That's wrong actually Shadowdust. They had some cheating so they bumped it down AGAIN to 700k this time.
Master of the Fork
Cid's Knight
That's wrong actually Shadowdust. They had some cheating so they bumped it down AGAIN to 700k this time.
I'm psyched for this game, but not half as excited as I am for Elder Scrolls V
Because I'm one hell of a butler.
Ehhhhh I've never really noticed that, they sound pretty RP too, to be honest. Still, makes me feel even better about my choice to murder them all.Originally Posted by Ouch!
Ah, that sucks. Shame on the cheaters.Anyway, at 700,000 it still looks like it should reach its goal before the release date.
I'm actually with you on that one; the developers said that they used Welsh voice actors, though.Ehhhhh I've never really noticed that, they sound pretty RP too, to be honest. Still, makes me feel even better about my choice to murder them all.
No, I figured it was, I was just saying something like that had better be the reason. And I never noticed any accents in the first game. Just gruffer or lighter voices (I guess the Orleseans were pretty obviously accented, but that was about all I caught)
And I gotta say I really don't like a lot of design decisions going on at BioWare. Played through the demo the other day and what is with all this mashing the A-button garbage? Much preferred the more strategic aspect of the combat in the original where you tell someone to attack and they do it, rather than having to run up yourself and hit the A button a bunch. This isn't Fable or Diablo. Well, I guess it is now. But still. I liked how it was different from most games in its style, where you micromanage your team and give orders instead of actually running around whacking stuff. They're effectively dumbing down the combat. No longer the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate legacy. It'll probably still be a great game. But that's two complaints from me. And I still have very little faith in the conversation wheel. All the conversation options in the demo were pretty straight forward. I have no doubt it'll have quite a few misleading instances in the game. And the little icons didn't really mean much. I liked that an olive branch represented condolences though lol
Also, for 2 gigs, the engine wasn't running all that great. You totally just kinda floated over the surface. You'd think with a demo bigger than Mass Effect 2's it'd run at least as good as Mass Effect's. And I don't understand at all why it had to be that big when half the options were gimped out. You couldn't customize a character (which I believe the ME2 demo did let you do) and you couldn't fiddle with your inventory (can't say ME2 let you do that, since there is no inventory in ME2 lol). The graphics just seemed unfinished, which is understandable for a demo, but then why is an unfinished engine so freaking massive
And I completed it, but it didn't say I got anything. What's all this talk about completing it to get bonus equipment?
Unfinished graphics are not understandable for a demo. A demo is supposed to be a demonstration of the full finished product, not some watered down buggy beta version.
This twenty-year-old boy was distinguished from childhood by strange qualities, a dreamer and an eccentric. A girl fell in love with him, and he went and sold her to a brothel...
Master of the Fork
Cid's Knight
No it's not unfinished, at least for the PC. It's just the full game comes with Dwhatever 11 and the demo only runs on 9. So it can't go up to par unless they include that upgrade, and that would have been silly to add that just for the demo. I think the reason it was so massive was the cutscenes and the actual quality of the fights. They were much more involved than ME or DAO. Or so I thought.
You can still turn on the a to attack and they do it on their own feature. By the way vyk. So if you don't want to button mash then you can just go back to the boring swing when they feel like mode. I personally like things to attack when I tell them to attack. So I have NO problem with the change
I linked it before but I'll do so again. It'll appear on this page http://social.bioware.com/user_entitlements.php. For the item you get.
Sweet. Thanks. Always appreciate when developers allow you to not join in the changes to a franchise haha (still undecided on which weapons system I prefer in ME)
Also, one last rant, I hope they don't go so much towards build styles in this game. I hate that MMO set-up where it punishes you for building a well-rounded character, and you're actually rewarded for ignoring a whole bunch of stats. Like why shouldn't you want dexterity and wisdom for a warrior? Maybe you want to switch between weapons and bows, and have a plentiful stamina pool to use abilities from. Not to mention those kind of set-ups always require you to read ahead and figure out how you want your end product to be. My first Dragon Age character was completely gimped because I mixed and matched my skills and stats. You don't get punished for having a wide range of abilities in Mass Effect. In fact they kind of encourage you to be prepared for most situations. DA:O kind of expected you to choose two skill trees and 2 (maybe 3) attributes to work on, and already have your specialization in mind while working towards all that. Did not like. Leave the MMO set-ups to the MMO games. So since they're dumbing things down, I hope they "dumb" that down as well, or at least take a whole new angle at it. But I think that's it for my gripes. I'll be playing the game and enjoying it regardless
I don't know why you'd expect a jack of all trades to be particularly good at anything in the game. Of course specialization and planned attribute and talent distribution will be superior while an amalgamation of multiple different roles would have a rougher time excelling at anything. Because the game is heavily party-based, it makes sense to have each character focus on a specialized role. In Mass Effect, it's mostly Shepard doing the work (with a little bit of assistance from allies as far as biotics or techs are concerned); by nature Dragon Age's system encourages micromanagement on higher difficulties (the kind of customization you're talking about only matters on Hard and Nightmare anyway) which lends itself to a party with specialized roles.
Doing one or two things very effectively with three other characters who also do one or two things very effectively is much better than characters who do a great deal of things somewhat well. The whole point is to develop a party of specialists who complement and compensate for one another.
I'll grant that's a good explanation for specializing skills. It still feels like a terrible idea to leave 90% of your stats disgustingly low, though. But I think my problem has less to do with the requirement and more to do with how none of that is really ever explained. Like say you're a rogue and you start out having to put your points in strength to do damage until you unlock the skill that lets you replace strength with cunning for your attack rolls. If you didn't read ahead and worked with what you could, you'd end up wasting a bunch of points on strength when you should hold out and unlock that skill as soon as possible and focus on cunning. Why the curve ball? Why not just say rogues use cunning for their rolls. There's a lot of instances like that where you get halfway through a skill tree or get a new badass item that works totally differently and all of a sudden you're like 'well, guess I just wasted all those points before'. I guess you could argue its a reward for knowing what you're doing, but it really just feels like you're being punished for being ignorant of the game planning on changing the rules on you. As far as I'm aware, MMO's are the only games that work that way. If this were Dragon Age Online, it'd make more sense to expect people to be prepared for that kinda stuff
Edit: Also, I don't think its explained anywhere that if you have two rangers, you can only summon one companion animal. I found out the hard way long after making a second character a ranger, so I couldn't just revert back to an auto-save. So that was a COMPLETE waste of a skill tree. I was planning on having two companion animals, and again you're punished for being ignorant of how the game bends the rules
I don't know about you, but I absolutely read ahead skill trees. They're all there right from the beginning; you can see every talent in each tree and plan accordingly. I will grant that Dragon Age: Origins was not exactly transparent in explaining how each stat actually affects your character (for example, they never properly explain the relationship between attack and strength or spellpower and magic), but they have addressed this in Dragon Age 2 on the attribute distribution screen.
What they really need to do is include the ability to respec in the actual game. They added an item that cost about six gold in Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening that allowed you to redistribute all attributes, skills, and talents. Mass Effect 2 also introduced a way to respec at a slight cost. I would hope there is a way to do this in Dragon Age 2 as well.
True. Its just my play-style. Instead of reading everything ahead and having my head swimming with information to keep in mind as I progress towards something, I prefer to just wait until I get a level, read the two or three skills I can get and choose one. I don't mean to say that they're wrong in wanting to make a game in that manner. Its just completely incompatible with me. And yeah, it'd have been nice to be able to go back and fix things once I knew what I was doing. I imagine they'll give that option in DA2, it seems pretty standard for them now. Nice to hear they fixed up the explanations of the mechanics. I didn't spend a lot of time reading stuff while playing the demo since I knew it was only going to be like half an hour long, no point in getting a tutorial on everything
And I imagine the dual ranger limitation on only allowing one companion familiar for the party was more a glitch or limitation on the engine they used than them actually pro-actively flubbing the idea. But it was still a massive inconvenience. Woulda been nice to have two rangers, one for archery and one for back-stabbing and have a mage and a warrior available, and two attack bears to make up for the lack in brute force by not having another warrior or whatever sacrificed for the second ranger. But oh well. At least now if I ever play the game again, I know all the pit-falls in the rogue trees at least
Master of the Fork
Cid's Knight
Yeah every stat had a description though and they said "this is good for rogues" or warriors or whatever. So I don't see why you would play strength in a spot when you have a mage o.o
There are much better party set-ups than one that involves two rogues specializing as rangers anyway. The ranger specialization is only especially useful in conjunction with a blood mage who can use the summoned beasts as free healing. Otherwise, assassin, duelist, and bard all offer far more in the way of party utility than ranger.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
