Support NeoGAF

[Reluctant-Hero]

I'm almost ready for DA2. I just finished the Landsmeet lay night and I'm ready for the end-game. This second DA:O play-through of mine has just hit 70 hours. I think I can pound out Awakening, Golems, and Witch Hunt in another 30 hours.

So I won't really play DA2 until I've got my primary save state ready to go. But I'm taking Friday off so I can fully immerse myself in DA2.

All the dialog talk over the last few pages have been really interesting. I have to agree that BioWare us pandering to the lowest common denominator with their dialog wheel. But on the other hand; the wide, modern, audience they want to reach WOULD NOT be able to handle the long dialog trees of Baldur's Gate or Planescape. The DAO stats are proof of this. Hell, I'm sure there are people who skipped a few posts in this thread and thought "TL;DR".

DA2 has been simplified, but I'm still happy we're getting more of the series. I've watched several streams and everything I've seen tells me that, on consoles, DA2 will be an excellent experience.

 

[hiryu]

Yay, my PC signature edition shipped from Amazon today.

 

[Gorgon]

When you do it like that, with long deep text, you're basically doing all the work for the player as it is: it just becomes a multiple choice question with all the work already shown.

If it was layed out as mentoned above, with just the conclusions, it would be harder and require more of the player. How is that "dumbed down"?



Anyway it's all unimportant really. The main issue that everyone is dancing around (the pro are ignoring and the anti are slamming and blaming on unrelated things like the input method itself) is making the 'correct' choice too easy. This is f actor of three things:

1. "Good" morally is "Good" tactically 99% of the time.
2. "Good" morally is always up-right and up-left
3. Up-left is always better than up-right since it gives you points.

you can solve all three of those things while still using a wheel.

Problem is, in the Planescape example, you don't know wich one is good or even if there is a good option. That's the point. You don't know what the NPC reaction will be to your argument, like in real life. It will depend on nuance and argument. With the "Good" Bioware option, you automatically make the goodie-two-shoes answer and the only difference in NPC reaction is based on him beying good or bad, if at all, as in a black and white world. No nuance, nothing. It's not even close to be comparable in the potential outcomes of the conversation.

Of course I do, but figuring out the NPC reaction is only part of the puzzle. The other part is working out the actual moral issue first: but most of that is done for you in the planescape example. The entire reasoning behind each choice is given as part of the answer- already written by the developer- it's just up to the player to agree with one or not.

If just the conclusions were given you would still have to arrive at the conclusions yourself in order to figure out which one you should choose.

How do you work the moral issue when your option are "good", "bad", "sarcastic"? What does a wheel system gives you? In your example you're also agreeing with one of the options given to you by the developer, with the added negative that you don't even know what the developer is giving your character as an argument. What exactely is better about that? It's a system that promotes braindeadness.

 

[Pooya]

Why you need to run in DirectX11 to see the benefits of hires textures? it should look better regardless :\ I imagine it's due to tessellation on ground etc?!

 

[Einbroch]

Problem is, in the Planescape example, you don't know wich one is good or even if there is a good option. That's the point. You don't know what the NPC reaction will be to your argument, like in real life. It will depend on nuance and argument. With the "Good" Bioware option, you automatically make the goodie-two-shoes answer and the only difference in NPC reaction is based on him beying good or bad, black or white. No nuance, nothing. It's not even close to be comparable.

Except it does change in DA2, if only slightly. If you investigate further (left question mark), the answers and the attitude of your response does change. It's not a full blown system like Planescape, but it's not black/white, is he good/evil, it's about the point in the conversation.

I'm going to post something below that is somewhat of a spoiler. Not a big one, as many of you have played the demo and DA:O, but it's about a character in the first game that plays a big role in numero dos. I won't even spoil events.

Spoiler

Flemeth talks to you about doing a favor for her. There is a point where she makes a joke about how you should have wings because you can fly to a destination. If you choose the diplomatic answer, she thinks you're boring. If you choose the aggresive answer, she thinks you have no patience. Because she just made a joke, the correct answer is the sarcastic one. She laughs and agrees with you, calling you clever. Later in the conversation she hints that she wants immediate action, thus aggressive is the "correct" choice.

Does the above have the depth and complete immersion/empathy of Planescape? No. Does it effect the game? No. But it IS much better than Mass Effects "Dammit I'm a good character so UP-RIGHT FOR ME!".

 

[Speculator]

Why you need to run in DirectX11 to see the benefits of hires textures? it should look better regardless :\ I imagine it's due to tessellation on ground etc?!

It should be compatible with all settings regardless of the directx version you are using.

 

[webrunner]

Problem is, in the Planescape example, you don't know wich one is good or even if there is a good option. That's the point. You don't know what the NPC reaction will be to your argument, like in real life. It will depend on nuance and argument. With the "Good" Bioware option, you automatically make the goodie-two-shoes answer and the only difference in NPC reaction is based on him beying good or bad, black or white. No nuance, nothing. It's not even close to be comparable.





How do you work the moral issue when your option are "good", "bad", "sarcastic"? What does a wheel system gives you? In your example you're also agreeing with one of the options given to you by the developer, with the added negative that you don't even know what the developer is giving your character as an argument. What exactely is better about that? It's a system that promotes braindeadness.

Well the thing is, a wheel system as an input device doesn't really do much over a list, but it does have the bonus of working better with a controller and being much quicker when you know your answer.

They really could just have a wheel on the console version and a list on the PC version and keep everything else exactly the same.

The wheel doesn't need to have an obvious "right" answer. It can have "nice" or "mean" or "sarcastic" sure. but it doesnt need a specific answer choice with giant neon signs that say "PRESS THIS TO MAKE HER LIKE YOU". The fact ME1 and 2 had this was their greatest problem.

The thing is, an ME2-style wheel in DAO could have gone two ways:
Is "up" the "morally right choice"
or is "up" the "nice to the person you're talking to choice"

Because if you're talking to, say, Morrigan, the "right" answers aren't always nice to other people, even if they're nice to her. They dont have a truly "ultra-renegade" type character in ME2 so you never encounter a situation where those two answer wouldn't be the same one. Usually if the character didn't agree with the paragon choice, the paragon answer was "diplomatic" instead of "You're a monster!" or some variant.

if it were ever possible to drive a character off by picking "paragon" answers, for example, it would make the wheel a lot better a pill to swallow.

As for the moral issue, you don't need to know what the developer is givng your character as an argument, when it's really the *answer* that matters. You, as the player, have to come up with your own reasoning (even if it happens to be different then the one your character eventually says) before you can even begin to pick an answer. If it's already written out it's just a matter of saying "nope i disagree with that part.. that part.. that part.. that part.. okay it's that one" and moving on. The only thing that takes a long time is actually reading it. You dont even really have to fully understand it.

 

[Gorgon]

Does the above have the depth and complete immersion/empathy of Planescape? No. Does it effect the game? No. But it IS much better than Mass Effects "Dammit I'm a good character so UP-RIGHT FOR ME!".

I don't disagree with you on that. The case in point, however, is that you simply CAN'T have the nuance, the complex argumentation with subtil but important differences, etc, as close as possible to real life (again, within the limits of a game) that is part of a word-for-word system in a wheel system. you have to dumb down the entire thing to fit the structure and limitations of what a wheel system gives you. It's going from a flawed but serviceable system that has witstood the test of time (how da fuck do I write that, lol) and shown its adaptability and functionality in games like Torment and The Witcher to a system that has brought nothing but dumbing down upon dumbing down to CRPGs.

 

[Reluctant-Hero]

Except it does change in DA2, if only slightly. If you investigate further (left question mark), the answers and the attitude of your response does change. It's not a full blown system like Planescape, but it's not black/white, is he good/evil, it's about the point in the conversation.

I'm going to post something below that is somewhat of a spoiler. Not a big one, as many of you have played the demo and DA:O, but it's about a character in the first game that plays a big role in numero dos. I won't even spoil events.

Spoiler

Flemeth talks to you about doing a favor for her. There is a point where she makes a joke about how you should have wings because you can fly to a destination. If you choose the diplomatic answer, she thinks you're boring. If you choose the aggresive answer, she thinks you have no patience. Because she just made a joke, the correct answer is the sarcastic one. She laughs and agrees with you, calling you clever. Later in the conversation she hints that she wants immediate action, thus aggressive is the "correct" choice.

Does the above have the depth and complete immersion/empathy of Planescape? No. Does it effect the game? No. But it IS much better than Mass Effects "Dammit I'm a good character so UP-RIGHT FOR ME!".

Excellent post. I fully agree with part I put in bold.

 

[X-Frame]

Since Amazon never offered Release Day Shipping to me for my Signature Edition since I bought it, I chose One-Day Shipping. Oh well.

My order says Shipping Soon, so I hope I get it tomorrow like everyone else.

 

[webrunner]

I don't disagree with you on that. The case in point, however, is that you simply CAN'T have the nuance, the complex argumentation with subtil but important differences, etc, as close as possible to real life (again, within the limits of a game) that is part of a word-for-word system in a wheel system. you have to dumb down the entire thing to fit the structure and limitations of what a wheel system gives you. It's going from a flawed but serviceable system that has witstood the test of time (how da fuck do I write that, lol) and shown its adaptability and functionality in games like Torment and The Witcher to a system that has brought nothing but dumbing down upon dumbing down to CRPGs.

And you simply can't have the player-puzzling uncertainty and otherwise fluid conversations possible with a wheel system in a word-for-word system.

It's a toss up.

 

[Gorgon]

Well the thing is, a wheel system as an input device doesn't really do much over a list, but it does have the bonus of working better with a controller and being much quicker when you know your answer.

They really could just have a wheel on the console version and a list on the PC version and keep everything else exactly the same.

The wheel doesn't need to have an obvious "right" answer. It can have "nice" or "mean" or "sarcastic" sure. but it doesnt need a specific answer choice with giant neon signs that say "PRESS THIS TO MAKE HER LIKE YOU". The fact ME1 and 2 had this was their greatest problem.

The thing is, an ME2-style wheel in DAO could have gone two ways:
Is "up" the "morally right choice"
or is "up" the "nice to the person you're talking to choice"

Because if you're talking to, say, Morrigan, the "right" answers aren't always nice to other people, even if they're nice to her. They dont have a truly "ultra-renegade" type character in ME2 so you never encounter a situation where those two answer wouldn't be the same one. Usually if the character didn't agree with the paragon choice, the paragon answer was "diplomatic" instead of "You're a monster!" or some variant.

if it were ever possible to drive a character off by picking "paragon" answers, for example, it would make the wheel a lot better a pill to swallow.

FO3 had full text answers and worked fine with a controler. It's really no excuse. And no, you can't substitute the full nuance of the Torment example on a console version for a wheel choice, because you have to loose the entire argument, which is the whole point. It woudn't be Torment, it would be, well, a dumbed down Bioware game.

As for the moral issue, you don't need to know what the developer is givng your character as an argument, when it's really the *answer* that matters. You, as the player, have to come up with your own reasoning (even if it happens to be different then the one your character eventually says) before you can even begin to pick an answer. If it's already written out it's just a matter of saying "nope i disagree with that part.. that part.. that part.. that part.. okay it's that one" and moving on. The only thing that takes a long time is actually reading it. You dont even really have to fully understand it.

Yes, you DO need to know what the argument is. The *answer* is the argument itslef that will elicit a certain response from the NPC based on the nuance of the choice. It's precisely the nuanced responses that make them different choices. I think you're not getting this part and I don't know if the problem is me in trying to explain it. It's written down so that you as a player can schoose the one that you want your cgharacter to say, as opposed to choosing basically nothing and have your character saying something nice based on an icon. And YES, I DO have to fully understand the nuance to make a choice because it makes that choice different from the other ones.

 

[Gorgon]

And you simply can't have the player-puzzling uncertainty and otherwise fluid conversations possible with a wheel system in a word-for-word system.

It's a toss up.

But puzzling at what, for fucks sake? According to your idea, the developers could just as well put the option like this:

1
2
3

and then you choose one randomly so that you can have all the puzzling you want.

 

[webrunner]

FO3 had full text answers and worked fine with a controler. It's really no excuse. And no, you can't substitute the full nuance of the Torment example on a console version for a wheel choice, because you have to loose the entire argument, which is the whole point. It woudn't be Torment, it would be, well, a dumbed down Bioware game.

True, but FO3's dialog choices were pretty dang annoying to navigate with a mouse.

Yes, you DO need to know what the argument is. The *answer* is the argument itslef that will elicit a certain response from the NPC based on the nuance of the choice. It's precisely the nuanced responses that make them different choices. I think you're not getting this part and I don't know if the problem is me in trying to explain it. It's written down so that you as a player can schoose the one that you want your cgharacter to say, as opposed to choosing basically nothing and have your character saying something nice based on an icon. And YES, I DO have to fully understand the nuance to make a choice because it makes that choice different from the other ones.

Yes, you need to know what the argument is. I propose, though, that it's deeper if the player has to figure out the argument and choose an answer based on that, rather than just be given the possible arguments and choose the one they agree with. In this way the quote unquote nuanced choices are more passive.

I need to that I dont like the "THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!" thing that ME does. But you can have a wheel and still not do that.

But puzzling at what, for fucks sake? According to your idea, the developers could just as well put the option like this:

1
2
3

and then you choose one randomly so that you can have all the puzzling you want.

Let me just cut this dodwn to the nub, here:

Let's say you're given a logic puzzle. The answer is "true" or "false".

In a wheel, you are given the following options

TRUE ( ) FALSE

Both give you a "question mark" icon.

Now, in a text version you're given the following.

1. The answer must be TRUE because of some thing that fits all the facts
2. I think the answer is FALSE because of some fallacy


By giving the player the reasoning behind the answers, it robs them of the ability to really puzzle out the answer, just check which answer is right.

 

[Deadly]

True, but FO3's dialog choices were pretty dang annoying to navigate with a mouse.

Did you play with mods?

 

[hiryu]

Since Amazon never offered Release Day Shipping to me for my Signature Edition since I bought it, I chose One-Day Shipping. Oh well.

My order says Shipping Soon, so I hope I get it tomorrow like everyone else.

I did the same and it shipped a few hours ago and is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow.

 

[Gorgon]

True, but FO3's dialog choices were pretty dang annoying to navigate with a mouse.



Yes, you need to know what the argument is. I propose, though, that it's deeper if the player has to figure out the argument and choose an answer based on that, rather than just be given the possible arguments and choose the one they agree with. In this way the quote unquote nuanced choices are more passive.

I need to that I dont like the "THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!" thing that ME does. But you can have a wheel and still not do that.

What's the point of me figuring out an argument when the developer will have writen something 99% different from my argument? In a wheel system I dont have to figure any argument out at all.

Let me just cut this dodwn to the nub, here:

Let's say you're given a logic puzzle. The answer is "true" or "false".

In a wheel, you are given the following options

TRUE ( ) FALSE

Both give you a "question mark" icon.

Now, in a text version you're given the following.

1. The answer must be TRUE because of some thing that fits all the facts
2. I think the answer is FALSE because of some fallacy


By giving the player the reasoning behind the answers, it robs them of the ability to really puzzle out the answer, just check which answer is right.

No, that example is pretty incorrect. In a puzzle like that you wouldn't be given the why BECAUSE it's a puzzle. Your option would only be true or false, like in any puzzle in any game. You're never supplied with the answer. What would be the point of that? Were talking about conversation here. And you talk to someone you know what you're going to say. You simply don't know the exact reaction or the counter argument. That is why the nuance of the full text system is impossible to emulate in a wheel system. It will always have to be dumbed down significantly.

Anyway, I have stuff to do. Can't realy spend more time with this discussion, but you know the gist of my argument, I know yours, we don't agree, so thats that.

PS: you're continuouly assuming, incorrectly, that a full text system tells what the right answer is based on argument. Look again at the pic posted above: there is NO such thing implied. There is no way to know what is right or wrong, simply 6 different and nuanced arguments that have the potential to get different responses from a NPC. All the nuances make the 6 choices different in argument. This is important, because it tries to capture the complexity of a real argument. And you can't have that in a wheel system, because by default it handicaps the possibility of argument in itself, making the game just a press-the-button-to-move-action-along affair with no real depth or thinking required.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Now, in a text version you're given the following.

1. The answer must be TRUE because of some thing that fits all the facts
2. I think the answer is FALSE because of some fallacy


By giving the player the reasoning behind the answers, it robs them of the ability to really puzzle out the answer, just check which answer is right.

And why not just:

1. (Select "True")
2. (Select "False")

? With word-to-word system you can, but don't have to give reasoning, you're not limited; with dialogue wheel, on the other hand, you are limited to excerpts of what your character will say/do.

 

[Futurevoid]

I think you missed the sarcasm of the original post.

Nope. I didn't. I just chose to ignore it and concentrate on the comment I agreed with because my view on the conversation wheel isn't as simplified as "wheel = dumb".

As for AP, no, you really can't compare AP to what was done in Torment, or The Witcher for that matter, Chris Avellone or no Chris Avellone.

Nor did I do any such thing. I noted AP as being a good example of what a good writer could execute with a Mass Effect style conversation wheel. A good example, IMO that having said wheel doesn't automatically equal lack of quality dialogue and interaction.

For the record, very few games out there are Planescape Torment from a writing perspective so I don't look to make comparisons on that front often.

 

[Slackbladder]

I thought the main reason why there are only a limited number of dialogue options, certainly when compared to DAO, is because now the hero has a voice? Perhaps that is the flaw in the dialogue options; Bioware should have kept Hawke a mute.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

I thought the main reason why there are only a limited number of dialogue options, certainly when compared to DAO, is because now the hero has a voice? Perhaps that is the flaw in the dialogue options; Bioware should have kept Hawke a mute.

But that's a bullshit reasoning. Many adventure games and even RPG (The Witcher) have both full written and spoken dialogues.

 

[X-Frame]

I did the same and it shipped a few hours ago and is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow.

Mine said Shipping Soon since 6 AM this morning with a delivery date estimate of March 10th.

 

[aku08]

and how about the fact that as long as i max out the 'speech' stat that my character becomes so "persuasive/intimidating" that it completely by-passes any belief/personality that any character has. they just put in a throw away line that says "you know what, i do not agree with your decision, but you're so intimidating that i'll follow you."

 

[Gorgon]

Nope. I didn't. I just chose to ignore it and concentrate on the comment I agreed with because my view on the conversation wheel isn't as simplified as "wheel = dumb".


Nor did I do any such thing. I noted AP as being a good example of what a good writer could execute with a Mass Effect style conversation wheel. A good example, IMO that having said wheel doesn't automatically equal lack of quality dialogue and interaction.

For the record, very few games out there are Planescape Torment from a writing perspective so I don't look to make comparisons on that front.

Quality of writing you can have in a book or movie without making any choices, so certainly you can have that on a wheel system too. What I disagree with is the interaction part. Maybe for you the way that AP was done is ok, for me it is still a system that gives very limited dialogue meaningfulness for the reasons I already outlined above. It is certainly not the direction I would like CRPGs to go and I hope Obsidian sees that going along with fads isn't going to bring them the success they deserve. They can do better.

And with this I depart the discussion I wish everyone a good time with the game, seriously. It's just not a game for me.

 

[Speculator]

But that's a bullshit reasoning. Many adventure games and even RPG (The Witcher) have both full written and spoken dialogues.

The Witcher 2 is actually adopting a paraphrasing system as well (as seen in the latest videos + walkthroughs).

 

[Xilium]

I agree completely, except when it comes to Alistair. I cant recall the conversations exactly but there were a couple times when I ribbed him and he got totally insulted. That would be fine if his character wasn't a huge jokester. There was no mixup in tone or anything, I knew what I was saying, what bugged me is that Alistair is a person who can dish it out but can't take it.

I suppose thats a character development issue but it actually kinda ticked me off.

I think there are just a few times where he goes all serious business and isn't in the mood for joking around. Specifically I remember that when you first arrive at Recliff and he confronts you about his past, you can make fun of him and though he goes along with it, you loose some affinity with him. I think you can still pull out ahead if you go through that whole dialog being relatively nice.

Fake Edit: I found the dialog tree on the Wiki (some people have too much time on their hands lol)
Looking through some of those I guess I can see how some people might mistake an aggressive response for sarcasm but otherwise it seems most of the joke responses are neutral or positive and those that are negative tend to lead to an expanded dialog tree that allows you to redeem what was lost.

 

[Futurevoid]

Quality of writing you can have in a book or movie without making any choices, so certainly you can have that on a wheel system too. What I disagree with is the interaction part. Maybe for you the way that AP was done is ok, for me it is still a system that gives very limited dialogue meaningfulness for the reasons I already outlined above.

We don't entirely disagree but aren't exactly on the same page either, but fair enough.

 

[subversus]

The Witcher 2 is actually adopting a paraphrasing system as well (as seen in the latest videos + walkthroughs).

yeah, I find it quite funny that people still rage. They won't get a shitton of fully written dialogue choices anyway. Well, may be they'll get them in Dead State, but bitching about "NOT ENOUGH DIALOGUE OPTIONS PLANESCAPE TORMENT WAZ BETTER" in a thread about AAA-game is stupid.

 

[antonz]

It should be compatible with all settings regardless of the directx version you are using.

This is correct the only thing is the very high settings is DX11 only.

 

[Lime]

Does the high-res texture pack work on the demo?

 

[Tadale]

Any idea of when reviews are dropping?

 

[Darklord]

I hope we can get some high-res textures vs very high pictures. I don't want that muddy shit texture on my DX10 card. :\

Any idea of when reviews are dropping?

I heard March 7th so today. Is it the 7th in America yet?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Any idea of when reviews are dropping?

12:01 tonight technically.

 

[Speculator]

This is correct the only thing is the very high settings is DX11 only.

Yup, Very High settings are exclusively DX11 only, it enables features such as tessellation and dynamic lighting. However, there are several DX10 compatible features that can be enabled as well such as SSAO, diffusion DOF, high quality blur, and advanced lighting.

If its unavailable in the game menu, you can alternatively enable it in your ini file as well.

 

[Tadale]

12:01 tonight technically.

Guess I'll have to stay up.

 

[Salaadin]

When does Steam usually put up games? I got the preload all done.

EDIT: Old?
High res texture pack up for download
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6393065/1

 

[ColonelColon]

12:01 tonight technically.

EST?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

It'll be interesting to see what reviewers by and large think of DA2. The PC Gamer review was almost suspiciously glowing, but they're usually a trustworthy magazine, in my opinion.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

It'll be interesting to see what reviewers by and large think of DA2. The PC Gamer review was almost suspiciously glowing, but they're usually a trustworthy magazine, in my opinion.

Can't put a great deal of faith in "early" reviews.

 

[CecilRousso]

There is one question about Dragon Age 2 that I still need an answer to before I decide to buy.

What is the stand out feature of the game? What is it that this game does better than other RPG´s that have been released lately? What makes this game stand out of the crowd?

Story? Characters? Setting? Gameplay? Graphics? Or what?

And yes I need an answer that´s not sarcastical. No one need to answer with "Shit mountain!" or the "press a button" quote from Bioware.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Can't put a great deal of faith in "early" reviews.

Yeah, that's the worry.

 

[Hari Seldon]

It'll be interesting to see what reviewers by and large think of DA2. The PC Gamer review was almost suspiciously glowing, but they're usually a trustworthy magazine, in my opinion.

They have had some huge gafs in the past on early reviews of hyped games (Spore most notably).

I just listened to the PC Gamer UK podcast where they were talking about this. The guy on there pretty much said that the combat is exactly the same. You just click once to attack and then hit the number buttons for specials.

I just want the iso camera back and I will be perfectly content with this sequel. Although hopefully you can ditch the dialogue wheel for when mods are made, because most modders are not going to do VO work.

 

[Sir Garbageman]

Will I have to DL the high res texture pack if I'm buying it off STEAM?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

What is the stand out feature of the game? What is it that this game does better than other RPG´s that have been released lately? What makes this game stand out of the crowd?

Story? Characters? Setting? Gameplay? Graphics? Or what?

Generally stated, what stands out about DA2 is that there still isn't any other RPG quite like it for consoles, and this game looks and controls much better on consoles than DA:O did. People have their doubts about the story, characters and setting when compared to the first game, but we will need at least a week with the game proper before any consensus can be reached about those aspects.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

They have had some huge gafs in the past on early reviews of hyped games (Spore most notably).

I just listened to the PC Gamer UK podcast where they were talking about this. The guy on there pretty much said that the combat is exactly the same. You just click once to attack and then hit the number buttons for specials.

I just want the iso camera back and I will be perfectly content with this sequel. Although hopefully you can ditch the dialogue wheel for when mods are made, because most modders are not going to do VO work.

That's the vibe I got from it. I really think Bioware shot themselves in the foot with the demo, locking a lot of features, the lack of DX10/11, and choosing two very linear segments of the game to showcase. The combat felt just like DA:O, just with a faster pace and sillier animation. I just don't see how the combat is an issue, other than the lack of an isometric camera.

The main thing I'm worried about is the length of it, and the quality of the sidequests.

 

[Hari Seldon]

PC Gamer UK guy said 50 hours, and that is with "most of the sidequests".

 

[Reluctant-Hero]

PC Gamer UK guy said 50 hours, and that is with "most of the sidequests".

I'm totally okay with that. My current DAO run is at 70 hours, just like the first time I played it. If DA2 proves to be a tighter experience at 50 hours, I'll be stoked.

 

[RS4-]

PC Gamer UK guy said 50 hours, and that is with "most of the sidequests".

I think 50 is pretty generous. I'd have to say 30-40 with all the side quests

 

[Grayman]

Evilore should make all Official Threads.

 

[Spookie]

The link is on the same page where you posted.

I just saw. Chrome extensions are sending the browser and posts apeshit by the looks of it. :/