Ce sujet est fermé
Alex Kershaw wrote...
Altered Idol wrote...
Alex Kershaw wrote...
Lmao - is this a serious question? Really? How can anybody who has actually played both games and liked one of them strong enough to visit these forums honestly think that Dragon Age 2 was even close to Origins? There isn't a single location in Dragon Age 2 that isn't used for more than one purpose, you don't ever see a new location once you've hit the Deep Roads at the end of act ONE, talking to companions was dumbed down, the inventory was dumbed down, combat was incredibly boring with enemies just appearing out of nowhere continuously... Err, never mind
Origins was set across an entire country. DA2 was about a single city. The fact that there aren't as many new areas to visit shouldn't come as that much of a surprise. It was a different perspective, looking at the individual in a more personal way rather than a more epic, earth shattering viewpoint ala Origins.
This was made clear before the game was released and I for one appreciated it for what it is. Do I have a favourite??? No, both have their merits and their faults. Both have areas that require improvement.
I'm a bit tired of the view that Origins was this flawless masterpiece. It was an amazing game, but it had faults just like DA2 and any other game.
How does stating that it's about a single city make it a good thing? I have played the game - I KNOW it's in a single city. You could make the game in a single house - would that be an excuse for having 2 characters and 1 location? No - being in one city is not an excuse. It's a fault. And Origins got 91 on Metacritic with DA2 getting 82 on Metacritic, so it isn't just a few people making this up - it's the average score of 100 critics...
Did I say a single city made it a good thing. I was stating that to show how the scale of the two games was different. Scale doesnt automatically make a game better or grander. Simply different.
The fact is it was a different type of story. It was about the evolution of the character that was Hawke, whereas Origins was about saving a nation. The scope of the story is specific so there was less avenue to creating other areas to visit. It was also told over a llonger time frame which meant that the areas were reused for different purposes, as they would be. (A raider's cave becomes a Tal Vashoth cave, rather than having a brand new cave).
Edit: What is more believable, visiting a tavern once and never setting foot in it again or reusing said tavern in several mission?
If they had taken Origins, slapped the same old story onto another nation and character, that would have added nothing to th Dragon Age Universe. It would have been considered a better sequel by many I'm sure but for me, I loved the intimate setting of the second game.
As for ratings, so long as it doesnt affect the future of the series, I couldn't give a damn what they think.
Modifié par Altered Idol, 21 mars 2011 - 01:17 .
Retour en haut
. Anyways I find myself bored with DAO. I just am playing through it so that in DA2, my choices will carry over. DA2 is the superior of the two. The fighting in DAO has me almost in tears cuz its so slow and limited. Can't stand not being able to to hit more than one person with my giant sword. I also hate how i start an attack and the enemy runs away, so now i'm just swinging at air and it's still hitting him. DAO story was good, but it's too tedious. Its pretty much the same idea 4 or five times before you reach the final boss. DA2, had different chapters, each different, but all leading up to an epic ending...and an epic beginning. DA2 by far.
