The ME series is meant to be a shooter/rpg hybrid, so the controls stay the same in the sequel. That said, it is understandable that people who do not play shooters would find the controls to be "bad" compared to rpgs at first glance, (I had similar reactions, as I also play more rpgs than anything else) but after you get familiar with the game you'll realise the controls are actually quite simple and user-friendly.

Or at least I do not consider it a coincidence that after The Witcher videogame Bioware implemented a rather similar conflict between elves and humans in DAO.

I think you'll find that DA:O was in preparation before TW - it was horrendously late on the original expected date. In addition, TW is built on a (rebuilt) Aurora Engine which powered the NWN stories which was built by Bioware. So no, CD Projekt did not get there before Bioware in RPGs anyway.

-Y-

Yes I'm aware of that, but the 2 years that separate the release of the games are not that short of a period to make a few changes here and there. I'm not saying it bothers me, because it doesn't, I just find it odd that after a The Witcher, which was a huge success among rpg fans, came out another rpg which handled the same issue in a very similar way.

On a side note: point-and-click games usually have the best stories among video games, although that genre has been quite dead for some time.

<== you mean the very old games like Space Quest, Kings Quest (before all the fighting came in), Quest for Glory, etc?

The only other genre of Point'n'Click that I can relate to is the Diablo franchise lol... and yes, that does have an excellent story. Hardly dead, but hardly meaningful either, very linear storylines.

Sorry, I thought point-and-click was another term for "adventure puzzle games" such as Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, Syberia etc. I meant those kind of games.


Regarding the "elf racism' topic: Sure, these kind of racial rivalries/differences can be spotted in a great deal of fantasy fiction, (the drow, just to bring up the most obvious example) but I believe it was Sapowkis' novels which popularised this "in-your-face" racism theme in fantasy fiction. Or at least I do not consider it a coincidence that after The Witcher videogame Bioware implemented a rather similar conflict between elves and humans in DAO.

DA:O was a watered-down version of The Witcher

I really do not see the reason for the constant need to compare The Witcher to DAO as a whole and name The Witcher as the absolute winner. Calling DAO a "watered-down version of The Witcher" is, in my opinion, unreasonabe. Sure, Bioware did stole the idea of racism between elves and humans, and the witchers may have a few things in common with the wardens, but that's where the similarities end. The only things in which TW is clearly superior to DAO is the more natural atmosphere, thanks to such things as the day-night cycle, dynamic weather, (which Bioware unfortunately decided to scrap in their next-gen fantasy games) the more authentic area and architecture designs, and more lively villages/cities. These are done very well in the Witcher and DAO does not come close to it in these aspects.

However, I did not particularly find TW more "sophisticated" than DAO in terms of writing; it does have a few good moments, but most of the dialogue is just rpg small talk. If any game, then the Witcher really does lack memorable npcs, ( I know, I should read the books to know them, but the game itself did not portray any of them as particularly interesting) and while the story seemed pretty good at a few parts (I'm thinking of the investigations in Vizima, and the parts when you "teach" Alvin) it had one of the worst finales and a really dumb "plot-twist". With the different origin stories, more memorable and better developed cast of characters, I still find the clichéd plot of DAO much better written than TW. Not to mention that the better delivery of VAs also add a lot to the dialogues.
My point is: The biggest selling points for single player rpgs are usually atmosphere and writing; TW does one part better while DAO does the other, hence I do not see much point in people always pointing out how TW is more "mature".

And if there is any reason I prefer BW rpgs over others, then it is because of the humor, self-irony and trope satire. Yes, shame on me, I do not like my game to take itself too seriously. Which does not mean I do not appreciate "epicness" or "deep characters", but most games are usually just interactive versions of already established ideas and clichés ,with a few small twists here and there if done well. In my opinion, it was only Planescape: Torment which could pull off a more "original and deep" story among rpgs, and even that game had several common tropes.
On a side note: point-and-click games usually have the best stories among video games, although that genre has been quite dead for some time.

As for DA2, I think it still has the aforementioned BW flavour to it, only to a lesser degree, but I still find it enjoyable for this reason. I would not recommend it to anyone over BG2 or DAO, or even ME2, and would certainly not for anyone who is looking for an outstanding rpg. But it still has it's good points, or gimmicks, as Tempest put it (which do work, since many people seem to enjoy the game), it's just not the exact same quality to which Bioware fans are used to. Which does not surprise me, since the game was thrown together in what, 18 months? I think that all the hate just came from people expecting way too much for such a short deadline.

I'd get Dragon Age: Origins if you want the "BG2 experience". DA2 mixes DA:O with the worst parts of Final Fantasy and Mass Effect (and none of the good parts thereof).

Are there any good parts of Final Fantasy? The only real jrpgish influence I found in the game was Fenris. (And a few bits of the soundtrack.) The other bad parts I simply took as a result of a short deadline and bad game design choices.

As for multiplayer in DA3, I don't really care. BG2 also had multiplayer and it did not affect the single player campaign one bit. If DA3 turns out to be a bad game that won't be because of a multiplayer feature.

They could fuck up and make the SP gameplay less interesting while rebalancing skills and mechanics to better fit PVP.

I don't find the mechanics of DAO or DA2 that complex, so I don't think they have anything left to simplify. (Unless they decided to turn the whole thing into a full-action rpg.) And I doubt they would concentrate on multiplayer feature that much even if included, since with the DA and ME franchise Bioware still puts (or at least claims to put) an emphasis on writing, characters and storytelling. I can only image it as a 'bonus' feature.

After two playthroughs, I can still say I hold my opinion that Aveline and Varric are the best companions, but I'm also ok with Isabella and Merrill, and mixed about Anders. Fenris is a joke of a character and it's a very good thing he is optional. Sebastian felt more like an 'NPC you can put in your party' instead of a companion. The Hawke siblings are not that bad either.

Multiplayer content? Gods, I hope not. Neglecting single player is the last thing DA needs right now.

And wait, wait, what about DLCs for Dragon Age 2? Or maybe they realized DA2 wasn't as good as Origins and decided just to leave it behind?

Speaking of Origins, I wonder if they'll ever patch it properly, with Jowan's Intention working and Alistair not speaking of being king when he's not... Probably never.

I read on Dragon Age Wiki that Jennifer Hepler is currently writing DLC for DA2. If that page counts as a reliable source.

As for multiplayer in DA3, I don't really care. BG2 also had multiplayer and it did not affect the single player campaign one bit. If DA3 turns out to be a bad game that won't be because of a multiplayer feature.

I'm also with the people who say DA2 is alright, and it actually does a few things better than Origins, but then it also does a lot more things worse than it's predecessor. BG2 was absolutely a better game in it's time than DA2 is now, and if I had not played it to death back in the day I would still prefer it over DAO and DA2. But to be honest it does get a bit boring after such a long time, so I can understand you looking for a similar but fresh experience. (Just for the record, I, too, picked BG2 in the poll.)

Pick up Origins first, and by the time you get bored of it DA2 will be available at a price that equals it's worth.

I still haven't finished the game, but I really, really dislike Fenris, to put it lightly. Surprisingly, I can tolerate Anders much more than I did in Awakening(in which I hated him),and I can almost say I like the changes in his character, although him being possessed by Justice is quite cheesy.

If I had to pick which companion I enjoy the most it would be a toss up between Aveline and Varric, but to be honest, none of the characters have had the same effect on me as companions from previous Bioware titles. But you get what you get.

I'm not really active on these forums, but what the heck-here's mine, too

http://img28.imagesh...11031914040.jpg

http://img859.images...11032014524.jpg

One word: Fail.

Haven't been here for a while, but I thought this was a nice idea.