i don't know what the big deal is with the whole dragon age franchise. i tried the game, Dragon Age II due to all the hype. the graphics were terrible, but that's fine if the game play makes up for it. but the game play wasn't that great either. to top it off.. the in game animation, and mouth articulation were terrible too, stiff at best. at this day and age, i would think a RPG should be at least on par with Skyrim, or Mass Effect, with great story, great game play, great sound track, and great animation.
but maybe i am missing something about the game that others can point me to.
=> Mark Darrah
Re: Dragon Age
As a gamer in his mid-60s, I would like to strongly recommend a broad degree of adjustment to the difficulty of the game. Some players like it impossibly difficult - few saves, Bosses without level adjustments, extreme agility in mouse/keyboard, hordes of enemies, etc. Others, like me, cannot possibly play such a game. Simple keyboard/mouse for crippled hands. Slowed reaction times in game so the gamer can keep up. Leveled enemies for those who are "along-for-the-story". I cannot tell you how important the adjustment to physical limitations is for your older gamers - it just IS.
"As a gamer in his mid-60s, I would like to strongly recommend a broad degree of adjustment to the difficulty of the game. Some players like it impossibly difficult - few saves, Bosses without level adjustments, extreme agility in mouse/keyboard, hordes of enemies, etc. Others, like me, cannot possibly play such a game. "
Dragon Age was meant to be played in a turn based method like Baldur's Gate and other D&D based games... the first thing you do in combat is pause the game (space bar) then give commands to your party members un-pause and allow them to attack then pause again repeating this process until you have killed your enemies.
DA1 was a very good game. It had all the complexity of an older RPG as well as a rock-solid story (not amazing, just very good). The NPCs were interesting, Alistair particularly. The inventory system was as you'd expect for an RPG (imo also as I'd want). The environments were varied, original and had great atmosphere.
DA2 took most of the good things from DA1 and cast them aside. They dumbed down the inventory system ("what do you mean I can't change the armour my companions are wearing?"), they re-used many areas to save time/money. The story was a lot weaker, I didn't like the way it forced you into choosing one side or the other. Couldn't there have also been both & neither options? The NPCs were still interesting, and I thought the combat looked great.
These comments can pretty-much be echoed for ME1 & 2 interestingly and I think they got most of it right for ME3 by finding a good middle-ground. Just don't screw up the ending again please!!!
they need to learn their lessons about cutting corners.
they give us these epic games with Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins, where the player is this central figure who has to make difficult choices and everything feels like it matters.... And then they go and toss that ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT MINDSET out the window, dumb things down and wonder why is there backlash?
they are seeing it now with ME3. People wanted choices to matter, and they wanted a game more epic than the two that preceded it. Instead, we got DA2.
I knew DA2 was going to be bad when they had announced it was originally scripted to be a male only main character. Eventually they changed that to be male or female, but it still wasn't quite the level of choice we got in DA1.
True - true... which is why that should not change...but even in the pause semi-turn based world, fast and furious combat in which you are supposed to operate the main character can be too fast and furious for some....
...an ancient gamer