Mass Effect 3 - Twice the dialogue of the first two games?

Originally Posted by Motoki
I'm not getting into your back and forth nonsense. Since you frequent this forum and the Bioware one you've seen it discussed over and over.

I'm over this. Once again you win at the internets. Have fun with your little online victory.

Man, you couldn't come up with even one? That's pretty bad.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Of course I have played Gothic, the point was it has skill-based combat. You can't just spam the attack button but in the end you win by being a better sword swinger than your opponents. In DA2 you win by managing an entire party tactically, placing your chess pieces and managing your attacks and AoE.

By "skill-based" I assume you're referring to the in-game character and not the player, right? That's true to a degree, as it also is in DA, but that actually has much less impact overall than the player's skill.

Originally Posted by JDR13
By "skill-based" I assume you're referring to the in-game character and not the player, right? That's true to a degree, as it also is in DA, but that actually has much less impact overall than the player's skill.

No, you're misreading me. I don't even know what the original point was at this point due to all my debating with the other guy.

In short Gothic is mostly about your skill as a player, moving, dodging, knowing when to attack. It's more strategic than something like Oblivion, surely, but at the end of the day it's direct control and direct skill. Dragon Age 2 is about party placement, knowing when to pop abilities and who to use them on, managing crowds of enemies, etc. Different kind of combat entirely, and one rooted all the way back to Baldur's Gate and surely before that for those around before I was.

Dragon Age 2 has significant differences to BG of course, as does any game today compared to a game a decade ago in the same style. It's faster, the animation is exaggerated, it's easier on normal, etc. It's still the same type of game though, is what I am saying. Gothic is a different kind of RPG combat.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
In short Gothic is mostly about your skill as a player, moving, dodging, knowing when to attack. It's more strategic than something like Oblivion, surely, but at the end of the day it's direct control and direct skill.

Ah ok… in that case I completely agree. I thought you were saying that it was the character's learned skills that determined the outcome of battles, like in Morrowind for example. If that was the case then yeah, you could just wacky-wacky at stuff and win.

That's not to say that leveling up and getting more skills isn't still an important part of these games. There's always a limit to what you can accomplish with player-skill alone. Even the most skilled tactician isn't going to beat a group of enemies that are 10 levels higher than his party.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Ah ok… in that case I completely agree. I thought you were saying that it was the character's learned skills that determined the outcome of battles, like in Morrowind for example. If that was the case then yeah, you could just wacky-wacky at stuff and win.

That's not to say that leveling up and getting more skills isn't still an important part of these games. There's always a limit to what you can accomplish with player-skill alone. Even the most skilled tactician isn't going to beat a group of enemies that are 10 levels higher than his party.

Agree 100%.

Originally Posted by lostforever
The big plus working in DA2 favour is its story. It so much different from many other save the world stories. I actually like this kind of stories. A nobody trying to make it big in the world etc. I have actually bought into the mages verses templars things and I care for many of the NPC companions (more so ME2 and even DAO). When I say "about the same" I mean same level in a different way

DA2 had a story? I thought they've just put any ideas they've came across during brain storming without bothering to make any sensible connection.

Excuse my sarcasm, but the story was not compelling for me at all. Yes, I agree it was nice that protagonist wasn't some demi-god, whom prophecy speaks of, came to save doomed world. But largely, it was absurd and meaningless. Did we really need Hawke there? You don't have to be somebody big to influence party members you travel with. I think they've went completely wrong way about it. It's basically trying to say, you don't need to be someone really awesome to change the world, yet, Hawke actually fails to change anything. It's really your party members who makes these changes and somehow Hawke always end up getting credit (e.g No matter what you do, Anders blow up chantry. Even if you KICK him earlier).