I used those examples because they function differently between the two games which leads to combat being significantly different between the two.
Yes there are wave fights in Origins, they work differently from the ones in DA2. Yes you could shatter enemies in Origins the mechanics are not the same as they are in DA2.
You can keep saying that Origins had those things in it. And you are right, it does. But both games do them differently which adds up to the combat not being the same between the two games.
Edit: Also I disagree that difference have to be fundamental. Fundamental differences would mean that this isn't Dragon Age anymore but maybe more like Fable or Diablo or even Mass Effect.
You seem to be arguing something different. This argument started when WanderingWind claimed that DA2 is "a game that changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor." Of course there are significant differences between the two, but the idea that they are extremely different games is just hyperbole.
You seem to be arguing something different. This argument started when WanderingWind claimed that DA2 is "a game that changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor." Of course there are significant differences between the two, but the idea that they are extremely different games is just hyperbole.
Well I won't put any words into his mouth. But I do think the game made a lot of changes, most of them for the worst in my opinion. But no I wouldn't go so far as to say it changed everything. Its still a bland Bioware RPG after all.
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:
- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
- Speeding up combat is not a fundamental change.
- Rebalancing classes is not a fundamental change.
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
- Neither is giving the main character a voice.
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
- The number of pieces of equipment that can be changed on party members does not constitute a fundamental change.
- Replacing skills that create items that have no use other than in combat with a bench you can use outside of combat to create items that have no use other than in combat is not a fundamental change.
- Replacing a single, depthless "Persuasion" skill that comes up in one in ten conversations with Friendship triggers and/or delegating conversations to companions in about one in ten conversations is definitely not a fundamental change.
- Giving the player the option to make decisions that do nothing is not fundamentally different from giving the player options to make decisions that do nothing except display a single screen of text after the player has already beaten the game.
Edit: Also: You, personally, having a strong fondness for one game and a strong dislike for the other, is not a fundamental change.
Without knowing where you stood on the game and just reading this post: I thought you were being purely facetious until I got to the crafting bullet point. It's just poorly argued/worded, I guess.
You seem to be arguing something different. This argument started when WanderingWind claimed that DA2 is "a game that changed nearly every aspect of its predecessor." Of course there are significant differences between the two, but the idea that they are extremely different games is just hyperbole.
When you can create a list of some 20 odd changes off the top of your head (fundamental or not) it's really not hyperbole. Now, whether or not you agree to the severity of those changes or the effect it had to your overall enjoyment is another matter. Dragon Age:Origins and Dragon Age 2 are extremely different games. And semantic hair splitting between "significantly" different versus "extremely" different notwithstanding, it seems most agree.
When you can create a list of some 20 odd changes off the top of your head (fundamental or not) it's really not hyperbole. Now, whether or not you agree to the severity of those changes or the effect it had to your overall enjoyment is another matter. Dragon Age:Origins and Dragon Age 2 are extremely different games. And semantic hair splitting between "significantly" different versus "extremely" different notwithstanding, it seems most agree.
Fair enough. There's little point in arguing semantics, we both agree that the changes between the two games is enough to justify having a very different opinion toward each one. I certainly liked the first game much better.
I can't imagine anyone honestly liking DA2. Probably because its as bland of a Bioware RPG you can get and there isn't anything really unique or interesting about it.
Well, that's just a legitimate difference of opinion. I tend to not bother with detailed arguments about anything less objective than gameplay mechanics, but for the record personally I think it's the first Bioware fantasy game that hasn't been 100% bland as hell. (And it's still pretty bland, in a lot of the same ways Mass Effect 1 was, but at least in DA2's case that comes down to an extremely truncated development cycle cutting it off at the knees, instead of just being conceptually boring).
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:
- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
- Speeding up combat is not a fundamental change.
- Rebalancing classes is not a fundamental change.
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
- Neither is giving the main character a voice.
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
- The number of pieces of equipment that can be changed on party members does not constitute a fundamental change.
- Replacing skills that create items that have no use other than in combat with a bench you can use outside of combat to create items that have no use other than in combat is not a fundamental change.
- Replacing a single, depthless "Persuasion" skill that comes up in one in ten conversations with Friendship triggers and/or delegating conversations to companions in about one in ten conversations is definitely not a fundamental change.
- Giving the player the option to make decisions that do nothing is not fundamentally different from giving the player options to make decisions that do nothing except display a single screen of text after the player has already beaten the game.
Edit: Also: You, personally, having a strong fondness for one game and a strong dislike for the other, is not a fundamental change.
Finished the game a few days back, 60 or so hours, a few of them spent in the menu as I grabbed a smoke, got food or read up on stuff.
Anyhow, my feelings for the game are mixed. Overall I liked it, and stand by my position that Bioware pretty much killed a lot of the hype for the game by completely bungling the marketing. Negative impressions are easier to reinforce than positive ones, and I think some of the blowback, just some, can be attributed to this.
Not that the game itself was not flawed. It was rushed to shit. I'm actually pretty amazed that they were able to get this thing out and done in what had to have been between 12-18 months of dev time. That is pretty absurd all things considered. It needed probably another year in the cooker, and that's just a fact.
Still the game itself did a lot of things right, very right. It's just a shame that it also did something wrong to compensate in almost every situation.
Lot to go through, so let's get started:
Characters: Bioware did a great job here IMO. Aveline and Varric are among the best characters ever in a Bioware game, and the others aren't far behind. In RPGs you rarely feel that characters have a life outside of you, the main character and that was never the case here. Small things like giving each character a home, or place of work, did wonders for making them feel more real, and the fact that they could permanently leave based on your decisions was great as well. DA did the latter, DA2 does it better.
Moving on, the banter in this game was exceptional. There was SO much of it and it was generally of high quality. DA:O's was great, but DA2 just knocked it out of the park. Watching the relationships of the different characters in your party evolve over the 7 years the game takes place is something special. An example would be
Isabella and Aveline's hatred, to eventual acceptance of each other. It was capped off when Aveline asked why Isabella didn't go to a party she and Donnic threw. The response from Isabella was great, and it felt like the two had come to be if not friends, then family.
Whether or not you liked these characters better than DA:O is a matter of preference, but I thought the writing for them, the dialogue between them, and the robustness of them makes this game special, despite its other flaws.
Story: I'm of two minds when it comes to the story in this game. I actually love the idea of the framed narrative, I like that the plot is in no way about saving the world (too few games attempt this), and I especially like that for the first time in ages Bioware moved away from its formula. The overall Mage/Templar conflict is interesting, and I like the idea of building oneself up from rags to riches within the confines of a city.
On the other hand, the story, like much in this game was rushed. Act 3 in particular felt like there was much more planned for it, but they were up against some hard deadlines, and so it had to be cut or condensed. It felt especially awkward that
there was no real ability to pick sides before the end of Act 3, even if you had been doing so in the first couple of acts.
The effects of your choices felt strong in the first couple of acts, and at the end of Act 3, but the lead up could have been stronger. The game could have also have benefited from more use of the framed narrative as opposed to the opening and closing of each act.
Then there is the
idol.
Much like Malachor V in KOTOR 2, this aspect, key to much of the plot, was never explained well, and felt a it Deus ex Machina.
Meredith was already going too far before she got her hands on it, and Mages were already turning to Blood Magic without it influencing her. If we had a greater understanding of just what it was and why, that would have been great. Sadly it was not to be.
I did however like the fact that
there was no good choice between the Mages and the Templars at the end of the game. Both were out of control, both were doing what the others were accusing them of, and I liked that no matter who I sided with, I felt like an asshole. However, things like the choice dealing with Anders felt kinda rushed and mishandled. I would have preferred an option to make him help defend the mages and then die afterwords.
Setting: Kirkwall was probably Bioware's best city design since BG2. Sadly that isn't saying a whole lot. The game could have done much better with more time, IMO, mainly because even though the areas are well put together, there simply isn't enough of them. This gets even worse in the exterior areas, great locales, but simply too small to be worth much. It felt that Awakening had more unique areas at times than DA2 did.
Gameplay: Combat was fun, but ill balanced. There were quite a few great encounters in the game. I played on Hard and loved quite a bit of it. Where it became problematic were the boss and elite creatures. Bosses had all together too many hit points, and that coupled with the ability to one shot party members made for some annoying fights. The End of Act 2 and the Dragon fights seemed particularly awful in that regard. I also HATED the Rogue and Mage enemies that were Elite or higher. Enemies that could stealth/teleport as well as deal huge damage while being immune to many of the CC abilities in the game just felt broken. Some of the fights where there were 2 or more high HP rogue enemies were just plain painful to play. It's a shame because the basics of the combat were sound. I loved most fights in the game, but every once in a while the game would throw you for a loop, and really cheese the hell out of you.
As far as conversations went. I liked the dialog wheel more than I thought I would. It worked well, and the lack of a paragon/renegade meter allowed for a lot more flexibility in roleplaying. Having additional options based on who was in your party, your class, or what previous quests you had completed was also quite effective. The Friendship/Rivalry mechanic was also much improved over the straight approval meter in DA:O. It's not perfect, but probably the best influence system I have seen in an RPG thus far. Still, options felt very limited in the game's last act. Which is a shame, because acts 1 and 2 had some meaty choices.
Overall: To me this game reminds me of KOTOR 2, a more personal, darker story that was rushed in its final hours and it shows. If one can get past the repetition and abrupt finale, there is quite a lot to love in the game, and I came away more positive than negative by a great margin. Still, I can understand the complaints many have about the game itself. The game has issues, and I think a lot of them (repetition, the ending) came from a development cycle about half as long as the game probably needed.
There is a lot of forward thinking design in the game, especially when it comes to characters and storytelling, but it comes off as a bit muddled. I don't know who set the development cycle for the game, but clearly DA needs at LEAST a full 2 years to iterate, if not more.
If we're talking about fundamental changes, then how about the way backstabbing works? I played a sword rogue in DA:O (which isn't even possible in DA2) and the positional requirements for backstabbing was a serious part of how a rogue did damage. Now, I can be just about anywhere on the field and press the backstab button and my character will jump over to the mob and attack from behind. On top of that, there's a cooldown on how often I can even do it. It's not even the same thing. My character felt more like a rogue in Origins, in DA2 I just hit a button when it lights up. It plays completely different.
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:
- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
- Speeding up combat is not a fundamental change.
- Rebalancing classes is not a fundamental change.
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
- Neither is giving the main character a voice.
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
- The number of pieces of equipment that can be changed on party members does not constitute a fundamental change.
- Replacing skills that create items that have no use other than in combat with a bench you can use outside of combat to create items that have no use other than in combat is not a fundamental change.
- Replacing a single, depthless "Persuasion" skill that comes up in one in ten conversations with Friendship triggers and/or delegating conversations to companions in about one in ten conversations is definitely not a fundamental change.
- Giving the player the option to make decisions that do nothing is not fundamentally different from giving the player options to make decisions that do nothing except display a single screen of text after the player has already beaten the game.
Edit: Also: You, personally, having a strong fondness for one game and a strong dislike for the other, is not a fundamental change.
I came into the game expecting a wildly different game, and somehow it doesn't feel all that different. Felt like Mass Effect -> Mass Effect 2, only with some less pleasant changes.
What I don't like is that the game feels less "adventure-y" that DA:O. No subtle additions like like your path in the map like DA:O, switching day/night with a button, the same freaking reused environments...I just don't get the excitement of visiting new places and such. But perhaps that's the developer's intention, and perhaps I just saw a small part of the game since I'm just 5 hours in.
Nevertheless I enjoyed the game. This is the first time I played a female in an RPG!
Finally picked this up for PC once it had dropped in price at Amazon (think you can get new copies for about $35 total at the moment) and put some hours in it today. Don't think my impressions are that different from what I've seen in this thread - some nice ideas that are either better than or just refreshingly different from Origins, but also parts that really seem like a step back or are just plain rushed and poorly executed. I'm starting to run into the copy-paste areas, and I keep thinking, "how did those thugs not run into those darkspawn / beasts that were just here an hour ago? Oh wait, this isn't supposed to be the same dungeon, this is supposedly a different area of Kirkwall that happens to have the exact same layout".
In terms of the small things I'm liking / disliking:
- I REALLY like that codex entries pop up for you to read - codex was clunky to navigate in Origins so I skipped a lot of entries (and it's still clunky here, but at least you see the full entry first). It's a minor but really convenient change that helps you keep up with all the world-building details if you want, or ignore if you don't.
- Armor / loot system in Origins wasn't perfect, but DA2's just seems worse. What's the point of the junk trinkets with random names and no graphics? I'm in no danger of filling my inventory (I was always running up against the limit in DA:O) because 90% of what you find is just plain useless, and you only get a silver or two for selling dozens of items in any case.
- Facial models - this kind of reminds me of the change from the Sims 2 to the Sims 3, where they went from more cartoony but defined faces to "softer" and supposedly more realistic features. I'm not a fan of the change in artstyle - it's harder to create distinctive looking faces, and everyone looks like they have leftover babyfat. Anders apparently not only lost his sense of humor from Awakenings, but his muscle tone as well - total butterface now. Had to download a mod for him
- Story-wise, I do like the occasional references to the first game; I thought it was great they
gave you some background on the Circle Mage and the Amell family. That really seemed like a missed opportunity in the first game; to give REAL fleshed-out "origins" stories for the characters
. And reading through the codex entries, I'm often impressed at the thought and detail that went into the background writing (dialogue's a different matter, unfortunately). At the same time those little scraps highlight how many missed opportunities and holes there are in the story.
So yeah, it's not a "bad" game, and I'll definitely put several hours in and finish it and enjoy it, but already I can tell this won't have the replay appeal of the first one, and it seems like wasted potential and a disappointment given what it was coming off of.
- I REALLY like that codex entries pop up for you to read - codex was clunky to navigate in Origins so I skipped a lot of entries (and it's still clunky here, but at least you see the full entry first). It's a minor but really convenient change that helps you keep up with all the world-building details if you want, or ignore if you don't.
I disliked that it didn't do that for all codex entries. You loot a weapon or armor or something, you don't get the codex on screen, just that box that says "new codex entry". The full entry pops up only for things where you're examining a book or some other piece of the environment.
Somewhat related is that theres no "info" button when you're looting things. Have to go into your inventory to see the stats on whatever you picked up. Which is annoying when you pick up like 10 things in a row named "Ring".
Somewhat related is that theres no "info" button when you're looting things. Have to go into your inventory to see the stats on whatever you picked up. Which is annoying when you pick up like 10 things in a row named "Ring".
Yeah, I'm not really understanding why they put in the effort to make up names for all the random useless crap you find in the world ("Torn Trousers!" "Flawed Ruby!" "Stained Bottle!"), but when it comes to actual equipment and accessories with different stats it's "Ring", "Amulet" and "Belt".
Name one single thing that constitutes a fundamental change from one game to the other. I'll helpfully point out a few things that are definitely not fundamental changes:
- Changing the camera angle is not a fundamental change.
The camera change is a pretty drastic overhaul for me in terms of how placing spells works in Dragon Age. In Origins, I found myself switching to the overhead perspective any time combat initiated. This was a good means of spotting ranged enemies on ridges, boss mobs, group layout, etc. Pulling the camera back proved not only to be an invaluable tactical tool, but also one that could be utilized to great extent in the heat of combat.
Placing spells in DA2 is like some twisted joke. Without the overhead view precise placement becomes difficult, and the game compounds that with an overly sensitive auto-snap-to-enemy feature that makes AOE placement a hassle. Every single time I would cast Blizzard or a wide range spell that would affect the entire battlefield I would pull my camera all the way back. It's obvious that the design of DA2 puts an inhibitor on the range of AOE spells to try to keep the more manageable with the vastly inferior over the shoulder targeting system.
By itself it might not have a very severe impact, but the change in game speed in conjunction with the now lengthy cooldown timers present on most abilities means the game becomes more focused on white damage (aka auto-attack/button mashing depending on your version). It makes for a very dumbed down, and frankly boring game if the flashy animations don't bedazzle you.
I personally think the cooldown extension is irrefutable.
Origin's Arcane Bolt (6s) vs. DA2's Spirit Bolt (10s)
Origin's Force Field (30s) vs. DA2's Barrier (45s)
Origin's Walking Bomb (20s) vs. DA2's Walking Bomb (30s)
Origin's Arcane Bolt (6s) vs. DA2's Spirit Bolt (10s)
Origin's Heal (5s) vs. DA2's Heal (40s)
Origin's Vulnerability/Affliction Hex (20s) vs. DA2's Hex of Torment (30s)
Origin's Horror (20s) vs. DA2's Horror (25s)
Origin's Winter Grasp (8s) vs. DA2's Winter Grasp (20s)
Most notably the basic spell casts intended to be used for low mana cost single target damage (like WG and Arcane/Spirit Bolt) have been pushed aside in order for the user to have more time for auto attacks.
To further exasperate this issue, DA2 consolidates a number of Origin's talents/spells, as well as removing many others. So by the time you actually do have cooldowns available to use the number available to you is severely limited, and often just defaults to what is up rather than what spell would work best for the situation.
As a general tally you are looking at roughly 182 unique spells in Origins (leniently not counting stealth variants/Shale abilities/Shapeshift abilities/Dog talents) versus the 102 in DA2. In essence, the sped up combat winds up being a big deal with the push to the simplification of auto-attack heavy combat. It means less time in pause issuing new spell orders and more time in flashy real time attack mash mode.
Coxswain said:
- Moving dialogue options from a single, sequential list to a standardized, semi-graphical array is not a fundamental change.
As much as I would like to believe this, I find little evidence to support such a claim.
The new system is a deceptive means of portraying choice. Most roads lead to the same destination, and the variation induced by the player revolves solely around the tone of Hawke rather than the content of the discussion. The system also pushes players to repeat a single tonal choice over and over to not only attempt to create some kind of character consistency, but also for rewards. Choosing aggressive dialogue options is only available after choosing that so many times in conversations, so players going down that path are pushed further and further down it and penalized for dabbling in others.
Coxswain said:
- Nor is it a fundamental shift for the main character to always be human.
I think this would largely depend on how you played Origins. Often times being a Dwarf or an Elf was an integral part of the story, and your specific upbringing within that community would shape how the story played out. The player's original choice of background was something that would come up between NPCs and influence dialogue trees, could help tie the player closer to companions with a similar background, and played an integral role in the return to the area of Origin. Even a small thing like a Dwarven Noble background influencing how you can interact with Alistair because you've got a shared thread of being from the ruling class winds up feeling like a big deal. So yes, having a single point of origin in DA2 was something that severely dragged down my experience.
Q: Could prolonging development time for the game result in a better variety within the city itself and avoiding reused areas, as seen in the game?
A: Obviously, more time would enable more areas and bigger variation. Honestly, we did not expect this to be such a big deal, but it seems the subject gave rise to a significant number of complaints by both critics and players alike. We listen to the reviews and we will try to address the issue in future games.
Everyone: The side missions are repetitive as fuck! Stop with the copy & paste bullshit!
BioWare: Understood! Every mass effect 2 mission will be in a unique area!
Everyone: Yay! GOTY!
Dragon Age 2 is released
Everyone:
BioWare: What? You don't like copy & paste areas? Golly gosh, we had no idea.
The new system is a deceptive means of portraying choice. Most roads lead to the same destination, and the variation induced by the player revolves solely around the tone of Hawke rather than the content of the discussion. The system also pushes players to repeat a single tonal choice over and over to not only attempt to create some kind of character consistency, but also for rewards. Choosing aggressive dialogue options is only available after choosing that so many times in conversations, so players going down that path are pushed further and further down it and penalized for dabbling in others.
Apparently, your dialog options are pushed more towards what you have been picking. So if I'm always an arsehole, and want to be nice, I might not get the dialog option to do it.
Act 1 is horrible. That's all I got. I just avoid comparing it to BG2. There you got a goal of get 25,000 gold and it resulted in some of the best side quests ever. Here you get a goal of 50 gold and then you get some of the most boring unoriginal quest design you can imagine.
I think this would largely depend on how you played Origins. Often times being a Dwarf or an Elf was an integral part of the story, and your specific upbringing within that community would shape how the story played out. The player's original choice of background was something that would come up between NPCs and influence dialogue trees, could help tie the player closer to companions with a similar background, and played an integral role in the return to the area of Origin. Even a small thing like a Dwarven Noble background influencing how you can interact with Alistair because you've got a shared thread of being from the ruling class winds up feeling like a big deal. So yes, having a single point of origin in DA2 was something that severely dragged down my experience.
When I played a Dalish, I loved these choices. I kept calling EVERYONE on their speciest shit. Especially the shop keeper at Ostagar. Oh, did I have fun making him squirm.
I figured it totally fit that a Dalish Elf wouldn't take shit from any Shemlen.
But Origins did a lot of stuff like that. In some conversations you could go say you are a grey warden or just tell your name to some one or just be a complete ass hole. I mean you were still moving along the same old plot but at least your character had the option of saying that nope, don't give a shit about being a grey warden I just like to kill people and take their money.
It comes up fairly rarely. In fact I wasn't even sure it existed until I was messing around in a second playthrough.
Essentially, aggressive or nice choices can come up for players at certain points throughout the game. As an example, at one point in the game you might be given the choice to threaten some dockworker with a knife for more information to avoid having to pay him. This aggressive option will show up for every player, but if you haven't chosen enough aggressive options throughout the game up until that point the guy will call you on your shit and say you wouldn't kill someone in broad daylight.
I did enjoy having Isabella and Aveline in my party and hearing Isabella suggest to Aveline that she stick her thumb up her new husbands ass as a way of spicing things up.
Damn, I started Origins walkthrough as a noble human rogue and this game IS SO MUCH BETTER. Even if it is generic it has charm in it and it feels good playing it, talking to people and so on. Dialogue options make sense and allow broad range of replies which won't sound like the opposite of what you was going to say (Mass Effect did it right, while DAII failed). Combat speed allows to build tactics. Also the game has a lot of things to explore and people to talk. I forgot how good it was.
I wish Bioware made BGII remake so I could enjoy it properly.
Playing Origins reminded me of how shitty DAII is.
also the game still block me out of premium content, I'll call support tommorow. Not that I need this shit really, I'll replace Shale with Leliana whom I missed on my first walkthrough.
When I played a Dalish, I loved these choices. I kept calling EVERYONE on their speciest shit. Especially the shop keeper at Ostagar. Oh, did I have fun making him squirm.
I figured it totally fit that a Dalish Elf wouldn't take shit from any Shemlen.
Oh, I had more fun with a City Elf. Especially running into Cailan at Ostagar.
"My advisors don't allow me down to the Alienage, how are things there?"
"Well, I killed a human noble who killed my fiancee' and raped my cousin. Thanks for asking."
Oh, I had more fun with a City Elf. Especially running into Cailan at Ostagar.
"My advisors don't allow me down to the Alienage, how are things there?"
"Well, I killed a human noble who killed my fiancee' and raped my cousin. Thanks for asking."
Oh, I had more fun with a City Elf. Especially running into Cailan at Ostagar.
"My advisors don't allow me down to the Alienage, how are things there?"
"Well, I killed a human noble who killed my fiancee' and raped my cousin. Thanks for asking."
also the game still block me out of premium content, I'll call support tommorow. Not that I need this shit really, I'll replace Shale with Leliana whom I missed on my first walkthrough.
Make sure that the DAupdater service is running, it doesn't always start up. There's a huge thread for DLC problems on the official forums that I'm too lazy to dig up right now, but it should be easy to find anyway. Don't waste your money trying to call their support hotline.
I get the feeling that most people who defended it pre-launch and for a short while after only did so because PC gamers were complaining. Now that the game is out and everyone knows what it is, they can't just admit they were wrong and anyone whose worries were confirmed are just haters.
Make sure that the DAupdater service is running, it doesn't always start up. There's a huge thread for DLC problems on the official forums that I'm too lazy to dig up right now, but it should be easy to find anyway. Don't waste your money trying to call their support hotline.
Every time I had a problem with DLC it was because the service wasn't running. Win+R -> services.msc, start it manually if it's not running and try again. I think you can even tab out on the main screen to do it. If it doesn't 'stick' and you're on Windows 7, running the relevant .exe in administrator mode might help.
Dance In My Blood said:
It comes up fairly rarely. In fact I wasn't even sure it existed until I was messing around in a second playthrough.
Essentially, aggressive or nice choices can come up for players at certain points throughout the game. As an example, at one point in the game you might be given the choice to threaten some dockworker with a knife for more information to avoid having to pay him. This aggressive option will show up for every player, but if you haven't chosen enough aggressive options throughout the game up until that point the guy will call you on your shit and say you wouldn't kill someone in broad daylight.
....3.2.4. Uninstalling and reinstalling Dragon Age Updater Service if you receive errors at point 3.2.2 or everything else failed.
1.)
Windows XP : Press the windows key + R (or click Start and then RUN) and type cmd and press ENTER
Windows Vista & 7 : Run CMD as administrator as per section 3.1.5
2.)
Naviguate to c:\\Windows\\Microsoft.NET\\Framework\\v2.0.50727\ \
Perform these commands to do so (your prompt should be in Windows\\System32 by default) :
net stop DAUpdaterSvc
cd..
cd Microsoft.NET
cd Framework
cd v2.0.50727
installutil /u "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Dragon Age\\bin_ship\\DAUpdaterSvc.Service.exe"
installutil "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Dragon Age\\bin_ship\\DAUpdaterSvc.Service.exe"
net start DAUpdaterSvc
Make sure to use the path where your game is actually installed (something like c:\\Program Files\\Steam\\steamapps\\common\\Dragon Age\\ for Steam for exemple)
In case you don't have the exact same Framework version, etc... the Framework path won't work. I suggest you perform a normal file search in Windows for the file installutil.exe and note the full path and substitute your own folders to match.
I do think Dragon Age II is running up against some elements of Origins, and it's not something we went into completely blind. We certainly knew there would be some friction between what Origins players have come to expect and what Dragon Age II delivers.
The overall goal there was to keep the companions in a place where they had more personality, but still provide customization in terms of amulets and rings, because having things like fire resistance is important.
It's something that resolves one of the parts I really disliked about Origins where I'd see people's screenshots with their badass team and they would kind of all look the same. Near the end of the game, everyone had the same set of suits of armor.
Well I'm glad the decision was made so he would be more satisfied with the screenshots rather than have the fans satisfied with the game. So now when he sees the screenshots... they'll all look the same anyway?
Removing tactical camera:
The perspective we had for the tactical camera in Origins, with its extreme pull-up, created a very different approach for the way we designed levels. What it really created was restrictions on the way we designed levels. Things like Hightown with the chantry vaulting up into the distance would have been very difficult to achieve in that kind of tactical camera simply because of the way spaces and levels were constructed. With that in mind, we looked at getting enough space to move the camera in and out to be able to position it, and I think the main complaint seems to be that it's tethered to my character. At the same time, it's something that represents a change that's still very playable. It's just become a hot-button issue because it's a difference between Origins and Dragon Age II.
You couldn't have the chantry in hightown with the tactical camera. What?
On where DA is and is going:
We wanted to make RPGs, especially fantasy RPGs, accessible, cool, and interesting to people who have been playing RPGs for the last seven years and not realizing that every time they ate food or went for a long run in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, they were essentially grinding constitution.
To me, that represents a huge audience that may have disregarded RPGs, especially fantasy, as being too hardcore or too confusing. And making certain changes to make the game palatable without ripping out the mechanics that make RPGs so fascinating to a stats guy or what have you. It keeps this genre evolving into something that's fresh and not stagnating.
The gist of the whole thing seems to be "We made the right decisions, the game is exactly where we wanted it to be, expect more of the same for DA3 with a few tweaks. We've evolved the genre, so get on board or get out of the way."
Well I'm glad the decision was made so he would be more satisfied with the screenshots rather than have the fans satisfied with the game. So now when he sees the screenshots... they'll all look the same anyway?
Removing tactical camera:
You couldn't have the chantry in hightown with the tactical camera. What?
On where DA is and is going:
The gist of the whole thing seems to be "We made the right decisions, the game is exactly where we wanted it to be, expect more of the same for DA3 with a few tweaks. We've evolved the genre, so get on board or get out of the way."
Fuck this guy and fuck Bioware's new direction to capture the dudebros and the casuals. I hope Mass Effect 3 takes place entirely on Earth and "evolves" into a barely interactive corridor shooter like Call of Duty with a focus on gimmicky progression-based team-deathmatch multiplayer. Then they can announce some kind of shift to Facebook and mobile gaming and I can happily forget about them forever.
The gist of the whole thing seems to be "We made the right decisions, the game is exactly where we wanted it to be, expect more of the same for DA3 with a few tweaks. We've evolved the genre, so get on board or get out of the way."
My God, man. Usually when the audience has an outcry about a particular element of a game, the dev would be like "we admit, that didn't quite work. We'll try something different in the next game." Here, this guy has gone through numerous interviews with this "I SEE NOTHING WRONG HERE" aura, even despite how even a fair amount of people who liked DAII still have issue with certain things (like reused maps/dungeons).
