903 réponses à ce sujet

[furryrage59]

In Exile wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

The combat in DA2 was pretty silly to be honest. It had gone from realuistic combat speeds to an ampthetimine induced manag style dagger speed swinging frenzy, absolutely nukes any immersion totally.

The speed in DA:O was unrealistically slow. The swings were absurd (no one uses a 2-H like a baseball bat) and the S&S style moved stupidly (you don't swing your sword across your body and leave your chest open by moving your shield-arm to the side).

Plus the lack of kill animations is just inexcusable, combat has taken a massive leap backwards and is now a simple button mashing exercise, sadly.

If play on the console, I can't comment. On PC, it plays the same.

Character interaction has quite simply been dumbed down.

...? Character interaction is the same as DA:O, with the difference being that the times you can speak are timed & addded to the quest journal.

Actually one fellow linked a youtube video which showed them striking very similiar to how one uses a baseball bat when doing a powerful swing, sorry.

How do you know how people were taught to fight in this fantasy realm? Are you a master swordsman? Are you trained in martial aspects at all? The fighting is similiar to pretty much any fantasy game/film i have ever seen fighting in so not sure what your point is really on that one. Additionally the combat speed was more realistic in Origins than 2 by a long, long way. It kills immersion completely. The only thing which is slow is two handed weapons, which are heavy and take a wind up to be powerful. Using skill combos you can pretty much negate the speed loss anyway, as well as using haste etc. In 2, the speed is ridiculous, you'd be exhausted in seconds even attempting to swing a two handed weapon at that velocity in the ridiculous combos it tries to do. You wouldn't be able to use a light sword at that pace, let alone a 6-8lb weapon.

You said it yourself, character interaction is not the same. In origins you could chat to anyone anytime, in 2 you can talk at set points.

[Goraka]

Really though guys, I play bioware games for the story they tell,and both DA's had good stories they simply changed the tone and scale a bit; Origins was an epic about saving a country while DA2 was a personal story about one person, the unfortunate events they got caught up in and what they did to survive. Both are good games.
I will say that the reusing of terrain in DA2 was a bit disappointing though, but then again they did that in mass effect 1, eh.

Modifié par Goraka, 07 juillet 2011 - 08:25 .

[Realmzmaster]

The OP's question depends on the individual gamer's taste. I liked both games. I must admit I liked the premise in the DA2 story more than DAO since it dealt on a more personal level. That is my personal taste. I have played many games where the main character had to save the world. It was nice to see a different focus much like Ultima IV which also was not about saving the world.

[Darth Kraken]

Dragon age 2 by a mile

[SoulRebel_1979]

furryrage59 wrote...

Additionally the combat speed was more realistic in Origins than 2 by a long, long way. 

Origins combat animations were also much more refined in Origins. 

The only thing DA2 had over Origins in the combat department was it got rid of the awkward shuffling your party would do in order to get to their target. That used to frustrate me to no end while playing Origins, especially in places like the Deeproads. 

[b09boy]

Origins.  By far.  The game was greater than the sum of its parts which, while not especially great individually, came together to create a great game.  If those individual parts had been tweaked, updated and improved upon, and if a bare few story elements were added (Jowan's recruitment to the Wardens, a major darkspawn encounter somewhere in the middle of the game, a bit more effect with origin stories), it could have easily been nigh perfect.

DA2 was just the opposite.  The new systems and designs introduced were terrible and the enormous amounts of flaws, large and small, make the game as a whole collapse in on itself, largely because the story isn't there to hold it all together.  And yeah, the story was horrendous by most every technical merit to the point where I'd say if you called it good then your opinion is wrong.  How it was buuilt up from the opening scene to the closing credits was a premiere example in what not to do in storytelling.  The combat wasn't good so much as faster.  Take one of the faster combat mods for Origins and see how suddenly that game plays leaps and bounds better than DA2.

[lichtdwarf]

both great games. each has some parts they one which they are better. but hands down? dragon age: origins.

[Alexander1136]

Origins was better in every single way. I was completely disapointed with dragon age 2.

[Soilborn88]

I liked Origins way better. And since I've already expressed my opinion numerous times already since there are only about 10,000 of these threads I will not do so again.

[JFarr74]

Hopefully the Legacy DLC will be fun!

[Jamie_edmo]

b09boy wrote...

Origins.  By far.  The game was greater than the sum of its parts which, while not especially great individually, came together to create a great game.  If those individual parts had been tweaked, updated and improved upon, and if a bare few story elements were added (Jowan's recruitment to the Wardens, a major darkspawn encounter somewhere in the middle of the game, a bit more effect with origin stories), it could have easily been nigh perfect.

DA2 was just the opposite.  The new systems and designs introduced were terrible and the enormous amounts of flaws, large and small, make the game as a whole collapse in on itself, largely because the story isn't there to hold it all together.  And yeah, the story was horrendous by most every technical merit to the point where I'd say if you called it good then your opinion is wrong.  How it was buuilt up from the opening scene to the closing credits was a premiere example in what not to do in storytelling.  The combat wasn't good so much as faster.  Take one of the faster combat mods for Origins and see how suddenly that game plays leaps and bounds better than DA2.

Pretty much this, the only "clear" improvment i thought was the graphics and even they arent top quality

[JFarr74]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

b09boy wrote...

Origins.  By far.  The game was greater than the sum of its parts which, while not especially great individually, came together to create a great game.  If those individual parts had been tweaked, updated and improved upon, and if a bare few story elements were added (Jowan's recruitment to the Wardens, a major darkspawn encounter somewhere in the middle of the game, a bit more effect with origin stories), it could have easily been nigh perfect.

DA2 was just the opposite.  The new systems and designs introduced were terrible and the enormous amounts of flaws, large and small, make the game as a whole collapse in on itself, largely because the story isn't there to hold it all together.  And yeah, the story was horrendous by most every technical merit to the point where I'd say if you called it good then your opinion is wrong.  How it was buuilt up from the opening scene to the closing credits was a premiere example in what not to do in storytelling.  The combat wasn't good so much as faster.  Take one of the faster combat mods for Origins and see how suddenly that game plays leaps and bounds better than DA2.

Pretty much this, the only "clear" improvment i thought was the graphics and even they arent top quality

And the combat...I think...

[Faunwea]

For me, DA2.

[b09boy]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

b09boy wrote...

Origins.  By far.  The game was greater than the sum of its parts which, while not especially great individually, came together to create a great game.  If those individual parts had been tweaked, updated and improved upon, and if a bare few story elements were added (Jowan's recruitment to the Wardens, a major darkspawn encounter somewhere in the middle of the game, a bit more effect with origin stories), it could have easily been nigh perfect.

DA2 was just the opposite.  The new systems and designs introduced were terrible and the enormous amounts of flaws, large and small, make the game as a whole collapse in on itself, largely because the story isn't there to hold it all together.  And yeah, the story was horrendous by most every technical merit to the point where I'd say if you called it good then your opinion is wrong.  How it was buuilt up from the opening scene to the closing credits was a premiere example in what not to do in storytelling.  The combat wasn't good so much as faster.  Take one of the faster combat mods for Origins and see how suddenly that game plays leaps and bounds better than DA2.

Pretty much this, the only "clear" improvment i thought was the graphics and even they arent top quality

Even those I'd hesitate to call better.  They took advantage of hardware and the engine and updated certain things, yes, but that's not all there is to graphics either.  On the flipside, the art style used in DA2 was, with one or two exceptions, worse in my opinion and the settings not half so detailed.  Like in Origins there would be a lot of objects laying around to bring character to a room.  DA2 is barren by comparison.

[Chromie]

Baldur's Gate 2 > DA:O > ??? > DA2

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gothic 4?

*runs away*

[KLUME777]

DAO of coarse.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Since the other thread was locked, I wish to reply to BeckShort here.

---------------------------

Glad you enjoyed it BeckShort. I did not share the same sentiment, at all. But I
appreciate you expressing your seemingly controversial opinion.

BeckShort wrote...
I
think what DA2 really did brilliantly is expand on the Qun and the
Qunari.  They are the best parts of the game for me.  Saarebas,
Arishok...haunting and well-voiced.  Sten was great in DAO, but the
Qunari were vastly improved in the sequel.  They're terrifyingly
believable.  

I am not sure I agree. On one hand, their physical change did not annoy me and I've grown used to it. Act 2 is certainly my favorite part of the game and I like how the Arishok was developped, when you compare him to Meredith who barely has a character.

But Act 2 had a lot of problems for me. Firstly, I am not sure what was the point. The Qunari are not really integrated
into the overal central plot (mage / templars which as it stands is really a shell of a plot imo). They are just there, in large part because I think Bioware knew they were popular.  Hawke stumbling on fame could have been done in different circumstances, same as the Viscount dying. It didn't need the Qunari.

Also, did we really learn that much more about the Qunari? I am not so sure. I don't think Qunari lore was expanded that much, and we still got the "we'll be back" thing that we had with Sten. We are still only interacting with the military arm of the Qun, so that's only 1/3 of their culture.

Furthermore, I think the plot twist that had the Qunari be in Kirkwall was very weak. It didn't make that much sense to me, nor was it really explained. Why is it so important? Why don't they have copies? So it ended up looking like the Qunari were shoved there for the sake of it, with no real good reason to me. 3 years after their breaking of the accords, apparently no one cares.

Finally, I can't help but feel that the Qunari acted like idiots at the end. What was the Arishok thinking? Why didn't
strike the Gallows that houses Kirkwall's largest military force? Why didn't he take advantage of the city's heavily defensible stairs? Bioware is generally bad when it comes to politics and warfare.
Also, the mage handler who wants to kill hawke ffor just listening to a Sarebaas seak. Ok....what about your men behhind you who heard him?.....are they somehow protected or immune while Hawke isn't?

I think it would have been much better if:
- The Qunari were scrapped, and Act 2 was about mages / Templars, specifically the mage underground resistance. This would be preferable to me.

- Or the entire thing be about the Qunari, in a context of either a Qunari invasion of Thedas or escallation of tensions. But DA is headed towards mage rebellion, so not sure that's feasible.

- Or find a way to integrate Act 2 more into the mage \\ templar conflict. Which could have been accomplished by involving Meredith and Orsino much more. It would have strengthened the overal plot and would have given those
two some character development.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:53 .

[fikl]

I'm doing my second play through for DA: O and while I liked both, I enjoy DA2 more. The DA:O artwork is bland, the character animation is awkward, the combat requires no thought, and the repetitive environments are almost as bad as the directly shared environments in DA2.

[csfteeeer]

Dragon Age Origins > Dragon Age 2

it's that simple.

[alex90c]

b09boy wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

b09boy wrote...

Origins.  By far.  The game was greater than the sum of its parts which, while not especially great individually, came together to create a great game.  If those individual parts had been tweaked, updated and improved upon, and if a bare few story elements were added (Jowan's recruitment to the Wardens, a major darkspawn encounter somewhere in the middle of the game, a bit more effect with origin stories), it could have easily been nigh perfect.

DA2 was just the opposite.  The new systems and designs introduced were terrible and the enormous amounts of flaws, large and small, make the game as a whole collapse in on itself, largely because the story isn't there to hold it all together.  And yeah, the story was horrendous by most every technical merit to the point where I'd say if you called it good then your opinion is wrong.  How it was buuilt up from the opening scene to the closing credits was a premiere example in what not to do in storytelling.  The combat wasn't good so much as faster.  Take one of the faster combat mods for Origins and see how suddenly that game plays leaps and bounds better than DA2.

Pretty much this, the only "clear" improvment i thought was the graphics and even they arent top quality

Even those I'd hesitate to call better.  They took advantage of hardware and the engine and updated certain things, yes, but that's not all there is to graphics either.  On the flipside, the art style used in DA2 was, with one or two exceptions, worse in my opinion and the settings not half so detailed.  Like in Origins there would be a lot of objects laying around to bring character to a room.  DA2 is barren by comparison.

DA2 is barren because David Silverman came to his extremely clever conclusion that "well, nobody paid attention to the books on the floor in the Circle Tower, so next time we'll just get rid of stuff like that!".

Plus the whole "man, the Brecilian Forest and the Deep Roads looking different sucked!" business.

[ademska]

@KoP

personal preferences and opinions aside, i thought the intent of putting the qunari in da2 was fairly obvious.

in dao with sten, the threat is not immediate or particularly ominous. yeah, the codex is explicit about how bad the war was, and conversations with him aren't exactly subtle about the qunari returning, but the only qunari with whom the player has any interaction is sten, and he can be your best bro.

meanwhile in da2 you're dealing with a large subset of qunari military, you see their brutality firsthand, and the closest you can get to any of them over the course of three years is a grudging respect that culminates in a duel to the death. it drives the point home that they're foreign, reasoning with them is not so easily done, and, most importantly, they can **** your city's **** up.

the overarching plot of da2 is mages vs templars, but the qunari conflict serves to inform the player of the perils of thedas heading into all out war. i doubt you, in your many discussions about the ill timing of the mage revolution, would use the impending qunari re-invasion if the point weren't so salient after what we see of them in da2.


incidentally, this is part of why i effing love this game.

Modifié par ademska, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:19 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ademska wrote...
the overarching plot of da2 is mages vs templars, but the qunari conflict serves to inform the player of the perils of thedas heading into all out war. i doubt you, in your many discussions about the ill timing of the mage revolution, would use the impending qunari re-invasion if the point weren't so salient after what we see of them in da2.

Actually, I used that argument ever since Origins and long before DA2 was released.

It was not necessary to shove the Qunari in such a heavy handed fashion (and imo poor) to convey the point. I think a sub plot that involves the Qunari would have been sufficient to see them as a threat. For instance, say you befriend a Tal Vashoth, who tells you alot about the Qunari, and then you have to deal with a Qunari death squad sent to kill his band of rebels (maybe we get the choice to help either). There you can see how foreign and brutually efficient they are. Preferrably while using tech.

In essence, instead of having the mage resistance be in the bg, it would be the main focus of Act 2 and the Qunari would be a sub plot / side quest (ideally, one that ranges from Act 1 till Act 2).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:32 .

[ademska]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Actually, I used that argument ever since Origins and long before DA2 was released.

i mean re: anders' actions, which (hopefully ) you didn't know about before da2 was released.

regardless, that argument wouldn't hold such weight with me and the concept itself of a massive civil war wouldn't fill me with such dread/excitement if all i had seen of the qunari was what they gave us in dao. sten was interesting, but he wasn't particularly premonitory, and most importantly, what he really lacked was ...

It was not necessary to shove the Qunari in such a heavy handed fashion (and imo poor) to convey the point. I think a sub plot that involves the Qunari would have been sufficient to see them as a threat. For instance, say you befriend a Tal Vashoth, who tells you alot about the Qunari, and then you have to deal with a Qunari death squad sent to kill his band of rebels (maybe we get the choice to help either). There you can see how foreign and brutually efficient they are. Preferrably while using tech.

In essence, instead of having the mage resistance be in the bg, it would be the main focus of Act 2 and the Qunari would be a sub plot / side quest (ideally, one that ranges from Act 1 till Act 2).

... scale.

the qunari were effective for me because of their sheer scale. the qunari stew in an entire section of town for three years, with tensions quietly building, and the increasing number of quests centered around them really built up suspense. the quests themselves were fraught with devastation and strange moral questions. finally, the cord snaps, and they bring the city to its knees in a matter of minutes.

you may not have liked the execution as much as i did, but relegating them to a sidequest would neuter that tension.

there were some things dao did better than da2. to me, conveying the gravity of the threat the qunari pose was not one of them.

Modifié par ademska, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ademska wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Actually, I used that argument ever since Origins and long before DA2 was released.

i mean re: anders' actions, which (hopefully ) you didn't know about before da2 was released.

regardless, that argument wouldn't hold such weight with me and the concept itself of a massive civil war wouldn't fill me with such dread/excitement if all i had seen of the qunari was what they gave us in dao. sten was interesting, but he wasn't particularly premonitory, and most importantly, what he really lacked was ...

Revolution was a topic of discussion from long ago. Way before Anders.

I am not saying they should just content themselves with what DA:O showed. I am saying, that they didn't need to make a disjointed story, just to involve the Qunari in what I saw as a rather poor fashion.

the qunari were effective for me because of their sheer scale. the qunari stew in an entire section of town for three years, with tensions quietly building, and the increasing number of quests centered around them really built up suspense. the quests themselves were fraught with devastation and strange moral questions. finally, the cord snaps, and they bring the city to its knees in a matter of minutes.

you may not have liked the execution as much as i did, but relegating them to a sidequest would neuter that tension.

I don't think they need to be that bombastic and Holywoodesque to convey the feeling of a threat and tension. Actually, what I saw was the Qunari being mostly incompetent. They had tech they never used, and they had a perfect defensible stairway they never fortified.  And they never thought to preempt on Kirkwall's main military force. Beating the weakened guards was nothing impressive for me.

I think a series of sidequests would have been enough. Especiallly since I doubt that DA3 is going to be about the Qunari (it would also be an opportunity to explore them more then). For now, the Qunari don't need bombastic foreshadowing. Especially when apparently no one cares about what happens 3 years later.

Of course ideally, both Qunari and mage / Templar should be developped to their fullest potential. But that wouldn't be feasible. Since I thought the mage \\ Templar conflict was written and progressed very poorly, I am more than willing to sacrifice the Qunari to improve the former, especially since it was supposed to be whatever shell of a central plot the game had.

Tension, in the case of foreshadowing, does not need a large scale that makes little sense overall and is disconnected from the game's plot imo.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:56 .