903 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Aesieru wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

They both have their pros and cons.

In terms of how the story was handled: Origins wins

In terms of combat: DA2 wins

In terms of companions: hard to say, but I'd go with DA2 over DA:O

In terms of maps: While Origins did reuse maps, it was to a much lesser degree. The Tower of Ishal has the same map design as the Circle Tower. Most reused maps were from random encounters. So Origins wins in that regard


I'm replaying Origins now, but it's hard to get back into the old combat and the fact that facial movements aren't as good. Plus I'm going to be going to the Circle for my first quest.... oh boy the Fade sure will be fun....

I enjoy both games for their merits.

You could just get the fade skip mod that gives you everything in it, I guess.

PS3 version. My computer's a piece of **** so I haven't bothered playing PC games for years. I bought the Witcher 2 for PC and it lags horribly no matter what I do.

So I've got a $50 doorstop.

I would rather buy a console version of a game that might have graphics that aren't as good (even though console games can have amazing graphics, characters, stories, etc... something a lot of people seem to ignore) then spend $300 trying to fix up my computer only for me to have to spend more money later on to improve it for another game or to buy DLC.


edit: and yes, I have played the PC version of Origins. It was a friend's copy that got me into Origins. The combat to me was never tactical on normal or hard or even Nightmare. But it was the story that drew me in. I've only found a few games with truly tactical combat

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2011 - 04:13 .

[Aesieru]

Console games simply can't have the "ultra" but the "ultra" just makes things seem more unnatural... I've never with my own eyes seen "beautiful water" that is in the games... so they polish it a lot... shiny shiny.

Consoles are fine... though sometimes a PS3 or 360 may play better than another game because it was designed originally for that console.

Like Mass Effect.

...

I found my first playthrough on Origins with a mage was rabidly difficult. The enemies were imbalanced, too much damage, and I swear I died so much it was ridiculous... and it ALWAYS happened... and I didn't suck at RPG's either... I've never tried another mage through just origins but I'm willing to bet unless they did some balancing I wasn't aware of, or I just thought the spells that SHOULD be good would be good... or it was my ai that got me killed (and it wasn't)... that I'd have to go through the same thing.

I hate melee, on principle and the fact it's just not me... as is shooting a bow... but dual-sword was so easy SO EASY that I literally just went up to people and stabbed them repeatedly, taking care of EVERYTHING pretty much, on my own... less it just was "recycle moves"... repeat.

---

If you have disposable income I can probably help you find a reasonably priced new computer, or how to do the custom built ones if you want to for even less... unless you already know how.

Modifié par Aesieru, 02 juin 2011 - 04:28 .

[TEWR]

I've seen games that had nature done in a very realistic, believable, natural, and beautiful way on the console. Granted it's tough to do that, but it can be done.


As for Origins, it was just too easy for me no matter what difficulty or class I played as. I was able to predict what the enemies would do and act accordingly, which meant that they were never a threat. They would only be a threat if they spammed their attacks that knocked me off my feet (damn Ogres...).

But FFXIII probably had the most tactical combat I've ever seen because one wrong move and it was over. Even some of the common enemy fights had that.

Kingdom Hearts 2 for the PS2 also had a very tactical battle with Sephiroth. You were confined to a fairly decent sized area but you had to be careful against him.

Now I think DA can have its combat be even more tactical without the enemies having obscene amounts of health. How they can do that I don't know, but it can be done. That's not to say it isn't tactical already. It just wasn't for me but if they decided to keep it as it is now I wouldn't complain. I play more for the story and the roleplaying than for the pause-and-play type of thing.

[Aesieru]

True I play any game for the story and experience, 60 dollars needs to hold up a singleplayer campaign on its own... I barely if at all touch multiplayer; however, I don't want the game to feel like work while trying to enjoy the story.. and I didn't enjoy DA 2 because of all the hassle it gave me.

---

Maybe I can help you with getting a new computer?

[TEWR]

nah I'm fine with what I've got. But thanks anyway.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Is this thread for real? I know it's old and all but...ummm really? Someone asked this?

Origins is to DA2 like Highlander is to Highlander 2.

[grimmcreeper]

In my opinion, I'd say they're equal. There are so many things that DA:O did better than DA2, but there are also many things DA2 did better than DA:O.

I really enjoy them both...I guess I have low standards for liking DA2, but meh. It's not perfect, but neither was DA:O

[Mickespel]

Game engine runs smoother on DA2, other then that Origins really do win.

[addiction21]

grimmcreeper wrote...

In my opinion, I'd say they're equal. There are so many things that DA:O did better than DA2, but there are also many things DA2 did better than DA:O.

I really enjoy them both...I guess I have low standards for liking DA2, but meh. It's not perfect, but neither was DA:O

My feelings exactly. Both are good games inj their own rights. Both have their flaws. Both I have enjoyed and I will far into the future.

[kaiki01]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Is this thread for real? I know it's old and all but...ummm really? Someone asked this?

Origins is to DA2 like Highlander is to Highlander 2.

So DA2 is so bad that it's awesome, ala the pac-man effect? I am going to disagree. DA2 is more like Highlander 3.

[FiachSidhe]

electroban wrote...

Uh uh uh .....uhhhwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh waaaaaahhhh *lip quiver* waaaaaahhhh

[JFarr74]

FiachSidhe wrote...

electroban wrote...

Uh uh uh .....uhhhwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh waaaaaahhhh *lip quiver* waaaaaahhhh

[topster88]

Things DA2 has over DA:O

- Combat looks more exciting
- Voiced protagonist
- Better graphics

Things DA2 fails in compared to DA:O

- Disjointed storyline and weak third act
- Basic and restrictive companion equipment system (can't switch armor, can change weapon style)
- Maps are recycled to an excessive degree
- First-day DLC while the content of the vanilla game is noticeably bare
- More bugs than DA:O
- Hawke's voiced responses can differ greatly from the dialog selection you made

Maybe some people like the combat animations and voiced protagonist enough to overlook DA2's flaws, but I for one can't.

[Denizen89]

I enjoyed Origins way more than I did 2. I did not enjoy the dynasty warriors combat, Storyline was disjointed with a very weak third act. Tons of Bugs in 2, Hawke's voiced responses did not impress me much aside from a couple of sarcastic responses. Overall this is a 5 rated game that obviously should not have been rated as high by critics. I'm one of those people that think the Warden should be the next playable character instead of hawke the story for the Warden did not end conclusively for some that did not take a walk.

[Lisa_H]

Both are great games, but I if I had to pick I would chose DA2.

[JFarr74]

Both sort feel like different types of games.

[Arivle]

There's only one thing better in DA2 than in DAO. That is - The main protagonist speaks. Everything else is far worse. That being said - DA2 is still great game. However DAO is _fantastic_ game.

Modifié par Arivle, 05 juin 2011 - 11:01 .

[JFarr74]

I like the dialogue wheel in Dragon Age 2 better than the dialogue options in Dragon Age: Origins.

[erynnar]

A game that took four years to develop give or take vs one the took eight to eighteen months give or take they are already starting on uneven ground no matter the level enjoyment they brought people (and mileage may vary for either).

Was DAO perfect? Nope. But it was better than DA2 on more levels than DA2 brought any improvements to DAO.

[Mr.House]

I would say DAO. Yes I prefer Hawke and the characters, the new talent system and some of the minor changes but overall DAO was a better product. Yes the fade and the Deep Roads drive me crazy in DAO but the side stories, civil war plot, Leli, Zev, Shale, Morrigan, Sten, the combat(the only big issue with the combat is the waves in DA2) and just a better polished product make up for it. The Blight might have been a very boring story but at least it made sense, had proper conclusion and did not make my head hurt.

[Skilled Seeker]

DAO, no contest. Anyone who says otherwise is still going through the denial phase. DA2 is a smelly turd compared to DAO.

[jlb524]

Origins is the 'better' game, but I personally like DA2 more and have already played it a lot more than I ever did Origins.

[Skilled Seeker]

^ Denial.

[LiquidGrape]

Origins had the polish, the scope and the novelty. DA2 had the rough edges, the focus and the themes.

I really do like both, but as I think the latter is a far more adventurous and creatively ambitious effort, I do prefer DA2.

[mesmerizedish]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Origins had the polish, the scope and the novelty. DA2 had the rough edges, the focus and the themes.

I really do like both, but as I think the latter is a far more adventurous and creatively ambitious effort, I do prefer DA2.

This. Not sure about Origins' "novelty," though.