| Scoobes said: Lets see... The combat was poor: Waves of enemies with no strategy involved whatsoever. Origins utilised the old school top down strategy style of play whilst Dragon Age 2 threw most of that strategy out of the window and opted for just throwing slews of enemies at you to increase the difficulty. The animation was great, but it was just style over substance. No top down view: Linked to the above, no top down view made trying to play strategically and planning moves near impossible. |
This one I don't understand. I read people saying that DA2 had no strategic game-play and it honestly puzzles me. I know that I played DA2 the same way that I played DA:O. I switched characters constantly, more often than DA:O, actually, because of the improved pace of the combat, I set my moves up in advance, and I used stategic positioning at all times. The only real difference I can think of is that in DA2 you had to be more mobile and not over-extend yourself, because reinforcements might show up behind you. I loved the waves of enemies idea, it was so much more dynamic. You couldn't just pull enemies and pick them off at your leasure, heal up, then pull again.
Is this perhaps a console thing? I played both DA:O and DA2 on PC, and the style in which I played was nearly identical. That's the only explaination I can think of. I suppose the auto-programming in DA2 was so much improved that you could switch characters less if you WANTED, but, honestly, I like using all my characters, and setting most of their moves myself. I can't see allowing different playstyles as a negative. Of course, normal mode ends up being a lot easier if you control everyone, but that's rectified easily by simply increasing the difficulty.
