Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
DD2 is looking better by a country mile.
-----
Modern graphics that don't hinge on a flash-like system. Now, all heroes and enemies get to show off their personalities through the great animations, rather than a small number of static sprites with limited movement. As a bonus, their stories are now playable (rather than external comics).
Combat, stats, and other nuisances from DD1 have been streamlined in a way that has a lot more potential than DD1 ever had, give or take one or two that still need work (like Relationships vs Afflictions).
Visible turn order, token system (instead of DD1's horrible statistics), combat items (which don't use turns), an extra skill-slot for heroes, skill mastery being singular instead of level-based, build-making trinkets, inn-buffs (which are better than camping), and various other factors put DD2 a mile beyond DD1's combat.
Progress is now account progression rather then background progression per-save. People who have been complaining about 'the grind' don't have to worry any more, because the only true grind is just playing the game while your account levels up. Personally, I love a grind - and DD1's never bothered me at all - but I also like the ability to dive into a run without preamble when I feel like getting a fix.
No more worrying about whether my heroes are the right level, whether I have X or Y hamlet function, whether I've ground out the right trinkets, whether they've been fully upgraded at the guild, whether I have the right camping skills unlocked, whether I have enough of X or Y heroes during the early-game to make semi-decent comps, whether the zone has been progressed enough to clear the boss before the roster overlevels the difficulty, so on and so forth.
In DD2, you just pick your heroes, can rotate skills as needed, and go for a drive. There are pros and cons to each version, as some love the Hamlet management, while others may enjoy the more pick-up-and-drop version. Personally, I like both.
Quirks are now more impactful in combat and in nodes, as opposed to being statistic based, or only affecting curios. Having a taunt-capable Braggart or a Leper with that charge-into-R1 quirk is a simple example.
The map system means you essentially get to choose your weekly town event.
I could list more, but I have to head to work.
-----
Will end it by saying that this is one of those stupid subjective questions where only you can answer it for yourself. Anyone can tell you why they prefer X or Y on a personal level, but it may not apply to you due to sheer preference.
It's like asking if you prefer Cheese'n'Onion or Salt'n'Vinegar crisps. I don't mind cheese'n'onion, but I will prefer salt'n'vinegar no matter how much you glorify the other.
You will need to play them, look them up, or research them if you want your own answer. Just keep in mind the earlier point about comparisons. It's silly to flatly compare the two given they are on opposite spectrums of a development cycle.
Ther move with EG exclusivity has shown us how they threat the userbase.
It isn't a beta, it's early access. Purposes are different: a beta is test stage to catch edge case bugs which may not have happened in dev machines. Game will not change in beta, but detected bugs will be fixed.
Early access is about making players a part of the development process by allowing them to play an unfinished game build with a dual purpose:
A)Gather real play data to make rebalancing and changes based on what those players do in-game.
B)Being able to take early feedback from those players to cross reference with data before making changes.
Summing up: everything seen in early access is liable to change before release. Changes done in early access can be temporary and discarded if they aren't found to work minding players'opinions. Bugs are fixed in early access if detected. Many things tagged as bugs by players in early access are actually known issues that have been postponed by devs to get a playable build of the game ASAP since addressing them takes time and don't prevent the game from working(i.e balance issues).
So they're 2 completely different worlds beta and early access. So different than an early access player is not asked to catch bugs, just to play the game and give feedback to devs about their likes and dislikes.
Funny how you both say beta and early access aren't the same thing, yet explain it them same way. Point is it's taken significantly longer than the first game to be made, despite cutting out characters and shortening run lengths and oversimplifying hero playstyles. Not only does it not add up logistically, but we've seen such problems with several other games that went 'epic', both major AAA & independent games.
How they were explained in the same way?
Simplifying hero styles: if you don't know don't mention a thing.
Shortening run lengths: in a certain sense. Bare minimum it's going to be 5 runs to see all the story: so around 20 hours assuming you'll nail everything 1st try(I doubt it). All in all you can play any game as much as you want regardless of campaign length.
You can keep spilling salt over a business decision they took and even don't play at all, it's your life I guess.