MasterKromm
Sentinel
- Joined
- February 28, 2010
- Messages
- 380
Here is a conversation between DoctorNarrative and Pessimeister covering the issue, and tentatively getting the ball rolling for this discussion/poll…
I love the speed [of DA2]. Take the tactics of games like BG2 and DA:O and make it fast and exciting? Yes please.
It had the tactics of BG2? Uhh, no, not for me sorry. Not even close. DA2 was an amphetamine fueled caffeine junkie's joy and for me, would often just play itself.
In contrast, try going through the motions against some of the mage fights in BG2 (or Kangaxx or even Demogorgon) and you'll end up dead. Even Icewind Dale had more tactical versatility, challenge and depth than DA2. These apologist attempts to prove otherwise are just doomed to fail.
Try blockading a doorway in DA2 (you'll fail) and then compare what happens if you did the same thing in BG2 to see just one simple, yet blatant contrast in tactical possibilities.
Did you play DA2 on hard? Hard was specifically designed for tactical play while normal was designed for mindless button mashing.
Anyway, no, I didn't play DA2 on hard. Shame on me eh? To be honest, I felt no reason to artificially inflate the difficulty of combat of a game that I already wasn't enjoying very much. Guess I'm one of these slow-pokes who prefers a more deliberate, reflective combat experience rather than the sommersaulting over the top, action obsessed nonsense. But to continue the argument at hand, off the top of my head:
Two more simple tactical differences from BG2 to DA2:
- BG2 has more characters possible for a party, therefore logically, more tactical possibilities open to the player in party make up and strategical vision. That's not hard to undestand and it's a fact, thus not subjective.
- There are far more spells in BG2. Fact. Not subjective.
Bringing down enemy mages often took a little bit of care, especially if they were well buffed with protections.
The two games originate from quite different branches of the same family tree, even if superficially they share similarities from their respective genre.
One is designed for quick consumption like junk food and to be played at a frantically forgettable pace, the other to be digested more slowly and with a greater degree of consideration. For me that meant the experience was not only more easy to enjoy and savor, but also the more memorable.
If you don't like the animation style and such then there's not much to say about that. I personally like it, it's fantasy and not a sim. In any case the game clearly tells you that if you want to play tactically and manage your party you should play on hard. Normal mode was made for just controlling Hawke.
Differences indeed, yes. Neither of them make the games not the same style of RPG though, which is what I said they were (in the other thread).
There's some truth to this, DA2's tactics are more about reacting to situations than pre-planning. I don't think the difference is anywhere near the level you and others ascribe to it however. I think most of those opinions are rooted in not liking the speed and animation style and playing the game on normal.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 380