147 réponses à ce sujet

[InvaderErl]

15 hours in I'd say 3/5

I like it more than ME1 and Jade Empire but its not as good as KoTOR/Origins/ME2.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 mars 2011 - 08:52 .

[Xaltar81]

Sawp wrote...

You people are comparing stuff that can't even be compared.

Of course, BG2 was better
Of course DAO was better

But these are different games, developed in a different time.
DA2 is just something new, and that's not a pure rpg, but if you expected it to be like its predecessors, you were just fooling yourselves.

edit : and 4 on 5 to stay on topic. 

This has to be the most idiotic comment I have seen so far. As a game touted as a sequal to DA:O where DA:O was in turn marketed as the "Spiritual Sequal to Baldurs Gate" the comparisons are more than justified. If this was Kirkwall: Rise of the Champion then your comment may hold water but they slaped the Dragon Age name and lore on it and thus the only thing it CAN be compaired to is Origins, its predecessor.

This is not a seqal game, it is a cash cow made purely to capitalize on the success of the Dragon Age franchise. Its $$ over fans in true EA tradition. EA games almost never fail to earn, not because they are good but because they know THEIR target audience, and that is not us, the people who hate this game and its stupid changes. So, is it a good game for some? Maybe, is it good for the people who have been Bioware fans since the earliest days? For most of us, hell no.

1/5 stands

[mormaer]

3.5 for me. Feels a little dumbed down, as if they were trying to capture a larger market share. I hope they flesh this out with DLC while they take their time on the next one.

[RagingCyclone]

Savvie wrote...

4.5/5

To anyone that made their judgments about the game from the first few hours of play, please don't. I strongly recommend you play much further along before deciding if you like it or not. In my opinion it gets a lot better further into the story. I really only have good things to say about this game, but I don't expect everyone to be pleased by it.  Just try to give a fair chance.

Just one small problem with giving something you don't like more time, and this is from back in college taking creative writing 101. If you do not get a reader for a book hooked in the first 50 pages, a viewer for a movie in the first 15 minutes,  and slide in this game in the first few hours, you will never hook them.  There are exceptions, but the general rule is if you can't hook them early, you can't hook them at all. 

[casedawgz]

Xaltar81 wrote...

Sawp wrote...

You people are comparing stuff that can't even be compared.

Of course, BG2 was better
Of course DAO was better

But these are different games, developed in a different time.
DA2 is just something new, and that's not a pure rpg, but if you expected it to be like its predecessors, you were just fooling yourselves.

edit : and 4 on 5 to stay on topic. 

This has to be the most idiotic comment I have seen so far. As a game touted as a sequal to DA:O where DA:O was in turn marketed as the "Spiritual Sequal to Baldurs Gate" the comparisons are more than justified. If this was Kirkwall: Rise of the Champion then your comment may hold water but they slaped the Dragon Age name and lore on it and thus the only thing it CAN be compaired to is Origins, its predecessor.

This is not a seqal game, it is a cash cow made purely to capitalize on the success of the Dragon Age franchise. Its $$ over fans in true EA tradition. EA games almost never fail to earn, not because they are good but because they know THEIR target audience, and that is not us, the people who hate this game and its stupid changes. So, is it a good game for some? Maybe, is it good for the people who have been Bioware fans since the earliest days? For most of us, hell no.

1/5 stands

I find it funny that your comment about a stupid comment was actually MORE stupid.

[Alexus_VG]

Xaltar81 wrote...

Sawp wrote...

You people are comparing stuff that can't even be compared.

Of course, BG2 was better
Of course DAO was better

But these are different games, developed in a different time.
DA2 is just something new, and that's not a pure rpg, but if you expected it to be like its predecessors, you were just fooling yourselves.

edit : and 4 on 5 to stay on topic. 

This has to be the most idiotic comment I have seen so far. As a game touted as a sequal to DA:O where DA:O was in turn marketed as the "Spiritual Sequal to Baldurs Gate" the comparisons are more than justified. If this was Kirkwall: Rise of the Champion then your comment may hold water but they slaped the Dragon Age name and lore on it and thus the only thing it CAN be compaired to is Origins, its predecessor.

This is not a seqal game, it is a cash cow made purely to capitalize on the success of the Dragon Age franchise. Its $$ over fans in true EA tradition. EA games almost never fail to earn, not because they are good but because they know THEIR target audience, and that is not us, the people who hate this game and its stupid changes. So, is it a good game for some? Maybe, is it good for the people who have been Bioware fans since the earliest days? For most of us, hell no.

1/5 stands

 
100% in agreement with this. How could you possibly say a comparison is not appropriate. And ffs DA:O was released less than 2 years ago so it can hardly be said it's developed in a different time.

On topic and as for the rating 1/5 for sure. I'm not going to get into why. That's what the official feedback thread is for.

[serthorn]

2

[SomebodyNowhere]

Since it is unfair to rate a game I'm not even close to through, based on my early impressions of the game I'm going to say about a 3.5 out of 5. I don't think this game deserves perfect scores, but it doesn't deserve the scorn it is getting either.
I expected some changes(and I can live with most of them), but without being able to scroll back to the tactical camera view doing the area attacks in a confined space is much more difficult than it should be.

[Xaltar81]

casedawgz wrote...

I find it funny that your comment about a stupid comment was actually MORE stupid.

Ah and a troll has arived, throwing words like stupid around without justifying thier remark at all. I am pretty sure you are one of the people rating the game 10/5 and feel anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Have your opinion I really don't care, we are all entitled to one.

edit: replied to wrong poster

Modifié par Xaltar81, 10 mars 2011 - 09:13 .

[casedawgz]

Xaltar81 wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

I find it funny that your comment about a stupid comment was actually MORE stupid.

I was refering to your comment, not intentionaly insulting you, I do appologise if I came across rude. The fact remains however that the game is marketed as a sequal, not its own thing. If it were given a new name and not in any way connected to the Dragon age franchise then your comment would be accurate. It is not however and much as I would love to cut the game some slack, being called an RPG and being marketed to fans of the original game as a sequal is francly insulting. It does not feel or play like any sequal I have ever seen, you yourself called it "its own thing". The fact that anyone can say that means that as a sequal it is an outright failure.

Those weren't my comments. I thought the other one was a dumb comment as well.

[bangvang]

give it 10 alot better then dragon age 1 the one say it suck get a life

[The Dubious]

3.5 - 4ish
haven't got to far into it- hopefully there some surprises

my biggest compliant was the fact you were restricted to one race, doesn't feel as personable to me i mean Hawke's alright, but he reminds me to much if Shepherd. (all these updated looking races and you can't even play them)

engaging battles are less compelling (hack slash is fun but not pressing one button practically), though kudos on the spell casting seems faster and smoother.

all-in-all fun

[Xaltar81]

bangvang wrote...

give it 10 alot better then dragon age 1 the one say it suck get a life

Glad you enjoyed it. Saying that those of us who didn't should get a life however is rude and inconsiderate. We have our reasons for disliking it as much as you do for liking it. That is the point of such discussion threads, for the developer to see the for and against, not for them to get nauseated by insults.

[resistor75]

i didnt enjoy dao until a year after the first time i played it and had forgotten about how i wanted it to be. i dont know how i feel about 2 yet. its fun but not alot of enemy variation. i'll have an informed opinion when ive completed the game. right now it gets a 4/5. and jade empire was the biggest let down in my 30 years of gaming, but i would like to see a sequel.

[Rawgrim]

I have played it for about 9 hours, and I would say (so far) that its a 3.5. Yes its dumbed down ALOT, but the story and the companions are great. Quests are better as well. Especially the side-quests. Combat is smoother, but at the same time also abit lamer. Stabbing someone with a dagger makes the person explode, and such. So my conclusion is that the game takes some huge steps forwards in some areas, but also takes aa step or two backwards, in alot of other areas. Still...3.5 is my score.

[bangvang]

i know just after seen so many angry post its geting tired we know some dont like no need to make 100 angry post and sorry if i was rude :-)

[Ghaden]

I'd say 3.5

[Narelda]

3/5 as a console game. 2/5 as a successor to DA:O. There's some redeeming qualities, yet too many glaring disappointments. Cookie cutter dungeons, empty city, dull level design, the OTT combat style with enemies appearing out of nowhere, overall simplification of just about everything.

The positive so far. DX11 effects, high resolution texture pack. These help in part to negate the overall bleak look. Character animations are better, and while combat is what it is, it does not have some of the problems DA:O combat did.

[Obode]

Tbh i can't agree with all these negative scores.

Personally Id give it a 4/5 or 8.5/10 Its a very enjoyable game, there are some minors problems, but nothing major. The one thing I really didnt like was the amount of recycled scenes, that was just pure lazy on biowares part. Recycling for the same instance is obvious fine, but when Its a completly diffrent one, then It makes no sense at all.

[colata]

Action 2 ( 5 being God of war 2)
Adventure 2 ( 5 being GTA vice city full on liberty / various side missions / exploration)
Interactive Drama 2.8 ( 5 being heavy rain, alan wake )
Strategy 1.8 ( 5 being starcraft )

3.9  (0-5 scale)
bit weird hybrid but VERY SOLID!!!  FUN!


I don't know but even under the premise that it's not a DA:O sequeal rather brand new IP of hybrid genre, gamespot's score of 8.0 seems quite fit for this title.

Comparing other 8.0 titles and 8.5 titles, DA2 still lacks something to make it up to 8.5.
A bit weak.


some more effective detail ( customization; not redundancy) , epicness to level design, story would have made it near 4.5

Modifié par colata, 10 mars 2011 - 05:16 .

[strinder]

PC version... 2/5, a painfully average console port.

[Sawp]

Alexus_VG wrote...

Xaltar81 wrote...

Sawp wrote...

You people are comparing stuff that can't even be compared.

Of course, BG2 was better
Of course DAO was better

But these are different games, developed in a different time.
DA2 is just something new, and that's not a pure rpg, but if you expected it to be like its predecessors, you were just fooling yourselves.

edit : and 4 on 5 to stay on topic. 

This has to be the most idiotic comment I have seen so far. As a game touted as a sequal to DA:O where DA:O was in turn marketed as the "Spiritual Sequal to Baldurs Gate" the comparisons are more than justified. If this was Kirkwall: Rise of the Champion then your comment may hold water but they slaped the Dragon Age name and lore on it and thus the only thing it CAN be compaired to is Origins, its predecessor.

This is not a seqal game, it is a cash cow made purely to capitalize on the success of the Dragon Age franchise. Its $$ over fans in true EA tradition. EA games almost never fail to earn, not because they are good but because they know THEIR target audience, and that is not us, the people who hate this game and its stupid changes. So, is it a good game for some? Maybe, is it good for the people who have been Bioware fans since the earliest days? For most of us, hell no.

1/5 stands

 
100% in agreement with this. How could you possibly say a comparison is not appropriate. And ffs DA:O was released less than 2 years ago so it can hardly be said it's developed in a different time.

On topic and as for the rating 1/5 for sure. I'm not going to get into why. That's what the official feedback thread is for.

Well, as a the idiotic comment guy, i have to answer. 

I considered DAO being from another time because they started developing it a long time ago.
DA 2, on the contrary, was rushed, that's true and i've never said the contrary.

But how can you possibly make a game in less than 2 years, that would be as good as a game that was developped in 7 years, even with a larger team working on it ?

My point is :

When you say that DA II is for $$, and i agree, didn't you realize that it was already the case when Bioware started selling ridiculous DLCs for 5$ or 10$ each ? It's nothing new. Now they release a full game following the same logic and i see so many surprised people overreacting on the overall bad quality of DA2.

Anyway, I was strongly pessimistic before DA2's release. But now that i'm playing it, i don't consider it to be the monstrous pile of **** that many  people are describing. It's not perfect, but it's not that horrible either.
That's why a gave it a 4. 

Modifié par Sawp, 10 mars 2011 - 02:53 .

[Lehanna]

4.2

Origins got a 3.5 from me, so DA2 is about 0.7 of an improvement. If that makes you mad, well, you can go suck a fence post.

[zx2781]

A generous 3

[strinder]

Lehanna wrote...

4.2

Origins got a 3.5 from me, so DA2 is about 0.7 of an improvement. If that makes you mad, well, you can go suck a fence post.

Hey a fence post!