Personally I'd rather have a game that is well optimized for midrange computers than one that pulls out all the stops.
I don't plan on upgrade my senile-old build just yet and I choose a fluid experience over a choppy, but 'nextgen' experience any day.
Well story is important in Bioware games, and nothing breaks immersion in a story like the notion of actual money in-game.
As I said, it's not due to the AI, but to Origins being a great game. In just don't equate feeling like an MMO with the AI, and more with the lack of that engrossing storytelling experience.
At least they've chosen area's instead of total open world. That should give them the chance to build up to those controlled interactions that make their stories enthralling and fun.
I don't beleive they've given up their way of telling stories just to be open world.
That is a long post...
So, from what I can remember:
- playing the multiplayer solo sounds an awful lot like grinding missions, quests that aren't tied in to the story much (or indeed, at all
-> hence the Diablo-esque criticism
- I still haven't seen a single keyboard/mouse presentation of the game. Thus I'm not yet reassured by what I've seen of the tactical combat.
- The combat is too fast to my liking, pa...
So it's multiplayer. Just another step away from realtimewithpause (can't pause in co-op)in the direction of an action-rpg.
Resources from the studio taken away from singeplayer content such as storytelling, sidequests, lore, visuals.
The next Dragon Age is probably either an action-MMO, or a party-based Diablo-clone. With romancable characters of course, it's still sorta Bioware.
Single player RPG's feeling like MMO's is not a good thing.
I've not played a single MMO I liked as much as Origins, so if that's due to bad AI, please screw up the AI! (luckily it isn't because of the AI, but becuase of an engrossing story, memorable locations and decent combat mechanics).
Sad to see someone disliking exactly those things that make the game great in my opinion. I get the point about the story though, it isn't exactly gripping. All in all, while some of the raving reviews might have been too much, a 5/10 feels harsh.
Throughout the interview, the Ausgamers guy keeps calling it an 'action-rpg'. Makes me want to hit him through my screen.
Stop calling it that.
Stop turning it into that.
Tactical, Isometric RPG, not mashy slashy whirly flurry.
Unity gives you co-op gameplay, stealth-mechanics, parkouring down, ...
but mostly, a city that is actually big. With buildings that are actually high. Crowds that are actually vast.
And the interiors is going to be one building in every four, which is unlike any AC game before.
That said, it's AC, apart from black flag, they've always felt like expansions on the same game rather than new ones.
So an article written to complain about Bioware, but the writers don't even know that Origins didn't have weapon/armor degradation?
Plus stamina and mana regen has always been in the games.
'True fans of the series', these guys.
Repairing weapons always feels more like work than fun.
The classbound weapons are a shame, but not that unexpected. Even if they're not classbound, in most RPG's there are other mechanics that make up the difference. (for example: a steelclad mage has barely any magicka, a rogue doesn't have the strength to carry decent swords, a warrior lacks the dexterity to properly shoot a bow)
'More details', we already knew that mages are magicky types, and rogues stab folks in the back. Anyone who ha ever played a DA game knows what the races are. That's not 'more'.
RPG and Strategy is apparantly taken very losely. I'm thinking DA: Inquisition, Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Beyond Earth, and maybe Pokemon.
The Sims and The Walking Dead simply are neither strategy nor RPG. (For that matter, I'm not sure Shadow of Mordor will eb either, though it'll have RPG-elements, it seems more like an action title)
I would add a Red Alert, at the very least one of the Command and Conquers. Simply the best non-medieval classic rts series.
I don't know about vocal minority, but I see it in terms of doing right by your (original) fanbase. Origins was made for the fans of the Baldur's Gate games, and along the way theyseem to have catered to those loyal fans less and less.
To broaden their audience they seem to want to include both the tactical and the action-crowd. But the nature of a compromise is that everyone is a little unhappy. I say let Diablo fans have the Diabloseries, and if they want a partybas...
It's not about thinking faster. When an attack takes longer, it feels like a real blow instead of just whirling and flurrying. With the speed of DA2 I felt like they were fighting with styrofoam swords instead of iron.
Plus it means less attacks per battle -> choosing the right attack becomes more important and thus:
If the combat is too fast, you don't really need to think. You bash.
"We saw Dragon Age II aim more towards action rather than strategy, but while Inquisition even furthers this, it does add more tactical abilities. Switching between characters is almost vital...
...While this may look like a traditional Character Action RPG, it’s far more than that. It’s a much faster pace of combat, ..."
Even more action-oriented than II? Faster? This better be lies. I thought they were listening to the criticisms of DAII?
...
stand-alone. free-to-play (hopefully not free to pay) would be the one they just announced. Shadow realms or whatever it is called.
Well CDPR made a game that pushed boundaries with The Witcher 2, but I went through hell trying to play it on my 6950.
What's the point of a great looking game when only a part of the community can run a playable build of it.