have to use any skills on "Trash mobs", except of course the Aoe, since mobs come at you en masse (hence "hacky slashy).

3) Conversation options are not 'Good/Neutral/Bad.' They're marked for the general intent towards that individual character.

Which is SO different. Less semantics please.

4) Positional combat is not non-existant in any game with AoEs and backstabs. DA2 has AoEs and Backstabs. Try again.

I think you haven't noticed that AOE doesn't do friendly fire damage anymore, and backstab DOESNT REQUIRE POSITIONING since it teleports character directly behind the enemy, usually instagibbing him in one hit in case of trash mobs (again, hacky slashy). Try again.

6) "Anime" combat animations? You mean like where your rogue would leap into the air onto the ogres back, stab it in the eyes, lean forward and give it a chelsea smile?

No I mean "Warping" forward during attacks, and flashy sword waving. Amongst the other things.

DA has always been a real-time combat game.

Except in DA1 active pause was more meaningful and you had to use it quite often. I haven't used it once in DA2 demo, I didn't need to. There was not a single moment which required me to stop and think for a moment, it was hacky slashy, and there was no positional or any other requirements for me to consider. Combat got dumbed down.

 

[pspman45]

It does feel dumbed down, but in a good way. its more fun than the previous one, at least in my opinion

 

[DracoSuave]

snip

Oh boy, where shall we begin.

2) How can it be more 'hacky slashy'

Because, as you have noticed yourself, its more face paced. You click on a mob, it dies, you click on a next mob, it dies. You dont even have to use any skills on "Trash mobs", except of course the Aoe, since mobs come at you en masse (hence "hacky slashy).

[/quote]

And this is different than 'You click on a mob, it dies but slower, you click on another mob, it dies but slower.'

The game engine runs a bit faster, you're hitting more often but for less damage. It's faster paced, that doesn't mean it's hacky slashy unless you willingly play it that way. That's a personal choice, and one you can turn on or off.

3) Conversation options are not 'Good/Neutral/Bad.' They're marked for the general intent towards that individual character.

Which is SO different. Less semantics please.

It's not semantics. Good/Evil implies there's some master bar that tracks your general alignment and characters react to how nice or how mean you are. Tailored to individual character's predelictions means that you can do things that piss off one character, and that another character will reward you with. The thing is, because the system doesn't track one single meter, but a seperate meter for each character, coupled with the fact that you're not only rewarded for a high positive meter, but ALSO with a high 'negative' meter, allows you the freedom to play your character as you like without fear of screwing up your 'Morrigan Faction' just because she hates orphans.

In DA1, you had to manage your faction so that your party members don't screw off or even turn on you. In DA2, you're not punished for making complex character choices, you're encouraged to do as you like.

Contrast with ME2, where you had a Good/Evil bar that didn't matter to your party at all, so long as you did their missions, and only affected whether you intimidated or charmed people into doing the exact same thing you want them to do. The choice there was not meaningful.

It's not even close to the same thing, and if you are unwilling to see that, then no wonder the game seems dumbed down.

4) Positional combat is not non-existant in any game with AoEs and backstabs. DA2 has AoEs and Backstabs. Try again.

I think you haven't noticed that AOE doesn't do friendly fire damage anymore, and backstab DOESNT REQUIRE POSITIONING since it teleports character directly behind the enemy, usually instagibbing him in one hit in case of trash mobs (again, hacky slashy). Try again.

I think you'll note that friendly fire was an option you could turn on or off. How exactly is that different from DA1?

6) "Anime" combat animations? You mean like where your rogue would leap into the air onto the ogres back, stab it in the eyes, lean forward and give it a chelsea smile?

No I mean "Warping" forward during attacks, and flashy sword waving. Amongst the other things.

That's not an 'anime' thing. That's a video game thing, and has been going on for a long time now. It seems a little less 'anime' and a little more 'god of war' but that is what it is.

DA has always been a real-time combat game.

Except in DA1 active pause was more meaningful and you had to use it quite often. I haven't used it once in DA2 demo, I didn't need to. There was not a single moment which required me to stop and think for a moment, it was hacky slashy, and there was no positional or any other requirements for me to consider. Combat got dumbed down.

I don't know how often you paused, but I never had to during the Howe's Attack on the Cousland estate, or in the Alienage while the nobles came to begin rapetoberfest during the wedding, or in the Fade during the harrowing. Nor do I remember having to do that at Ostagar. If you're comparing the tutorial of DA2 to the endgame of DA1 in terms of depth and tactics, you're going to be sorely disappointed. In other news, that should be so obvious it doesn't even warrant being said. Pausing the game wasn't required in the early game of Dragon Age 1 for any character. How is DA2 different from that?

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

Why are people bitching about how now the pause and strategy aspect of the game is gone? It's not. It's still there. You can still do it. They've simply added the ability for people who like faster paced combat to do that, but you can still pause and issue individual commands if that's your fancy. Personally, other than some of the character designs (The darkspawn look goofy), it looks fine to me. I'm a bit concerned about how they'll make the story work, but I'm sure that they can pull it off.

 

[Smokej]

Actually, a lot of those games are -more- arcane, not less. Let's look at a classic example, Master of Monsters. God damn there's a lot of depth in this old school strategy game, and you're right... it's all there in the manual. And that is a horrible way to teach someone how to play.

That manual doesn't teach you how to play it. The best way to learn how to play a gain is by playing it. Concepts that are incredibly complex can be built on simpler concepts. Boil it down, then build it up. You can have a game with incredible depth building on very simple concepts.

I have to correct this from an educational standpoint; the individualized instruction with the integration of the provided material is the best way to teach something. If you can generate instrinsic interest on the subject a student is willing to learn every aspect of the subject by himself. (i hope i can make myself clear here as english is only my second language but i'm expierenced in educational matters theoretically and in practice)

Of course a game is an entertainment product so other rules take effect. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who prefer the intrinsic way of approaching a game. A lot of the indie games i like are solely approachable with this way (for example Unreal World, Dominions, Dwarf Fortress) and all of them have their fanbase.

All your arguments have a valid point but I see the whole progress of changes from a wider scale. The changes made from DA:O to DA2 are small but steady steps in changing genres into something that I don't like. In other genres i can appreciate the changes; for example Sport Games, Driving. Those are better than ever before. But my favourite Genres Strategy,RPG and Simulation are nothing than a former shadow of themselves.

And that is how several others feel, they understand how the industry is changing so they satisfy the big target audiences but they aren't provided with alternatives and feel left out (not counting the indie scene, im talking about big quality titles). This is a major drawback of the industry. In other forms of entertainment i can always choose from a wide array of high quality alternatives (music, movies literature.)Nobody would be angered about the changes made in games if they wouldnt feel left out.

The quintessence of my statement is that how you can have the most fun out of an entertainment product is as variable as the way you approach to learn about it.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I don't think they dumbed it down, but they certainly didn't add much to it. =\

I do like the new Friendship/Rivalry system though, sounds interesting.

 

[SageRuffin]

I'll admit the animations are a bit wonky (especially the running animation, what the hell), but I like how fast-paced the combat is. At the same time, given the nature of the combat this time around, I really wish there was a block button. Then again, I'm playing on my 360 and from what I could tell, the 360 seems optimized for the "action-adventure" style of the game versus the "tactical-pause-and-play" or whatever like how it was in the first game (and let's be honest, the 360 version there).

But I'm looking forward to it. My DPS warrior will actually feel like one, and my dual-hander rogue will be doing acrobatics and bringing the pain with the best of them.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Honestly the only thing I didn't like about the demo is the new art-style. In this one, the darkspawn seem a lot less threatening and evil and more....cartoony. They make me think of an orcish version of team rocket, instead of, you know, a hellish horde bent on devouring all life. That's a pretty big problem, but honestly, the gameplay feels MUCH better. It can still be just as tactical as the original (on PC atleast, though the console version is still good) but the combat in general is just more fast-paced. I like it.

So I'd say it's more welcoming, as you can still have the tactical gameplay from the original, if you want, or you can play it more like an action game. Everybody wins? Seriously though, I am NOT a fan of the new art style....then again, I also hate anime and the like, so that might put me in the minority for this one. I'll admit it looks a lot more original than before, atleast.

 

[DracoSuave]

I have to correct this from an educational standpoint; the individualized instruction with the integration of the provided material is the best way to teach something. If you can generate instrinsic interest on the subject a student is willing to learn every aspect of the subject by himself. (i hope i can make myself clear here as english is only my second language but i'm expierenced in educational matters theoretically and in practice)

This approach is great for someone who is interested in chemistry and wishes to learn chemistry. However, the reason this does not work for a specific game is because you have not generate sufficient involvement in your product to warrant that learning process. As well 'Here's a book, get to it' doesn't involve individualized instruction with the integration of the provided material. It provides the material and says 'Look at the fun you'll have a few hours from now if you can sort this out.' Bad. Wrong.

I'm not saying having a deep gameplay, or even a technical manual is a bad thing. Far from it, I've had a lot of fun poring through technical mechanics instruction for games I truly love.... but that's the rub isn't it? I was already hooked. I already understood and played the game. The technical aspects were just a matter to refine that mastery of those mechanics.

Those technical manuals are great for higher concepts. They're HORRIBLE for teaching someone how to play.

Of course a game is an entertainment product so other rules take effect. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who prefer the intrinsic way of approaching a game. A lot of the indie games i like are solely approachable with this way (for example Unreal World, Dominions, Dwarf Fortress) and all of them have their fanbase,

Yes, they have a fanbase. However, they are all unapproachable on a larger scale because they set forth Learning Cliffs, and barriers to entry that are unnecessary. These games could have the same mechanics, the same depth, but could educate the user on how to play them better, and you'd end up with stronger products because of it. Instead, you have a fan base that prides themselves on the fact these games are arcane and unapproachable except by the devout, as if that actually makes them complex and deep, when all it does is cuts yourself off from fans who appreciate depth but are not willing to invest major amounts of time, effort, and money before they can possibly decide if they actually like the game mechanics.

Or... to put it briefly: If you have to spend hours before you can figure out if a game is fun or not, chances are, it probably isn't. Game designers have no need to shoot themselves in the foot like that, there is no excuse. 'Indy' is not an excuse.

All your arguments have a valid point but I see the whole progress of changes from a wider scale. The changes made from DA:O to DA2 are small but steady steps in changing genres into something that I don't like. In other genres i can appreciate the changes; for example Sport Games, Driving. Those are better than ever before. But my favourite Genres Strategy,RPG and Simulation are nothing than a former shadow of themselves.

The irony is that those three genres have fans that are amongst the most traditionalist of video game fans. Constantly crying out for innovation, then complaining when things change. They claim 'We'd like a game more like Balder's Gate!' then when it happens, complaining that the game 'Is just Balder's Gate in a different world, I'll just go play Balder's Gate.'

It comes down to a distillation of what the rpg genre is. Is it just stat-management with fantasy fluff? If so, there's not a lot of innovation left in that genre, and not for want of trying. Modern techology just simply won't allow for it. They require a lot larger world set than other games, and when you have to create a large world, you have to spend more money populating that world with assets that also cost greater amounts of money.

Is there room for intricate deep gameplay in RPGs? Absolutely. Is a product going to do so without a simple entry into it, allowing for gradual learning of the mechanics over time rather than a full on "Here it is, suck on it"? Hell no. It's just not worth spending the money to then shoot yourself in the ass because players will rightly say your game is unnecessarily hard to get in to.

And that is how several others feel, they understand how the industry is changing so they satisfy the big target audiences but they aren't provided with alternatives and feel left out (not counting the indie scene, im talking about big quality titles). This is a major drawback of the industry. In other forms of entertainment i can always choose from a wide array of high quality alternatives (music, movies literature.)Nobody would be angered about the changes made in games if they wouldnt feel left out.

The thing is, I'm all for complicated and deep mechanics too. I just don't want to have to spend hours of research and such just to learn why a game is fun. It's the game's job to show me why it is fun. The idea of accessibility as being a countermovement to complexity is bullcrap. It's utter, complete nonsense. It's like the idea that in order to have a good movie it must cater to a small audience and use imagery and dialog that confounds those who 'are not familiar with the director's work.' Bullocks. That's simply pretentious nonsense wrapped up in an elitist attitude.

The quintessence of my statement is that how you can have the most fun out of an entertainment product is as variable as the way you approach to learn about it.

I can agree with you there, but my counter arguement is that people are reacting to a statement about making a genre more accessible to people as tho it means their favorite genre is going to turn into stupidtowneasymode, which is nonsense and fear-mongering. You have people who claim that a game WITH THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM as its prequel is 'dumbed down' for 'the masses' as tho saying it makes it true.

Enough. It's this sort of nonsense and a complete disconnect from 'how to make entertainment entertaining to more people' and a complete inability to actually read what is said by the interviewee in the first place that has lead to a series of comments in what is essentially an assanine attempt to jump to conclusions and take things out of context.

?Then you level up and you start spending points, and the RPG mechanics are introduced in a way that?s gradual, in a way that welcomes someone who would otherwise maybe go, ?Whoa! Too complex!? and shut it off immediately, and lets them slide into it without even recognizing it ‑‑ which frankly, ideally increases the overall RPG customer base, which means we can make more RPGs, which means I can play more RPGs that I don?t know the ending to. I like that."

The OP clearly latched onto the words 'more welcoming' and 'dumbed down' and didn't bother to read. The designer is OBVIOUSLY talking about the gradual learning curve, while explaining that RPG mechanics have been incorporated into other games for a while now, so it's not like it's the mechanics themselves that are hindering the genre from growing. Instead, he clearly states it's how they are presented. He's OBVIOUSLY talking about introducing concepts gradually, rather than immediately. It's done harm to the genre, and that's why you don't have good games in the genre. It's not because designers don't care about you, it's because this need to have all the complexity NOW NOW NOW alienates the other customers that would also enjoy their game if only you didn't demand they throw it down everyone's throat as soon as possible. Get over yourself. Companies cannot afford to make games for you if you won't make a simple concession as 'Build complexity gradually rather than all at once.'

That's all he is saying, people, and if you didn't get that from the original author, I suggest calling your lawyer, and giving him the name of your elementary school, because you will need to sue them for FAILING TO TEACH YOU HOW TO READ.

 

[Deathninja19]

They got Dynasty Warriors in my Dragon Age and I don't like it. Goodbye tactical gameplay awesome finishing animations and hello hordes of enemies that can be beat by tapping A and using the odd potion.

Oh and sexing up Flemeth screw you designers I feel so insulted that the game is aimed at me under the assumption I want constant T&A in games, I live in a fantastical world where there are magical creatures called women I don't need pixilated tits thank you.

Actually I think the reason (or what I think the reason is) that Flemeth looks different is if you played Dragon Age Origins, you actually met Flemeth. Now the person telling the story, never actually met Flemeth so this could be what she looks like to the person telling the story.

Yeah I supose it could be that but I thought the very begining was him telling the tale then the real bit included meeting Flemeth. Anyway it doesn't take away the fact that it feels like it's trying too hard with the sexiness especially when the last sentence of the demo is an offer for (possible) sex.
Bioware needs to stop trying to add sex, every modern Bioware sex scene is embarasing to watch (of course all sex scenes in games are embarasing) with soppy music in the background and two chunky avatars awkwardly bumping in to each other in the foreground. What happened to the old Bioware where sex was implied like in the first KOTOR for example, theat was far more mature in how it handled things now it seems they are either courting controvisy or just aiming for cheap thrills. I used to be Biowares biggest fanboy but lately they are heading in a direction I don't want to follow.

 

[Audemas]

They got Dynasty Warriors in my Dragon Age and I don't like it. Goodbye tactical gameplay awesome finishing animations and hello hordes of enemies that can be beat by tapping A and using the odd potion.

Oh and sexing up Flemeth screw you designers I feel so insulted that the game is aimed at me under the assumption I want constant T&A in games, I live in a fantastical world where there are magical creatures called women I don't need pixilated tits thank you.

Actually I think the reason (or what I think the reason is) that Flemeth looks different is if you played Dragon Age Origins, you actually met Flemeth. Now the person telling the story, never actually met Flemeth so this could be what she looks like to the person telling the story.

Yeah I supose it could be that but I thought the very begining was him telling the tale then the real bit included meeting Flemeth. Anyway it doesn't take away the fact that it feels like it's trying too hard with the sexiness especially when the last sentence of the demo is an offer for (possible) sex.
Bioware needs to stop trying to add sex, every modern Bioware sex scene is embarasing to watch (of course all sex scenes in games are embarasing) with soppy music in the background and two chunky avatars awkwardly bumping in to each other in the foreground. What happened to the old Bioware where sex was implied like in the first KOTOR for example, theat was far more mature in how it handled things now it seems they are either courting controvisy or just aiming for cheap thrills. I used to be Biowares biggest fanboy but lately they are heading in a direction I don't want to follow.

I understand why they use sex because sex sells. Also not to mention, remember the Mass Effect controversy and how much publicity it received? So I don't need to explain to you how using sex benefits you when selling something.
Also, I honestly don't think they "sexed" (if you want to call Flemeth sexy, go ahead but I don't think of her like that) Flemeth up, I just think they updated her rather than use her old model. And I'm almost certain you can't have sex with her so it's not like they did it to appeal to the player sexually.