" @Buck_Sexington said:

" Shit, I must have played a different Dragon Age: Origins to some people on here. I don't remember this vibrant, colourful world they played in, I don't remember the amazing UI and menu they had and I don't remember the out of this world combat.  I remember the world being pretty brown and uninteresting, I remember the UI being a piece of crap that needed modding to be usable and I remember the combat being a tad slow and monotonous. But then again the main reason I've played 138 hours of Dragon Age is because I loved the story, the characters and RPG aspects of the game. Something that people seem to be forgetting is that none of the parts that made the first game great have been show.   All these people who are now cancelling their pre-orders because a camera angle and minor changes to the combat clearly didn't enjoy the first game at all because they could see past these minor changes/annoyances and want to play the game for it's main appeal. The story.  Then again what the fuck would you bitch and moan about then. DLC and pre-order bonuses probably. "

 Saying that Dragon Age 2 is worse than Dragon Age: Origins does not mean that we think DA:O is perfect.  Every game has its problems.  That said, spending 138 hours playing a game you seem absolutely uninterested in PLAYING seems kind of extreme.  You'd probably be better off with a good book if you want story and characters without gameplay.  There are actually a couple of Dragon Age books that I heard are actually quite entertaining. Thing is, a lot of people don't share your dismissive attitude when it comes to the gameplay of the first game.   You see, people don't really make games like DA:O anymore.  I know you're going to say, "well there's a reason for that!"  And you're right, there is.  Tactical RPGs do not appeal to today's gamer, a creature who, if given the choice between "depth" and "polish", would most likely choose "polish" every time.  There are already approximately 800 western RPGs coming out this year.  And pretty much every one of them has the word "action" tacked on to the front of that description.  And now Dragon Age is just another one of those, instead of being the unique beast that it was.  Even if you were bored by the gameplay of DA:O, it's still a sad thing to think about.  So the niche audience that absolutely loved the first game so passionately, for successfully bringing the old school into the new world, are obviously let down by the homogenization the franchise seems to have undergone.  To a lot of fans, it seems as if Dragon Age has lost its identity.  It no longer feels unique. "

DA2 will have 60 unique hours in it. You can't base those 60 unique hours on the demo designed to give you an idea of the whole game. God, to live in a world of pure imagination. The game changes genres on the hour, gents. They throw the conventional quest structure out the window and reinvent it on the hour, gents. All of you, weekly, form opinions on games from 20 minute Quick Looks, its not until a game you want to love comes out that suddenly it matters to play the game 15 hours before having an opinion. But only if your opinion is negative. Unsubstantiated positive opinions are fine.

As soon as you said, that you thought the cutscenes in DA:O on 360 were "fantastic looking", I knew we were different. I remember them as choppy, stale-looking and disconnecting. Sure the dialogue was great, the characters interesting and all that, but graphically it was an unoptimized port. The flow was much better in the demo.

i thought it was okay my only worry is im gonna have to buy a new graphics card to support direct x 11

I'm yet to play the demo, but all I can say is: Thank fuck you can turn on auto-attack. 
 
Got me scared reading about the "hack-n-slash" combat.

I think being able to set the game to a higher difficulty is going to mute a lot of complaints about the less tactical gameplay. Also they said there would be an intricate system of abilities from different characters complementing eachother into devastating effects which sounds interesting.
 
I am one of those who got really annoyed with the combat in DA:O. I am a fan of tactical combat, but there were just way too many uninteresting encounters in the game that made it a slog at times. The combat in the DA2 demo seems way more entertaining with its faster pace, and I am sure on the higher difficulties you'll still need to pause and think about your action in a tactical manner.
 
I am a little worried about the story though.

Your aggressive nature in the response to the topic has me all worked up, and as such I must use bold, and CAPITAL LETTERS to convey my point, and a few of my own special touches.. such as poor grammar/editing skills,  (...)(pauses)(...), and ('s as well. (couldn't remember how to spell it, and too lazy to look it up)
 
While I did grow accustomed to the combat style, it did feel a little weird to me... who knows, maybe it'll pass. 
But if one thing unsold me faster than anything in this demo.. it would be the epic return of INVISIBLE FUCKING WALLS. I cannot and will not put up with that shit. It just irritates me more than words can describe. (so i'll just give in  by buying it used, once it's cheaper.. way to prove a point, eh? : / )
 
I get the linear path, I really do... butt four fucks ache.........(the inevitable).....cum on.

So I finally tried the demo.  The in-game animations look nice...  Here's my gripe:  The game is a tactical real time RPG, yet the camera perspective is more appropriate for action RPGs.  All you do in this game is right click on enemies and wait until they die.  The camera should not be centered at your selected character.  It should be like in (old school?) strategy/tactical games: You should be looking down on your team...like in Baldur's Gate, Jagged Alliance, etc.  What have the game designers been smoking in the last decade?

I couldn't turn auto-attack on in the demo, but it still seemed pretty fun. When it does come out, I'll turn it on, but it was pretty fun and the story and graphics weren't bad at all.  

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I vehemently disliked the first game, completely on the grounds that the combat was boring and the story and characters were about as generic-fantasy as it gets. Played the demo for II and instantly loved it. Super fluid combat and some great changes to the presentation and structure of combat. I guess we'll see when the full game is out but I dunno... I'm pretty excited. 
 
But talking to my friends about it, seems like you either love it or hate it. No one I've talked to about it is on a middle ground. I feel kind of bad for Bioware, honestly. They've crafted a pretty great universe but it's marred by having two games (and an expansion) that don't really seem to have a direction at this point. 
 
Also, the voice actress for female Hawke is amazing.

"Also, the voice actress for female Hawke is amazing. "  

" @aurahack said:

"Also, the voice actress for female Hawke is amazing. "  

Yeah, everything about female Hawke is better than male Hawke in my view. The character model, the vocals. Definitely playing a girl first. "

I was also put off by the demo.  Quite a bit.  I played through Dragon Age: Origins, Awakenings, and a couple of the DLC packs.  I found the camera retarded and the combat lackluster.  I also found the main-character's voice acting retarded.  Not in the way it sounds... but in the wild transitions from aggressive to coy, and to considerate.  When you change your tone in conversation you immediately sound like a psychopath.  Even when you're just using coy conversation options and the game automatically transitions into the parts of dialogue that are out of your control, during "cutscenes," and you sound completely different. 
 
I am, however, psyched for the skill trees, and am looking forward to the story telling.

" @aurahack said:

"Also, the voice actress for female Hawke is amazing. "  

Yeah, everything about female Hawke is better than male Hawke in my view. The character model, the vocals. Definitely playing a girl first. "