506 réponses à ce sujet

[sreaction]

yesikareyes wrote...
I never played origins because I found it hard to play it in the console version but in DA 2 the combat was faster and it was simplified. 

This qoute, in a nutshell, is why I don't own the game.

* Its designed primarily for console gamers
* faster simplified combat
* lacks tactical nuances because its  too difficult for people to grasp
* ad infinitum

Ive seen claims that deny it (devs included), that  the game isnt watered down etc. but c'mon who are we fooling? Really.

DAII is $19 dollars and I still have yet to buy it.  I passed it up for TW2 , which is a pretty damned good game.  Its a  shame; DA series has so much potential, c'est la vie. Skyrim is next on my hit list.

Modifié par sreaction, 24 décembre 2011 - 07:28 .

[Ex-Paladin]

JalenTigh wrote...

It is mostly PC players who hate the game, as the majority of what you call improvements were made in order to make the game more playable on consoles then Origins was.... at the cost of cutting alot of stuff PC players enjoyed.

I play DA2 on PC and I love it

omg, I'm a rare breed!

[mybudgee]

DA II is not a BAD game per se, just horribly awful to any one who played DA:O. We had **SUCH** a high bar set by that game(One of my top five all-time) that the sequel had big shoes to fill. It came up very, very short. Gameplay=comperable Story= worse Characterization=much worse Graphics= better Challenge=worse
Btw I sold it after about 20 hours...so sad

Modifié par mybudgee, 24 décembre 2011 - 09:08 .

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Skyrim is not packed with old school mechanics.  If it is we have different definitions Old School Mechanics. So what do you mean by old school mechanics?

So what you are saying is that developers should not try something new? If that the case DAO should have never happened.

Actually Skyrim IS packed with old school mechanics at least if you define that (as I do) as "old engine".  In fact many of the same engine problems that existed with Oblivion still exist with Skyrim including some of the pathfinding wonkyness.  Furhermore, if you play Morriwind and then Oblivion, you can play Skyrim with almost no loss of generality.  While Skyrim is a new (and better) game than it's precedessors (at least better than Oblivion), it's very clearly appeals and supports very much the same sort of game play.  DA2 is very unlike DAO in game play and this was a mistake (at least for a sequel). 

I guess what a lot of us are saying is that new things should be tried, but they should be:

1.  Tried in moderation and with sufficient development time to test and implement the changes.

2.  Should be used sparingly (if at all) in SEQUELS (and yes DA2 is a sequel of DAO or at least it was marketed as one).

-Polaris

[TEWR]

Personally I never found Origins difficult to play (and I'm a console gamer). I will say that DAII's combat is simpler due in part to the fact that the party can attack the enemies and interrupt their attacks, which means there really isn't much of a challenge. This is due to the enemies using the old Origins animations which take a while for them to actually attack.

What I want, what's most important to me, is that I have a guarantee. No more enemies using the old Origins animations.

Seriously, if the enemies used some of the newer animations for both basic attacks and abilities -- which I could go into in great length if I was currently playing DAII -- then the combat might be just as tactical if not moreso than Origins.

Of course, this would also require that upon leveling up the party's health and stamina/mana automatically upgrades -- though the player could still invest points in constitution or willpower if they so desired -- so that the party now has health that's almost exactly the same as the health of the enemies.

Because it's jarring to fight people who have thousands of health while I only have 300, and yet I'm kicking their ass.

EDIT: To do some self promoting -- I bear no shame for this deed  -- here's a blog I made on DAII's combat:

http://social.biowar...83/blog/209894/

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 décembre 2011 - 11:21 .

[hioe04]

Meris wrote...

hioe04 wrote...

Yea, I call it as it is. DAO is superb. DA2 is a bad game at face value. Subjective quantification...6-7/10 at best. What makes it worse is that you can totally tell what a rushed job with no TLC it is.

-Quests are boring vs. DAO
-Boring quest are set in same boring environ make playing this game quite tiresome after while
-Unengaging story never had anything close to any resolution at the end
-No world immersion i.e. can't interact with world objects or NPCs unless they have a big glowing pointer over their heads
-Annoying companions i.e. enough with the mage vs. templar #$%
-World is limited to Kirkwall and few outlying areas which are all very lackluster
-Champion of Kirkwall role should be renamed custodian of Kirkwall, really did not feel like an epic adventure
-These crits are meant for Bioware to think about as they go back to the drawing board

I hope the success of Skyrim (even with all the glitches ppl still play thru it which is a testimony to how great the content is) and Witcher 2 puts Bioware to shame.

The Bolded part was also true in DA:O.

The italics aren't inherently bad ideas, but rather could have been awesome if only BioWare put time into the game.

The underlined are both personal assersions and, like the italics, aren't inherently bad ideas but could have been implemented better.

Re: the boldened part I largely meant the ability to interact with NPCs. No argument that DAO had more of that whereas DA2 treated NPCs more as a graphical decoration.

I'm not qualifying that bad ideas make bad games. Bad implementations WILL also make bad games, no way around it. By admitting that Bioware took (what you think may be good ideas and implementing it badly) you are also admitting that they did not take care to polish these ideas to snuff. That's what irritates me a lot. There's just so much transparency to how little TLC went into this game's development.

[Fast Jimmy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Of course, this would also require that upon leveling up the party's health and stamina/mana automatically upgrades -- though the player could still invest points in constitution or willpower if they so desired -- so that the party now has health that's almost exactly the same as the health of the enemies.

Because it's jarring to fight people who have thousands of health while I only have 300, and yet I'm kicking their ass.

I am in great support of this. Enemy scaling should not mean that you spend minutes whittling away at health bars with no threat or concern of your own dropping down.

Then again, if you played on Hard or Nightmare, you'd have to manually set up every companions Tactics to drink a potion if they got low on health. The fact that this isn't an option or a standard without creaitng a custom tactics template (that needs to be updated for everyc companion every time they level up and add a new ability) is beyond stupid. Instead, because I found Anders to be annoying as spit in the eye and I couldn't have a healer mage, all my companions would drop dead if I didn't constantly micromanage them (not just their attacks, powers and tactical position, but to do simple things, like get out of AoE spells) and I'd be left with my Hawke by himself, kiting around five or six enemies, slowly cutting down their health.

Lastly, I also agree with TEWR's point on the slow DAO enemy animations. For example, the Rage Demon's assassination move would 1H-1Kill my companions, but I'd see it coming a mile away, move out its attack and then lay into the Rage demon from behind. Talk about nerfing an attack.

[SamaraDraven]

I'm gonna add my ten cents - because let's face it, two cents isn't worth much these days - and say that DA2 is better in some regards than DAO... and it's worse. I've recently started another DAO PT and am running a DA2 PT concurrently. What I find frustrating about DAO is how slow the combat is. I'm a console gamer primarily and having to wait for my character to blunder into an enemy in the name of "moving into range" irks me. Healing actions can only take effect after whatever your character is currently doing, leaving the person you want healed dead because the slow, ponderous combat system couldn't get to it fast enough. DA2 seems to allow interruptions for things like healing. I've done it and I'm happy to see that. For both games, I've found most instances of a character not doing as I say was a conflict of tactics. Tell a Wynne to do X and then switch to someone else but Wynne's tactics have her doing H according to what's going on in the field so X gets canceled in favor of the preset tactic. You can tweak the tactics until you get them juuussst riiiight... or what I do is cancel most of the tactics and leave a couple of basic "when health falls below %25, drink health vial" kind of commands and manually manage the rest. Similarly, thinking ahead is how I keep on top of healing in DAO. It just has to be done or a character you really wanted to save will perish.

Another thing I've noticed in DAO is how baaad the acting is for some of the characters. Merrill is far more businesslike and brusque and almost like a machine in the Dalish origin story. Likewise, Jowan seems a little flat to me. There is more but I'll just summarize by saying that I don't have as much to complain about in DA2's acting. Everyone in it seems so much more nuanced and believable.

Where DAO is better, in my opinion anyway, is the story. I do like DA2's story but DAO's is so much more epic. I don't know if this is because Hawke's tale takes 10 years and for that length of time, there seems to be not enough going on or what but DAO made you feel like you were spending months traipsing all over the country and doing impossible tasks to gather allies to stop the Blight. DA2 doesn't leave you feeling that way. I think had they fleshed out some things more, it would have helped. For instance Hawke and co. keep running into maleficarum from out of seemingly nowhere. Even Leliana appears to tell you "Outside forces are working against you". Why couldn't they have tied, say Fenris' story to a larger side quest where Hawke helps him and in turn they find out where the bad mages are coming from? It would make the elf far more important to the story and add more to the epicness of what Kirkwall goes through and thus Hawke's triumph over it. I don't know. But there was much that could have been expanded and wasn't so you don't really get to feel how integral Hawke was to everything. In DAO you got that.

Also in DAO, you got more scenery. More to explore, more to do. In DA2 the maps are heavily recycled and small and there's no travel really so they took out what made it feel like you spent time journeying around which in turn cheapens that epic feeling. In short, DA2 is a flashier and fun game, if a bit shallow. DAO was very deep though not quite as slick. Yep, that's my opinion in a nutshell right there. =D Now if they could just combine the two...

[staindgrey]

I feel a little narcissistic doing this, but I just typed it for another thread and I think it sums up my feelings on DAII without going into a huge list of details that no one will bother reading. So, I shall quote myself:

staindgrey wrote...

DAII, to me, is kind of like that student who, despite being very talented, handed in a paper he did last minute while jacked up on energy drinks. Yeah, it's still not bad, but we all know it could have been better. That's what's most disappointing of all.

I blame EA, to be blunt. I don't blindly hate them; they're the reason Bioware's still kicking and getting funded. But they rushed DAII out before it was properly cooked, and turned a lot of the fanbase sour because of it. It could have been GREAT, but instead, was just pretty okay.

[Oooh shiny]

staindgrey wrote...

I blame EA, to be blunt. I don't blindly hate them; they're the reason Bioware's still kicking and getting funded. But they rushed DAII out before it was properly cooked, and turned a lot of the fanbase sour because of it. It could have been GREAT, but instead, was just pretty okay.

I agree to a certain extend but EA were not responsible for the specific direction of the game. The "awesome button" and excessive flawed marketing from BioWare made things worse and unnecessary so-called simplification while it can partially be attributed to a tight schedule isn't entirely EA's fault, BioWare still had control over what they could have simplified.

The problem of poor execution though can be attributed to the tight schedule and I would agree that's the biggest problem of DA2. 

[staindgrey]

Oooh shiny wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

I blame EA, to be blunt. I don't blindly hate them; they're the reason Bioware's still kicking and getting funded. But they rushed DAII out before it was properly cooked, and turned a lot of the fanbase sour because of it. It could have been GREAT, but instead, was just pretty okay.

I agree to a certain extend but EA were not responsible for the specific direction of the game. The "awesome button" and excessive flawed marketing from BioWare made things worse and unnecessary so-called simplification while it can partially be attributed to a tight schedule isn't entirely EA's fault, BioWare still had control over what they could have simplified.

The problem of poor execution though can be attributed to the tight schedule and I would agree that's the biggest problem of DA2. 

Well, remember, too, that Bioware is the developer. EA is the publisher. Marketing is EA's job, not Bioware's.

Of course, Bioware is still responsible for the majority of the direction (though the simplification is likely pushed by EA). And some of that direction could have been good, but we'll never know because the execution fell short. It's not unlike how the under-budget Xbox game Killswitch did what Gears of War was "revolutionary" for (cover-based third-person shooter). Killswitch had the idea first, but was just poorly executed. Gears did it much better, had a better budget and time frame, and succeeded.

I still think that the idea of watching a smaller world evolve around you can work (look at Majora's Mask), and I think that having a frame narrative could bring a lot of unique aspects to a game (the idea of an unreliable narrator, the cutting back to the conversation at key moments for elements like foreshadowing, dramatic irony, humor, etc.). I also enjoyed the battle system more and its efforts to simplify DA:O's item micromanagement. It's just that the "junk" storage came out as a mess and the battling became too easy once you acquired the right skills and weapons.

All that said, I can't forgive Bioware for the way the campaign ended. None of those twists made sense. At all. That falls entirely onto the writing team, rushed schedule or not.

[DreamwareStudio]

EA and Bioware are not independent companies. To lay blame at the door of either is laying blame at the door of both.

[orionshield]

Dragon Age 2 did make a few mistakes sincerely I think when I compare it to the scope of Skyrim! ..............................................I played DAO since Jan 2010 and DA 2 many times since March and I have decided to say that my opinion about DA 2 is that Bioware compromised deliberately on Dragon Age series to take the profit gained from it and instead put it towards Mass Effect franchise and SWTOR franchise! Thats Theory #1 !..................................................................................................Theory # 2....When Bioware said they were happy with the direction they made for DA 2, that made me upset inside because they made hardcore fans think including me that the entire game and style and the exclusion of ever seeing ferelden again (not that they actually said that but it felt that way) would be a permanent direction! Also, I think Bioware failed to let fans be aware that all they wanted to do was carry the story over to other nations in Thedas to help show that the age of Dragon was the most important age to be had!.........Moreover, the game did 1.repeat many level map designs over and over and over!
2. I think Kirkwall's history overshadowed the age of the Dragon, it felled more like the Slave Age! Dragons weren't a main threat it seemed. (I understand that the Circle tower incident and across Thedas was vital to progress Dragon age's universe, But!
3. I read many articles and people have complained about the lack of customisation a million times over! That was the most important piece to RPG elements and Bioware took it out! No incentive to playing DA 2 cause of that! No Incentive period.( like companion cloths and weapon refinement)!
4. Dragon Age 2 did not surpass Dragon age Origin's fantasy! Meaning DA 2 seemed too pristine, too non gritty, the things you find like torn trousers or Raven Feather had no function! and everything else you found has a trash can image to it which was so blend and lack of imagery! On another note when you pull up your combat wheel, you see like too modern, Health and stamina icons that lack an aged look to it! Everything seemed to cartoony and less artistic than in the first game! The art in DAO really helped with you imagination!
5. Being stuck in Kirkwall was a big issue to many I think! What about visiting Starkhaven city or other close by nations like Antivia or Rivaini??!! Just to get the feeling of travel and what mysteries that lurk in between those places versus walking down a few blocks oh Hi Isabela, and walking down a few more blocks, oh hi Merril! The repetition was too much to bare!!!
6. Why did the Darkspawn have to look so different? why did the elves have to look so different! I remember no one complaining about that! GGG I only complained that the combat style was a little awkward but I still enjoyed it in DAO! In DA 2 the things we loved to see prior weren't there! They were all gone! WHo or what was gone? The unique korkey people that made you laugh like Ruck and the funny possessed boy at Redcliffe "I crave excitement!" and the little stories that really didn't seem to progress in DA 2 like the werewolves or the end results of the Ozamar King or the Elves in the Brecillian Forest! Sure there was a few Dialog exchanged but nothing more, it seemed like other stories like Anders which I barely played with the guy in Awakening some how became one of the biggest plot elements! I barely knew him! But what about the thief in the Denerim Market that was half Human and elf! He was a cool character to have on your team and what about a neat character compared to Shale! That was kinda extravagant!!!
7. The DLCs that came out were longer than the ending to each act in DA 2! For example The Deep Roads seemed too short and less mystic than the first game, The ending incident in Act 2 seemed less epic than in the Game Trailers, And the ending of DA 2 was not bigger! ME 2 did go bigger in their ending than the first but why did DA 2 ending seemed too Melodrama! Maybe a Battle in the bone pit with the antagonist combined with 2 hybrid dragons that were like cousins to the Archdemons from prior blights would make sense! and give the player maybe 2 more HIgh Dragons to battle that may take an hour long would be a good tough fight! and it would be well earned!!!
8. What about other video games out there like Skyrim! They made Rpg Fantasy too Epic where I went back to DA 2 and got bored!
9. I miss Ferelden and I had expected to go back to see it!
10. Finally there was not enough Taverns and Tavern music in DA 2! Just one, imagine that!
........Over all, I want to say I understand Bioware had to progress the story into other parts of Thedas that were nonlinear and that its possible that the divine in Olais will end up declaring an exalted march against the black divine in tevinter and that Ultra Blights will occur at the same time with the grey wardens bringing every nation together but at a Macro scale kinda like the plot in DAO with Ferelden!!!! I believe Bioware is a good company and their employees are admirable people! I respect them totally and I am not really mad at Bioware but I had wished after putting almost 1,000 hours in game play and reading every codex within a 14 month period that my expectations kinda kinda what of been met but I did buy the signature edition, all the DLCs, Books and novels and glad to have em! Good luck Bioware in Dragon Age 3 for I look forward to playing it cause I believe I'll be seeing great progress!!!!!!!!!

[staindgrey]

google_calasade wrote...

EA and Bioware are not independent companies. To lay blame at the door of either is laying blame at the door of both.

While that does hold some weight since we shouldn't make EA out as a total scapegoat, they aren't on the same level in decision making. They aren't equal partners. EA is the boss, and Bioware the subordinate. Bioware technically has the final say in the development studio, but EA is their wallet, and thus a very instrumental voice. If EA wants DAII rushed out to beat competition at the sacrifice of quality, then that's what happens. If EA wants to give The Old Republic an enormous amount of resources by comparison in order to take on WoW, then that's what happens. If EA wants to slap t he Bioware logo onto other developers that have nothing to do with Bioware, then that's what happens. Bioware, as an acquired studio, has little weight in these decisions unless they have a plan for finding another publisher to fund them.

To make better use of your example, to lay blame at the door of EA's house is laying the blame at the door of Bioware's room within EA's house.

[DreamwareStudio]

staindgrey wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

EA and Bioware are not independent companies. To lay blame at the door of either is laying blame at the door of both.

While that does hold some weight since we shouldn't make EA out as a total scapegoat, they aren't on the same level in decision making. They aren't equal partners. EA is the boss, and Bioware the subordinate. Bioware technically has the final say in the development studio, but EA is their wallet, and thus a very instrumental voice. If EA wants DAII rushed out to beat competition at the sacrifice of quality, then that's what happens. If EA wants to give The Old Republic an enormous amount of resources by comparison in order to take on WoW, then that's what happens. If EA wants to slap t he Bioware logo onto other developers that have nothing to do with Bioware, then that's what happens. Bioware, as an acquired studio, has little weight in these decisions unless they have a plan for finding another publisher to fund them.

To make better use of your example, to lay blame at the door of EA's house is laying the blame at the door of Bioware's room within EA's house.

Exactly, there's little to no distinction between them.  I understand that fans of Bioware's illustrious past want to idealize that Bioware still exists in one form or another as a separate entity and lay blame for Dragon Age 2 at EA's feet, but the fact remains, Bioware and EA are the same company.

As for whether "Bioware" has the final say in anything, I don't have access to EA's organizational hierarchy, so I won't make the assumption that they do or do not.  In my corporate experience, subdivisions provide input, but in the end, the parent always makes the final determination.  Regardless how the decisions were reached regarding Dragon Age 2, to absolve one of guilt and use EA as a scapegoat in this instance makes no sense because Bioware is now a label and fails to exist as a separate body.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 décembre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Kid Buu]

Its HORRIBLE in comparison to DAO, or almost any Bioware game for that matter.

[Oooh shiny]

staindgrey wrote...

Oooh shiny wrote...


I agree to a certain extent but EA were not responsible for the specific direction of the game. The "awesome button" and excessive flawed marketing from BioWare made things worse and unnecessary so-called simplification while it can partially be attributed to a tight schedule isn't entirely EA's fault, BioWare still had control over what they could have simplified.

The problem of poor execution though can be attributed to the tight schedule and I would agree that's the biggest problem of DA2. 

Well, remember, too, that Bioware is the developer. EA is the publisher. Marketing is EA's job, not Bioware's.

I'm not sure about that, the advertising and marketing should get approval from EA (I'm probably wrong, I'm going on my experience from working in Event management) but my issue is Laidlaw being so adamant about how amazing DA2 would be and how revolutionary the "awesome button" would be. Not marketing as such ecept for incoporating it into the early info on DA3.

staindgrey wrote...

Of course, Bioware is still responsible for the majority of the direction (though the simplification is likely pushed by EA). And some of that direction could have been good, but we'll never know because the execution fell short. It's not unlike how the under-budget Xbox game Killswitch did what Gears of War was "revolutionary" for (cover-based third-person shooter). Killswitch had the idea first, but was just poorly executed. Gears did it much better, had a better budget and time frame, and succeeded.

I still think that the idea of watching a smaller world evolve around you can work (look at Majora's Mask), and I think that having a frame narrative could bring a lot of unique aspects to a game (the idea of an unreliable narrator, the cutting back to the conversation at key moments for elements like foreshadowing, dramatic irony, humor, etc.). I also enjoyed the battle system more and its efforts to simplify DA:O's item micromanagement. It's just that the "junk" storage came out as a mess and the battling became too easy once you acquired the right skills and weapons.

All that said, I can't forgive Bioware for the way the campaign ended. None of those twists made sense. At all. That falls entirely onto the writing team, rushed schedule or not.

Wow I'm stunned to find another supporter of the framed narrative. 

I think that the over-arching theme clashed badly with the framed narrative in DA2. I find frames work best when either used to tie a range of different stories together (a la the Decameron) or to focus on a single story and use that as an allegory for the human condition. DA2 did neither well, while it attempted to show Hawke as a victim of circumstance (the cut-scenes demonstrated that very well) the gameplay totally contravened that as Hawke was instantly more powerful than 20 knights and surrounded by friends/rivals/supporters. I couldn't reconcile the two visions of Hawke and that's where the narrative fell down for me.

In saying that though, there's huge potential for the framed narrative to see more use in games if developers can focus on getting the script and gameplay to work together. I'm thinking specifically of that Final Fantasy game on the PSP that at the end when you're in serious trouble and the sheer number of enemies plus your own fatigue causes you to lose as the narrative demands it. I'd really like to see gameplay coming to meet stories instead of stories being engineered to make gameplay mechanics feasible.

EDIT: Another problem I have with the execution of the frame narrative is that it removed the player by one crucial step. If the player was Varic it would work better because the control appears direct but because Hawke has no control over the interrogation the player gets removed by one step.

Modifié par Oooh shiny, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:47 .

[sriv99]

DA: O
story =8/10
gameplay = 6.5/10
squadmates = 8.5/10
lead role = 8/10
Best specialization = Mage
DA 2
story = 8/10
gameplay = 8/10
squadmates = 8/10
Lead Role = 9/10
Best specialization = Rogue

Most improved class is warrior.
my DA:O playtime is 75hrs. got bored after that.
my DA2 playtime is 251hrs and 4minutes.

[sriv99]

only problem in DA2 is recycling of environment.

[elarem]

Background: I've completed one DA:Origins and two DA2 and have started a third play through. I didn't import my warden into either DA2 just chose two of the back stories for the warden.

Verdict: I actually enjoy playing DA2. However I am not an experienced gamer (started in September 2010), only have the XBox, and my game experience is limited (completed ME, ME2, Deus Ex:HR - all multiple times - Enslaved once, and am looking forward to Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and of course Mass Effect 3.)

Perhaps enjoyment of DA2 comes from not having great expectations of the game - I remember downloading the demo when it came out and deciding after playing it not to pre-order (because of the A button!). Glad I changed my mind.

There are characters in DA2 that I love - Varric, Aveline and Fenris, and some that I don't - Anders and Isabela. Because you can't please everybody I like it when the choices that Hawke makes alters their friendship/rivalry score - even if I'm aiming for a particular relationship I don't reload if it goes against Hawke.

The snippets of information in DA2, which say that something even more important than Kirkwall's plight is going on in the background, make me interested in DA3. And I don't even mind that in 3 there will be a different PC although it would be nice if there were vague references to the Warden and the Champion. The framed narrative didn't bother me at all - flashback in films and tv is commonplace.

So for me DA2 wasn't that bad and was more enjoyable than some games that I've started and not yet completed - Dungeon Siege III and Hunted The Demon's Forge.

[sriv99]

elarem wrote...

Background: I've completed one DA:Origins and two DA2 and have started a third play through. I didn't import my warden into either DA2 just chose two of the back stories for the warden.

Verdict: I actually enjoy playing DA2. However I am not an experienced gamer (started in September 2010), only have the XBox, and my game experience is limited (completed ME, ME2, Deus Ex:HR - all multiple times - Enslaved once, and am looking forward to Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and of course Mass Effect 3.)

Perhaps enjoyment of DA2 comes from not having great expectations of the game - I remember downloading the demo when it came out and deciding after playing it not to pre-order (because of the A button!). Glad I changed my mind.

There are characters in DA2 that I love - Varric, Aveline and Fenris, and some that I don't - Anders and Isabela. Because you can't please everybody I like it when the choices that Hawke makes alters their friendship/rivalry score - even if I'm aiming for a particular relationship I don't reload if it goes against Hawke.

The snippets of information in DA2, which say that something even more important than Kirkwall's plight is going on in the background, make me interested in DA3. And I don't even mind that in 3 there will be a different PC although it would be nice if there were vague references to the Warden and the Champion. The framed narrative didn't bother me at all - flashback in films and tv is commonplace.

So for me DA2 wasn't that bad and was more enjoyable than some games that I've started and not yet completed - Dungeon Siege III and Hunted The Demon's Forge.

the only thing that makes me sad about DA3 is i cannot play as Hawke of DA2. Hawke was one of the coolest and badass protagonist ever created by BIOWARE.

[Fast Jimmy]

People bash EA as if they bought Bioware and made them put out DA2 in 18 months.

EA acquired Bioware Winter of 2008. Almost two years before DAO came out and more than three years before DA2 came out.

You can no more lay blame on EA for making DA2 something you didn't like than you can say EA was the source of DAO being so greatly received. Bioware did both all by themselves.

[SamaraDraven]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

People bash EA as if they bought Bioware and made them put out DA2 in 18 months.

EA acquired Bioware Winter of 2008. Almost two years before DAO came out and more than three years before DA2 came out.

You can no more lay blame on EA for making DA2 something you didn't like than you can say EA was the source of DAO being so greatly received. Bioware did both all by themselves.

The time of EA's acquisition of Bioware means little unless Bioware has said that they had the DA properties already in development by the time of the buyout. DAO could have been in the works by the time EA bought Bioware. Adding the two years from that to release would result in a better game. If DA2 didn't start development until after DAO released, it already had less time to be finished. I agree the quality of content of DA2 is solely Bioware's responsibility but since the most common complaint I hear is lack of variety, I think a rushed timeline would result in much of the extra stuff being left out. The uneven pace of building friends and rivalries also seems like they may have taken what they had and spread it thinner to give the player something before game's end. So I do think EA may have rushed Bioware to finish DA2 under a tighter timeline than what they enjoyed for DAO. Just my H.O. though.

[alex90c]

sriv99 wrote...

elarem wrote...

Background: I've completed one DA:Origins and two DA2 and have started a third play through. I didn't import my warden into either DA2 just chose two of the back stories for the warden.

Verdict: I actually enjoy playing DA2. However I am not an experienced gamer (started in September 2010), only have the XBox, and my game experience is limited (completed ME, ME2, Deus Ex:HR - all multiple times - Enslaved once, and am looking forward to Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and of course Mass Effect 3.)

Perhaps enjoyment of DA2 comes from not having great expectations of the game - I remember downloading the demo when it came out and deciding after playing it not to pre-order (because of the A button!). Glad I changed my mind.

There are characters in DA2 that I love - Varric, Aveline and Fenris, and some that I don't - Anders and Isabela. Because you can't please everybody I like it when the choices that Hawke makes alters their friendship/rivalry score - even if I'm aiming for a particular relationship I don't reload if it goes against Hawke.

The snippets of information in DA2, which say that something even more important than Kirkwall's plight is going on in the background, make me interested in DA3. And I don't even mind that in 3 there will be a different PC although it would be nice if there were vague references to the Warden and the Champion. The framed narrative didn't bother me at all - flashback in films and tv is commonplace.

So for me DA2 wasn't that bad and was more enjoyable than some games that I've started and not yet completed - Dungeon Siege III and Hunted The Demon's Forge.

the only thing that makes me sad about DA3 is i cannot play as Hawke of DA2. Hawke was one of the coolest and badass protagonist ever created by BIOWARE.

No he wasn't.

[GavrielKay]

sriv99 wrote...

the only thing that makes me sad about DA3 is i cannot play as Hawke of DA2. Hawke was one of the coolest and badass protagonist ever created by BIOWARE.

Hawke is a feather blowing in the breeze.  She had no self determination.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 26 décembre 2011 - 10:07 .