Awakening was pretty much more Origins, focusing on further content instead of redesign. From what I understand it sold poorly. You have to understand that Origins likely sold on consoles because of the Bioware brand name alone, and the advertisements that made it seem like more of an action game. I don't fault them for being concerned a very similar sequel would sell and review much more poorly on consoles… I would actually agree that it was a serious concern.
No one was more surprised than I when Bioware actually released a PC-centric game after Jade Empire and Mass Effect.
To this day, I don't understand how suits could green-light the console version as it was.
Personally, I think that comes down to poor planning - and it's never a good idea to do a console version of a sophisticated PC game, if you don't plan for it REALLY well. I'm not sure what went wrong there.
On this very forum, I openly declared my scepticism about the console version - long before its release - and I couldn't believe it would be released in such a state - because it was already very clear to me by then, that Bioware had changed their ways.
However, I don't think the problem was the tactical depth or the mechanics, as much as the default difficulty level and the shoddy console interface. It was clearly not a strong console title - though still better than many I've seen.
Awakening struck me as partially left-over content from the original game - polished up and tweaked as an actual expansion. Still, for what it was - it was fine.
But I'm not surprised if it didn't sell well on the consoles. If you make a crappy console port, you shouldn't expect great sales from semi-DLC like I think Awakenings really was.
In any event Bioware employees have said on their forum that DA2 is the only sequel they could have made. They said very bluntly that a sequel exactly like Origins would not have been green-lit by EA. Thus the goal was to create a sequel that maintained the tactical combat but also was a better console game and a more "exciting" game for action fans. Whether you think they did a good job executing that is, of course, your opinion.
I'm not talking about the actual developers. I'm talking about this thing from the top and down through the company.
The problem is EA and how they think, as well as how Bioware think these days.
Nothing is set in stone unless you want it to be, and obviously EA/Bioware want a certain kind of game now and in the future.
That's what I think is sad.
Based on the demo, I think they did an atrocious job executing the tactical nuances of the first game - but it's hard to say when I don't have the full game available.
Personally I definitely used tactics in the demo, and that was on normal. When I start playing on hard tomorrow I definitely hope to have a very tactical RPG experience, if somewhat watered down from the original.
You seem to be under the impression that my main problem is the new focus on a fast combat system.
It's not, though I do think it was a strange and unnecessary decision.
No, what seems to me like a VERY obvious move towards action-based hack and slash is NOT the primary or only problem.
About tactics and difficulty - you can make Diablo 2 or Dungeon Siege 2 into tactical experiences, if you play them on the hardest setting.
At least, if you want to think of tactical challenge as having to be very careful due to vast amounts of damage from the enemy.
Personally, I think of such things in a different way. To me, tactical fights are about presenting a challenge that requires careful thought and smart play - especially in terms of how to deal with certain enemies - and what abilities would be the best for each corresponding situation.
Tactical fights, to me, are not about having to pause before that extremely fast monster gets to you. That seems to be the kind of challenge DA2 presents, but that's based on the demo.
I don't know about the full game, and presumably neither do you.
My problem with DA2 (as in what I don't personally like about it) - is the move away from a deep and carefully presented story, towards a fast-paced american TV show style presentation.
Then it's the abandoning of character options, especially in terms of allowing me to take my character from the first game - and into the sequel. That was one of the things I really loved about Baldur's Gate - than you could have that character playable throughout the game.
Finally, the game seems to be A LOT shorter than the first game, and it looks like it will take place almost exclusively in a single big city.
So, out the window goes the epic feel of the first game - and we end up with a fast-paced action RPG that won't last long.
Taken by itself, that can be ok - and I'm sure the game will be entertaining.
But, again based on what I've heard, it won't be ANYTHING like I think a proper sequel should have been.
Maybe I'm not easy to please, and maybe I'm in the wrong for not just resigning and enjoying what's available. It's my nature to think of things in terms of potential, and I can't help but analyse the history of gaming and I've developed some very strong preferences for a certain kind of game - and I have very specific ideas about how I think a sequel should be handled.
That's just who I am.
I think it would be helpful if people understood that my opinion, and likely that of most here, is based on relatively careful reflection and not just biased bashing of Bioware. It's not about hating everything they do, no matter how they do it.
It's about recognising a pattern with them, that has been there for a long time - and which is getting worse as we speak. Not talking about that pattern is, of course, a legitimate approach - but it's not what I think is the best one.
This is why I speak against that pattern.
I'm just not a big fan of the streamlined approach for tactics-based games.
