147 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathy4saren]

5 being highest, of course

[fpngan2001]

3-3.5 I suppose.

[Skilled Seeker]

6

[sevenplusone]

3.5

The thing killing DA2 is the extreme lack of dialogue in comparison to Origins.

Modifié par sevenplusone, 10 mars 2011 - 02:56 .

[PsychoWARD23]

4, maybe a little lower, not sure, I'm still not that far in.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

A 3.5, not bad game, but could be alot better if they took their time.

[logangriffith]

I rate it a 3.5. My wife loved the first dragon age and rates this one at about a 2-2.5. The game doesn't really seemed finished to me with the missing item descriptions and repeat maps. It seems this game was rushed and it is a bit disappointing.

[Naitaka]

Spam.

End of the Line.

[/Stanly Woo Impression]

0.1...no seriously though, 3.5 out of 5 for me, even though it's not a great game, it's still a good game. Imho, the only mistake Bioware made was calling it Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age: Dark Alliance would have worked so much better...

[Melness]

3.5 now, 4.5 if they fix a handful of bugs.

[Drogo45]

4

[Abel Coyle]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

4, maybe a little lower, not sure, I'm still not that far in.

This I'm having fun but it's not groundbreaking or awe inspiring. 

[Loup Blanc]

I have played only a few hours so far. It is growing on me, while at first I was extremely underwhelmed.
At this point in time, I would say 3.5 (7/10).

And that's the problem. From Bioware we expect nothing but excellence. And DA2 fails in that matter. It's a good game, possibly very good (the next few hours of gameplay will either make or break the game for me), but not Mass Effect or Dragon Age Origins caliber.

[GrackFields420]

2.5 because it's very rushed and lacks content compared to DA:O

[BaronFel124]

I'd say 3.5 to 4.

Depends on how the rest of the game shapes up.

[Nightnight]

you guys are nuts. I give the game a 5/5!

[MingWolf]

I'll give it a 4, but I'm only a handful of hours in... maybe 6 hours or so. It has problems, but I knew right away not to compare this directly to DA:O. Its a different game in its own right. Some bugs and lack of polish annoy me, but some of the worldly designs, character, and a slightly more creative twist to the story thus far has kept me captivated and longing to play (if only I had the spare time).

[BiggusDikkus]

2.5

I finshed this game in 10 hours, incomparable to my 40 hours in Origins. Well, I suppose they are doing a pretty good job of getting the CoD Audience: http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience

[Malfustheone]

3. They made some changes that got rid of many annoyances (multiple auto saves, a real junk tab, etc) but they changed a lot of the good stuff too. For instance, this whole class restricted weapons thing is really annoying. Then there are the bugs. Too many, some pretty game breaking. In fact, there seems to be a bug where my spirit healer gets out of battle regen as long as the healing aura is active, making her an ultra tank if I spec her str and con with lots of defensive sustains. Also, rezzing my allies mid fight grants them out of battle regen for the rest of the fight, what up with that?

[dchesnes]

This has got to be the most rational thread I've read on DA2. It is a good game, not garbage, not legendary. It could be better but it could be a lot worse.

I'd give it a 3.5 to 4.

[logangriffith]

10 hours and 40 hours, both of those times seem rushed.

[Flunkorg]

5

[ajbry]

4.25. It's been very good - not as compelling as I might've expected - and very fun.

[Sinvx]

BiggusDikkus wrote...

2.5

I finshed this game in 10 hours, incomparable to my 40 hours in Origins. Well, I suppose they are doing a pretty good job of getting the CoD Audience: http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience

10 hours? I don't believe you... Took me 9 hours to finish the first act.

[FadiRS]

3.5 so far...

[MerchantGOL]

3.5 or a 4