GameBanshee Forums

Just put my deposit down on a preorder this week. Looking forward to March. Actually got me to fire up DAO again and buy Awakenings finally as well when I figured I would get II.

Anyone else planning to get this?

I'll probably purchase it at some point..

The real question is: will I buy it at full-price early-on?

This time I think I'll wait a bit for some actual gamer's reviews to see if I buy it at (or near) full price or not.

I've pre-ordered already although I do not have terrible large hopes for the quality as Bioware is dumping down most everything these days ..... but I liked DAO, so I'm going to buy DAO 2 just because of that.

Bioware really needs to take a big look at their beginnings and how they designed games back then.

More and more games from Bioware feel like fast food. Nice too look at it but the meal leaves a stale taste afterwards.

Lots of minor oversights lead to games which have good atmosphere but kinda feel unpolished/unfinished.

Wow, I can't believe the sequel will come out so soon. Wasn't it just last year that the first one came out? With such a rushed development, I am not expecting much from this sequel. The original wasn't exactly what I would call 'polished' to begin with.

But the original was only $30 at some stores when it was released so if I see this new one at the same price it might be worth it just to get my RPG freak on. But most likely I will be busy Planescape instead at that time (which I am planning to buy after I finish my current Baldur's Gate run).

I feel this game is more aimed at the larger population of console action gamers rather than the smaller group of PC RPG gamers. I feel that these two groups are VERY mutual exclusive no matter how desperately developers try to assure us of otherwise.

I certainly will not be buying this game at full price. That is, unless reviews prove me wrong of my suspicions.

a00krido wrote:I feel this game is more aimed at the larger population of console action gamers rather than the smaller group of PC RPG gamers. I feel that these two groups are VERY mutual exclusive no matter how desperately developers try to assure us of otherwise.

The "console action gamer"? When then has there been far more turn-based RPGs released on consoles in the past ten years than on PC? Why does even the Paper Mario series have turn-based combat? I don't see exactly the "console action gamer" has to do with anything.

doady wrote:The "console action gamer"? When then has there been far more turn-based RPGs released on consoles in the past ten years than on PC? Why does even the Paper Mario series have turn-based combat? I don't see exactly the "console action gamer" has to do with anything.

I think it's in reference to a belief that many console games are weak on substance and long on "ease".

I know that's not true for all console games, but..

(..and in fact Jade Empire is a pretty good game, it is was certainly console first before porting to PC.)

doady wrote:The "console action gamer"? When then has there been far more turn-based RPGs released on consoles in the past ten years than on PC? Why does even the Paper Mario series have turn-based combat? I don't see exactly the "console action gamer" has to do with anything.

This is just a gut feeling, but I don't think that Bioware is actually targeting the people who played Final Fantasy, Star Ocean or one of the JRPGs for over 100 hours, but rather the "10 hour gameplay action games."

Scottg wrote:I think it's in reference to a belief that many console games are weak on substance and long on "ease".

I know that's not true for all console games, but..

Personally I think it is a mistaken belief. Maybe cuz I grew playing the original Nintendo games, which weren't exactly what anyone would call a walk-in-a-park...

GawainBS wrote:This is just a gut feeling, but I don't think that Bioware is actually targeting the people who played Final Fantasy, Star Ocean or one of the JRPGs for over 100 hours, but rather the "10 hour gameplay action games."

Maybe, but I'm just saying. It just needs to be said: I don't think the PC has anything on consoles when it comes to depth and tactical gameplay. While PC gamers were playing Diablo II and Starcraft, console gamers were playing Fire Emblem and Advance Wars. Enough said.

To me, it seems more likely Bioware would have to dumb a game down to suit a PC gaming audience than a console audience. Just look at the sad state of turn-based gaming on PC compared with console. Who can argue?

Personally, I think there has been a dumbing down of games overall to suit a wider, more casual audience, but that has happened to both console and PC games. I don't think you can't blame just the console gamer for that.

doady wrote:Personally I think it is a mistaken belief. Maybe cuz I grew playing the original Nintendo games, which weren't exactly what anyone would call a walk-in-a-park...

Maybe, but I'm just saying. It just needs to be said: I don't think the PC has anything on consoles when it comes to depth and tactical gameplay. While PC gamers were playing Diablo II and Starcraft, console gamers were playing Fire Emblem and Advance Wars. Enough said.

To me, it seems more likely Bioware would have to dumb a game down to suit a PC gaming audience than a console audience. Just look at the sad state of turn-based gaming on PC compared with console. Who can argue?

Personally, I think there has been a dumbing down of games overall to suit a wider, more casual audience, but that has happened to both console and PC games. I don't think you can't blame just the console gamer for that.

Diablo and Starcraft?

Hmm, not exactly helping your position.

doady wrote:Personally I think it is a mistaken belief. Maybe cuz I grew playing the original Nintendo games, which weren't exactly what anyone would call a walk-in-a-park...

This I agree. I've come across console games that require some level of understanding and the same can be said for games on the PC as well. In my opinion, both platforms have their fair share of simple action shoot-em-ups / bash-em ups games and those that require some smarts. It's just that the simpler games tend to be more popular compared to the smart ones, not to mention accessibility.

I suspect that when people like Cliff Blezinski goes around calling his game (Gears of War) badass and other developers showing off a lot of flashy action-oriented games for the consoles, it gives the impression of the console crowd being less intelligent and prefer 'twitchy' games. A perception that needs to be addressed, but so far, no developer is willing to counter it.

doady wrote:Maybe, but I'm just saying. It just needs to be said: I don't think the PC has anything on consoles when it comes to depth and tactical gameplay. While PC gamers were playing Diablo II and Starcraft, console gamers were playing Fire Emblem and Advance Wars. Enough said.

To me, it seems more likely Bioware would have to dumb a game down to suit a PC gaming audience than a console audience. Just look at the sad state of turn-based gaming on PC compared with console. Who can argue?

Personally, I think there has been a dumbing down of games overall to suit a wider, more casual audience, but that has happened to both console and PC games. I don't think you can't blame just the console gamer for that.

You are talking about two very popular games which come from different genres. The Diablo series are Action RPGs whereas Starcraft is an RTS. Using them as comparison to games on other genres, let alone those on the consoles, is a pretty narrow view. There are a lot of RPGs on the PC as much as there are a lot of RPGs on the consoles, including JRPGs.

Whichever platform caused the dumbing down of recent games isn't the issue. Rather, it's the developers who want a bigger share of the gaming market, regardless of the platform. That's why you see Bioware making action-oriented games like the Mass Effect series, despite it having some RPG mechanics in it and not to mention Ken Levine and his 2K Australia team creating Bioshock, a rather dumbed-down shooter.

doady wrote:Personally I think it is a mistaken belief. Maybe cuz I grew playing the original Nintendo games, which weren't exactly what anyone would call a walk-in-a-park...



Maybe, but I'm just saying. It just needs to be said: I don't think the PC has anything on consoles when it comes to depth and tactical gameplay. While PC gamers were playing Diablo II and Starcraft, console gamers were playing Fire Emblem and Advance Wars. Enough said.

To me, it seems more likely Bioware would have to dumb a game down to suit a PC gaming audience than a console audience. Just look at the sad state of turn-based gaming on PC compared with console. Who can argue?

Personally, I think there has been a dumbing down of games overall to suit a wider, more casual audience, but that has happened to both console and PC games. I don't think you can't blame just the console gamer for that.

You're making it look like console turnbased games are the same as what we understand under Turn Based on the PC. Essentially, you're comparing Final Fantasy, Dragonquest, Fire Emblem etc to Age of Wonders, King's Bounty... I found the PC list a lot more challenging than the console list.

Also, while the PC certainly has brainnumbingly action games, I think the total percentage of them is less than the same type of games on consoles.

Just to be clear: I have a PS2, DSi, NES, SNES and PC. I don't have a favourite, they just serve different tastes. (I'm lieing: I'd marry my SNES if it was a woman.)

doady wrote:The "console action gamer"? When then has there been far more turn-based RPGs released on consoles in the past ten years than on PC?

Since ever. I was once a NES/SNES owner myself. Consider this list of older "computer-only-platform" turn-based games:

Space crusade
Sabre team
X-COM series
Incubation series
Fallout 1 & 2
Jagged alliance series
Baldur's gate series
Planscape Tourment
Icewind dalse series
Odium/Gorky 17
Neverwinter night series
Heroes of Might and Magic series
King's bounty
Civilization series
etc...

In my experience similiar games does not exist on the console platforms.

DesR85 wrote:...Rather, it's the developers who want a bigger share of the gaming market, regardless of the platform. That's why you see Bioware making action-oriented games like the Mass Effect series, despite it having some RPG mechanics in it...

Exactly! Computer games used to have a broader spectrum of games in my experience. Now developers want more mainstream games in order to ensure bigger sales. The "action-oriented" crowd is generally bigger than the strategy crowd and imo even more so on the consoles (younger crowd). Because of "main-streaming" titles become multi platform and we end up with titles like:

Star wars: Kotor series
Mass effect series
Dragon Age series
Oblivion, Fallout 3
etc.

Don't get me wrong. I find such titles playable, just a little to action-oriented and boring combat-wise. They are somewhat designed for the action crowd since they are purposely designed to be able to beaten without frequently pausing and micro-controlling your other party members. Changing difficulty setting doesn't offset this by much.

Also Dragon Age was generally accused for being too hard/difficult according to reviewers. Did they play it like an "action" game I wonder? I found it much, much, much easier than most of the older series I have listed above even though I played on the hardest difficulty. Why? Because combat was not designed to be TACTICALLY challenging.

GawainBS wrote:(I'm lieing: I'd marry my SNES if it was a woman.)

How do you know the SNES is a man?

On-topic now;

a00krido wrote:Also Dragon Age was generally accused for being too hard/difficult according to reviewers. Did they play it like an "action" game I wonder? I found it much, much, much easier than most of the older series I have listed above even though I played on the hardest difficulty. Why? Because combat was not designed to be TACTICALLY challenging.

I'm going to have to wholeheartedly agree with this. Though there was a strategy to Dragon Age, there was nothing particularly demanding about coming up with your battle strategy and, indeed, there was never a point in the game where that strategy had to change to overcome some new obstacle. (The possible exception being calling in troops in the final battle; but I wouldn't call that a change in strategy, just incorporation of a new feature.)

And pfft, the Archdemon wasn't worthy of being called a final boss. I had a harder time with the Broodmother.

I'm sure I'll get it, eventually. But I think pre-ordering is somewhat foolish. The game will surely need patching, some of which will be done officially and many other fixes that will likely be done by the modding community. I'll wait a year and purchase whatever 'complete edition' eventually comes out, with the expansions and DLC's, etc. for the same or less price than a pre-order. Also, there will surely be a big healthy mod selection by that point. Not to sound all high-and-mighty about it, but that's just the wisest move, IMO. Saves money and compacts all the excitement and replayability into one huge experience. All it costs is a little patience and sacrificing the "I must have it now" mentality.

flix wrote:I'm sure I'll get it, eventually. But I think pre-ordering is somewhat foolish. The game will surely need patching, some of which will be done officially and many other fixes that will likely be done by the modding community. I'll wait a year and purchase whatever 'complete edition' eventually comes out, with the expansions and DLC's, etc. for the same or less price than a pre-order. Also, there will surely be a big healthy mod selection by that point. Not to sound all high-and-mighty about it, but that's just the wisest move, IMO. Saves money and compacts all the excitement and replayability into one huge experience. All it costs is a little patience and sacrificing the "I must have it now" mentality.

Well, there are people who want to get the game on the day of release, so that's their call if they choose to 'pre-order' it. As for me, I also don't do pre-orders but it is more to the fact that you can get it anytime you want.

DesR85 wrote:Well, there are people who want to get the game on the day of release, so that's their call if they choose to 'pre-order' it.

No doubt. I'm just saying the sad fact with PC games is that you pay a price for instant gratification.

I always pre-order games I want, so I can get them as soon as possible, and if it is a "big" game, a collectors edition or something.

My way of supporting the developers right out of the box.

Well. It's been since March and I'm still unable to even install the game and for whatever reason I can't login to the EA Origins store either. ID and PW work on the website but not in the Origins login to access game downloads. Hate. EA. Very. Much.

Oh well. On to other things I suppose and an expensive lesson.