Dragon Age 2

I can see that logic... But for the moment we're still paying full shelf price for a digital copy of a game (In the UK anyway) I'd be all for DLC if the overall price on games was going down, but it's not currently. (again in the UK, dunno if it's different in the US)

I don't even mind DLC when it's released a while after the release of the game, but it really gets my goat when they release day one DLC, because it feels like cut content used to get more money.

Just a heads up for those getting the game, apperently they screwed up with the auto attack function and it's not included in the console versions of the game (say hello to X/A button spammage). Also the plot flags for inporting your DAO save along with several flags in DA2 are messed up as well so your choices get all messed up. I just woke up so may have been some changes over the last 8 hours but I havnt seen anything so far to say it's been fixed.

Edit: don't know how/if this will be effecting other country versions.

Yeah, my example is obviously an over-simplification, but it's the underlying principle. DLC is a convenient way to (theoretically) maintain or lower the costs of games while letting the studios get a bigger cut, and thus make better games.

Trouble is, at the moment, the publisher or retailer often jacks the shelf price of #2 up to $10 anyway, and now they're locked in a sort of strange, hostile kabuki dance with each other.

The good news is, I just don't see the publishers and retailers winning this one over time. So if anything, cheer for the DLC to win, because if it becomes the new distribution model for games, both you as the gamer and me as the developer probably come out ahead.

I'm wondering how they'll evolve from there to be honest, I'm pretty excited that indie game studios are actually getting some recognition. Minecraft, SMB, VVVVVV and all the game in the humble indie bundle have done wonders for the indie scene in general, and Steam being such an accessible platform hasn't hurt.

Me too. Either way, I really think the future is pretty bright.

The thing about DLC is that you need to make it good enough for people to want to buy it. Just like what digital sales of individual tracks have done for the music industry, you won't get to slide along selling $20 albums full of crap with one good song anymore.

In ideal-happy-dream-land, gamers get to pick and choose only the good parts, and end up paying less overall. Studios get to keep more money to re-invest in improving the product. Indie guys can more easily get in and challenge the big boys, forcing them to be more creative and agile in response. I see win all over, provided nobody throws a tantrum prematurely and *** it all up.

And DLC is arguably the first good tool we have to move things that way.

Would be nice if DLC were truly an augmentation of a core game.
Unfortunately it would appear developers are relying steadily more heavily on DLC, and making a weaker excuse of a core game.

It's a real drag spending $60 for a new highly anticipated game only to find it's not really worth playing until you dish out another $30 on various DLC packages that in majority opinion: should have been part of the core game to begin with.

Edit: Derp spelling/grammar

Wow, this thread turned into a great discussion really fast. Nearly every post has something I want to quote and comment on lol.

Starting with Jaerik's comment on the music industry, the other big advantage with paying per song rather than per album, is that people are generally much happier to pay for a song they like rather than pirate it. If an album only has one or two good songs, I know a lot of people will simply pirate the whole album, but if they can just buy those one or two songs for $1 each instead of $10 each with 13 bonus tracks they don't like, then a lot of people will.

I agree pretty strongly with Jaerik again on the DLC debate, even though I've never paid for DLC for anything aside from FFXI. But I can also see where Flion and Art are coming from. Even still though, you need to remember that the majority of gamers are casual, and hence the majority of games are bought by casual gamers.

How often have you bought a game that you were excited about, got home and found out it was absolute ***? I'd much rather pay $5 for a game that I'm not gonna play for more than a couple hours than $10. On the other hand, if it does actually turn out to be a good game, then $5 is a real bargain, and I'd probably be happy to pay the other $5 for the rest of the game.

At the end of the day, if I buy two games in the current sales model, I've spent $20, and ended up with one fantastic game and one ***game. In the DLC model as Jaerik suggested, I've paid $15 and got one fantastic game and half a ***game. I can also pay another $5 in six months time have 1.5 of a fantastic game.

What Flion and Art seem to be saying though, is that we're still paying $10 per game, but only getting $5 worth. Obviously prices are going to have to change with the sales model if it's going to work, but I think it's only a matter of time until they do.

If it goes as Jaerik said, then everyone wins except the middlemen, but really, who cares? Distributor's do nothing to increase the quality or quantity of games on the market, so why do we want to support them? Currently is Aus, a full price game is $100, if they make it $35 for half the game and $35 to download the other half, with the developer pulling in a much larger chunk then how will that be bad? I think a lot of gamers will spend the same amount of money, and come home with more games. They'll then only spend the extra money on the DLC for the games they enjoy, meaning all the good developers will grow faster, while the shitty developers will shrink and die.

The other window of opportunity opened up by the DLC route, and the main reason I'm actually posting, is for smaller development houses. It will take co-operation with the development giants, but they have an opportunity to give their games to smaller houses to develop DLC add-ons. A small team of 3 or 4 people generally aren't going to make a chart topping video game, but they can make some amazing multiplayer maps, new levels/weapons/characters etc. to be sold as cheap DLC, with a cut going to the developer of the game.

It's a little bit like what's happening to the gaming industry here in Melbourne. A lot of the bigger companies are losing staff that are splitting off to create small (4-5 man) companies and develop iPhone apps and games.

Okay, so here's my take it on it.

I'm not really liking the new story telling method, I can't help but feel it was influenced by the last Splinter Cell, but SC actually made it work, it's just not working for this, for me at least. I'm not too far into it, but so far I at least want to know where it's going and how it plays out. The new interaction style and battle system just really isn't working for me either. Maybe it's because I played the first one so many times, and at first it was the same (not working for me), but the battle system just feels clunky.. I'm not sure how to really put it.. Like I hit an ability, and then notice there's cross hairs, so I'm like "oh ***I magically stopped attacking" and that just keeps happening. I never really had that problem with the first..

While the interaction menus aren't really all that different, I would have been fine, and even preferred, that they left them as they were in the first.

The story isn't nearly as engaging as the first one was, the first one seemed so natural to me, this just seems forced, which is never a good thing.

Overall I suppose it's a decent game.. The first, to me, was a master piece.. The difference between the first one and the second is almost insulting. I had this fear when I first learned of the second coming, that they wouldn't do the first justice, and my fears have been confirmed. If you were never to of played the first, the second you would still probably find a really good game, but having put so much time into the first, I'm finding it hard to accept this one.

It's really starting to seem like a hit or miss contest in the gaming industry, except everyone is blindfolded.. Once in awhile they manage to put something together that is nothing short of spectacular, but most of the time, everything they do just falls short.

Skyrim soon slip, Skyrim soon.

Yes I know, and I keep trying to forget about it..

Actually, I just think games companies are generally lazy and take this part of my last post too seriously:
Seriously, it's not *** rocket surgery as to what makes a good game.

Engaging story; This involves actual script writing.
Solid gameplay; This requires good testing and feedback.
Solid Content; This means putting more than a dozen single player levels in.

Actually, that's about it. Get those three right and you can make your game look like minecraft with NES sound effects for all I care.

Developers just need to take a script-writing short course and wake up to the fact that the same principles apply in video games as they do in film (+gameplay).

Very interesting read. The "pick and choose" what parts of the game you want to play is nice, as some DLC isn't great but others are very good. Not being forced to pay more for all of it, including what you wouldn't use, is nice.

Can't wait to get DA2, read reviews and the game looks very fun.

Okay, where the *** do you buy/make runes in this game? I've seen it before, but it was a long time ago and I don't remember where the merchant was.

^ this

A few months ago when I went back to WoW (on a new account), it was around 10% more expensive to download the game from blizzard than to simply buy the retail version at <insert game shop here>. Ofcourse I don't buy games very often, maybe it's just blizzard.

My Problem with DA2 isn't the gameplay or general content and such, all about this game IMO is amazing.

My problem is that DA:O built this huge lore and world (of Fereladen) Where you cross around the nation and explore many places, the Kingdom of the Dwarves, The forest of the elves, the few towns of the humans, the magic tower of mages, Seeing many different regions which different kind of creatures. And gave you a lot of side story in contrast to "The Warden" dealing with the blight (Andraste's Ashes, something big for religion in the game. The politics of the Dwarves, The struggles to save the culture of the elves and so on.)

This game seemed to fall flat outside of it's main plot. I will avoid spoilers as best I can.

Templars vs Mages, the main plot which never really parts to explain some key points in the DA lore that happens at points in the game.

Than the fact that you really don't live the city of Kirkwall, except for some caves and mountains on the outskirts that seem to all look exactly the same no matter what region of the outskirts you go to.

Exploration wasn't really an option in Origins, as it was pretty linear. You'd go to a location and there was a bit of wandering around in some of the larger places, although it was in no way free-roam. But it's even more confined in DA II?

Played the DA II demo on PC and absolutely hated the forced camera angle (how it defaults when you're not controlling it). That was one of the things I had hoped had been fixed in the retail version - but it hasn't?

Basically, from someone who played and loved Origins point of view, what would you rate are DA II's best and worst points?

I'd say that Combat and the Conversation system are the best aspects of DA2

Lack of Variety in areas and plot holes are IMO the worst aspects in DA2


I dunno for PC, but I can control the camara the same way I did in DA:O while on Xbox. Other things of note, Hit or miss (depending on you) less character equipment set up (besides your main, only can set weapons and accessories on allies)

This was really disappointing.. I loved to gear my entire 'team' in DA:O so that I could customize them to compensate in areas I felt they were lacking. With this you don't have that ability beyond their weapon and accessories. When you could fully dress them, you could make up for their lack in several aspects. In DA2, you're basically forced to pick one thing and leave it at that. In DA:O I could make a tank that was also capable of doing some decent DD, in DA2, you pick defense or offense, if you try to both, they will end up failing at both.

DA:2 seems to have placed a priority on plot choices, action-packed combat, and improved graphics/animations at the expense of significantly weakening or even outright removing customization, exploration, and strategic aspects of the original.

Your opinion on whether it was worth it may vary. =)

You'd think these days it would be possible to have them all :(

I remember when a sequel was an enhancement on the original.

=/ It's not even subtle.. If the choices you make weren't basically spelled out for you in black and white, it would likely be a bit more tolerable.. As it stands you're basically told "Here's your choices, but if you pick this choice, this is what is going to happen"

Spoiler'd for real spoilers, don't read if you care about the story line
I also have a new gripe about this.. Bethany can both heal and use attack spells freely.. Anders does get just a normal heal spell, but he's not as effective with it, his healing relies on an activated ability. When that ability is active, attack spells are disabled.. I can't find any way to get him to use that ability only when party health is low AND shut it back off after party health is good (it stays up even after the battle is over). I basically either have to go in and do it manually, just pop potions for health, or let him just heal and do virtually nothing during battle.

If anyone has a way where I can get him to activate this mode when needed and deactivate it after it's no longer needed, I'd be extremely grateful. I've tried putting it to deactivate when Hawke's health is >=100%, but that don't work.

I'm thoroughly enjoying Dragon Age II.

It reminds me of Baldur's Gate II, but with modern graphics and interface.

The only minor thing that bugs me is that "Attack" really means melee accuracy, and "Defense" really means evasion, and "Armor" really means defense.

Other than that, though, I like the gambit/tactics system; the battles are very quick, clean, and non-glitchy, and the player has the ability to increase the difficulty (or decrease it) anytime. There's a bazillion quests, and the "journal" feature is improved compared to other similar games I've played.

I'd say this is a must-have for any RPG fan, and it has definite replay value.

Just out of curiosity, have you played the first one? I made the comment of me not really liking this one so much, quite possibly because I've been 'jaded' by the first and expected much more, and that to anyone who hasn't played the first would probably find this to be a great game..

Just wondering if that was accurate.

I like them both, overall I liked the first one better.
I like the fighting better in da2, but It seems there is a lot less detail put into this game.

One of the NPCs in the hanged man tavern said something about the world being a lot less complex lately. I think that sums up this game, its just too bad I liked the complexity.

Dragon Age: Origins didn't exactly have great exploration, and not just looking at that from an environmental aspect. There wasn't exactly a lot to explore with Builds, equipment or the laughable crafting.

well da2 kinda has none.

You're correct, Slipi.
I often considered getting Dragon Age: Origins when it was new/hot, but at the time I was heavily into FF11 and FF13 and had an infant to care for.
So, yes, I'm not able to compare Dragon Age II to its predecessor, but standing alone, in my opinion at least, Dragon Age II kicks ***.

I kinda feel like starting Dragon Age Origins again.

I definitely like the improved tactics for the characters you aren't controlling. Setting up a mage to brittle an opponent and a second mage to stun them so your rogue can get guaranteed crits with like 400% damage increase total is hot sex.

Everything else though >.> not so much. I find the characters are all kinda boring compared to DA:O and I don't really care about the main character at all (yet anyway). What they did with Ander's almost pisses me off because he was one of my favorite characters in Awakenings and now hes all emo and whiney wah wah poor mage Grey Warden wah wah.