506 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Jimuth wrote...

Found it really noticeable how differences between ME1 + ME2 were very similar to differences between DA:O and DA2. Some of these good, some bad: I prefer ME1 to ME2, but enjoyed playing DA2 over DA:O -

I agree I've always been somewhat bemused by the different reactions to ME2 and DA2 because to me ME2 simplified the mechanics and almost completely removed the role playing whereas DA2 simplified the mechanics but kept the role playing. 

[Jimuth]

Morroian wrote...

I agree I've always been somewhat bemused by the different reactions to ME2 and DA2 because to me ME2 simplified the mechanics and almost completely removed the role playing whereas DA2 simplified the mechanics but kept the role playing. 

I think Morroian you may have hit the nail on the head for me there... role playing, but role playing in a story sense rather than throw 2D6 and add +2 modifier role playing...

[Fast Jimmy]

jcainhaze wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

DA 2 is perhaps the worst game I've ever played.  I doubt I will return to it.

Origins, on the other hand, has turned out to be absolutely stellar.  I have trouble staying away from it.

Me too.  Mostly because I don't play bad games and I actually played DA2 through to the end.  So that would make it one of the worst games I've ever played since I don't normally bother with bad ones. 

In all honesty though, the first couple hours of DA2 I was so happy.  Mostly because the first thing that stands out are the graphical improvements.  That and I was just glad to be playing more Dragon Age anything.  I was kinda convinced by DA Origins that DA2 would be a guaranteed grand slam.  So initially it was bliss.

It didn't take long to realize something was wrong though.  I was waiting for the world to fill up and expand but it never did.  It felt like....empty sets....vacant characters....anorexic story.....

I liked some aspects of DA2 but even the things I liked lacked the depth that would have made me love them.  The story was a good concept but once again it lacked depth and never really got my attention.  It just seemed to sorta fizzle along then run outta gas. 

I say run out of gas because it felt very limited compared to DAO.  It felt really really short.  I kept expecting to leave that city.......but it never happened.  Then it was just kinda over.  I was like, what?  Where are the other characters?    Where are the other places I'm supposed to go?  This is only the first place I'm going right?

I remember getting sick of the game early on and thinking to stick it out because it would get better since this was just the beginnning and I'll be going somewhere else cool soon to find out the main story.  LOL

It was just very short with limited content.  Seems more like a DLC to me.  A DLC stuffed full of alot of reused areas to hopefully fool you into thinking it was a full game. 

This is a lot like my experience. Riding on a high of better graphics, more fast-paced combat, quicker dialouge... but all too soon the flash and dazzle of it all faded and I was waiting to sink my teeth into some actual content. It seemed like I never got to know my companions, get to explore Kirkwall (since there was so little to explore) or to "rise to power."

I felt like I had better conversations with the Arishok than I did any of my companions. I feel like there was more to explore on the Coast than there was in the city. I feel like there was areas where content was originally planned, but they just ran out of time (like the sewers area where there is a merchant and people standing around in an area that is hardly ever seen in any quest).

All in all, the game felt unfinished, unpolished and a shallow shadow of what my experience was in DAO. Add on top of that the almost complete lack of reference to previous things that happened in DAO and DLC, the complete lack of connection of the story to threads begun or brought up in previous games and the utter lack of execution on the few pieces of lore about Kirkwall that actually sounded interesting (like the Enigma of Kirkwall codex entries) and you have something that feels hollow, all the way through.

yaw wrote...
Look at Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim.

You better not let Realmzmaster hear you say that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 janvier 2012 - 11:30 .

[jcainhaze]

yaw wrote...

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.  

My point is, BG and Origins (advertised as the spirtual sucessor to BG) both have tactic based combat designed for a PC, with a  mouse and keyboard. Lots of pauses, assigning characters, traps, item use and use of terrain with a set number of enemies. 

If you want to make a game that scraps this, replacing it with fast, simplified action based combat more suited to consoles, with corridors and waves of enemies... why just not make a new game altogether?

And even if you wanted to make it within the Dragon Age universe, how about naming it something like Hawke, still set within the DA universe but not a direct sequel?

What pisses me of is that Bioware has obviously just wanted to make a new and "innovative" game, and done that on the back of Dragon Age and BG's success in order to rake in a big audience and quick $$$. People see Dragon Age, they think Origins, they think Baldur's Gate. What they get is something completely different.

Look at Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim.
Look at BG > Origins > DA2.

One company did it right, the other did it wrong. Simples.

So true

[jcainhaze]

google_calasade wrote...

jcainhaze wrote...

In all honesty though, the first couple hours of DA2 I was so happy.  Mostly because the first thing that stands out are the graphical improvements.  That and I was just glad to be playing more Dragon Age anything.  I was kinda convinced by DA Origins that DA2 would be a guaranteed grand slam.  So initially it was bliss.

It didn't take long to realize something was wrong though.  I was waiting for the world to fill up and expand but it never did.  It felt like....empty sets....vacant characters....anorexic story.....

I liked some aspects of DA2 but even the things I liked lacked the depth that would have made me love them.  The story was a good concept but once again it lacked depth and never really got my attention.  It just seemed to sorta fizzle along then run outta gas. 

I say run out of gas because it felt very limited compared to DAO.  It felt really really short.  I kept expecting to leave that city.......but it never happened.  Then it was just kinda over.  I was like, what?  Where are the other characters?    Where are the other places I'm supposed to go?  This is only the first place I'm going right?

I remember getting sick of the game early on and thinking to stick it out because it would get better since this was just the beginnning and I'll be going somewhere else cool soon to find out the main story.  LOL

It was just very short with limited content.  Seems more like a DLC to me.  A DLC stuffed full of alot of reused areas to hopefully fool you into thinking it was a full game. 

I came into DA 2 having played the Witcher 2 and a bit of Skyrim.  For me, the graphics in DA 2 never looked that promising.

I'm just saying compared to DAO the graphics were noticeably better in DA2. 

Obviously the Witcher2 has far superior graphics.....and design.  Skyrim too.  

 

[jcainhaze]

Morroian wrote...

Jimuth wrote...

Found it really noticeable how differences between ME1 + ME2 were very similar to differences between DA:O and DA2. Some of these good, some bad: I prefer ME1 to ME2, but enjoyed playing DA2 over DA:O -

I agree I've always been somewhat bemused by the different reactions to ME2 and DA2 because to me ME2 simplified the mechanics and almost completely removed the role playing whereas DA2 simplified the mechanics but kept the role playing. 

That's what I hated about ME2.  Although I enjoyed ME2 more than DA2. 

ME1 and DAO were like a 1-2 punch that snapped my focus on Bioware.  I was like "Woa!".  2 awsome games.

I don't understand why they went and changed the basic gameplay of both.  I like ME1 and DAO way better then their sequels

[Fast Jimmy]

jcainhaze wrote...

That's what I hated about ME2.  Although I enjoyed ME2 more than DA2. 

ME1 and DAO were like a 1-2 punch that snapped my focus on Bioware.  I was like "Woa!".  2 awsome games.

I don't understand why they went and changed the basic gameplay of both.  I like ME1 and DAO way better then their sequels

I really enjoyed ME2, honestly. I dreaded spending another minute bouncing around a god-forsaken planet on the Mako. And despite the metric-ton worth's of equipment you carried around, I almost always wound up using the same (best) equipment adn converting the rest to Omni-gel. I had over a million credits and more omni-gel than I could hold.

Plus, the amount of polish put on ME2 versus DA2 is worlds apart in my mind. Almost every location you visited in ME2 was unique (or at least was skinned that way). Most quests had story enough to make me care and remember. Companions could be talked to fairly regularly and the overall plot actually tied into the main world and story brought forth in the first game. DA2, to me, did none of these things.

[pmac_tk421]

I loved the game. Same With ME2, ME1, DAO, DAOA, and I will love ME3(all the pre-release stuff looks even better than ME2) and DA3.

[jcainhaze]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

jcainhaze wrote...

That's what I hated about ME2.  Although I enjoyed ME2 more than DA2. 

ME1 and DAO were like a 1-2 punch that snapped my focus on Bioware.  I was like "Woa!".  2 awsome games.

I don't understand why they went and changed the basic gameplay of both.  I like ME1 and DAO way better then their sequels

I really enjoyed ME2, honestly. I dreaded spending another minute bouncing around a god-forsaken planet on the Mako. And despite the metric-ton worth's of equipment you carried around, I almost always wound up using the same (best) equipment adn converting the rest to Omni-gel. I had over a million credits and more omni-gel than I could hold.

Plus, the amount of polish put on ME2 versus DA2 is worlds apart in my mind. Almost every location you visited in ME2 was unique (or at least was skinned that way). Most quests had story enough to make me care and remember. Companions could be talked to fairly regularly and the overall plot actually tied into the main world and story brought forth in the first game. DA2, to me, did none of these things.

I didn't hate ME2.  Just hated that it felt less rpg to me.  But I still love ME2.  Not as much as ME1 though. 

Don't get me wrong though.....I'd never put ME2 in the same department as DA2.  Not even close.  ME2 waaaay better.  There was definitely alot I like about ME2 that was new.  That was not the case for DA2.

[Meris]

jcainhaze wrote...

I didn't hate ME2.  Just hated that it felt less rpg to me.  But I still love ME2.  Not as much as ME1 though. 

Don't get me wrong though.....I'd never put ME2 in the same department as DA2.  Not even close.  ME2 waaaay better.  There was definitely alot I like about ME2 that was new.  That was not the case for DA2.

I confess I don't know much about the Mass Effect series (the setting and gameplay don't interest me) but many say the differences between ME1 and 2 are less rpg elements. Sounds awfully like DA2 (though DA2 went for lesser extents, I think).

So it makes me wonder if people would love Dragon Age 2, though begrundingly since the people in question prefer Dragon Age: Origins, if only DA2 had half as much polish as it needed. Would you say its the case?

Modifié par Meris, 03 janvier 2012 - 01:40 .

[Aaleel]

jcainhaze wrote...

That's what I hated about ME2.  Although I enjoyed ME2 more than DA2. 

ME1 and DAO were like a 1-2 punch that snapped my focus on Bioware.  I was like "Woa!".  2 awsome games.

I don't understand why they went and changed the basic gameplay of both.  I like ME1 and DAO way better then their sequels

Same here.  Though the gap between the ME games is not nearly as big as the one between the DA games.

At least ME2 felt polished, and though I didn't like all the changes at least the changes were impemented well.   In DA2 I didn't like the changes they made and the things they experimented with weren't implemented well. 

But at the end of the day I'm a person who looks forward to where the game is going to take me next, what's next to see.  So the whole one city thing, coupled with the recycled areas when you got to leave the city just made the game too stagnant.  In ME2 you still saw new places as you progressed through the game.

I also prefer less missions that are longer over a bunch or shorter missions.  ME2 the collectors were your main enemy but you only saw them in about 15% of the missions.  Then the whole fetching squadmates thing just made them feel like hired guns and not a team, who are these people, why them, etc. 

ME1, longer missions, your enemy was geth, you saw and fought geth.  You picked up squadmates as part of the story, they were all tied to it somehow, so the story just flowed better to me.  In ME2 you did a few things, fetched a few squadmates until you almost forget about the collectors, then the Ilusive Man puts a stop to everything you were doing and forced you to go do a storyline mission, rinse and repeat.

Modifié par Aaleel, 03 janvier 2012 - 02:02 .

[jcainhaze]

Meris wrote...
So it makes me wonder if people would love Dragon Age 2, though begrundingly since the people in question prefer Dragon Age: Origins, if only DA2 had half as much polish as it needed. Would you say its the case?

Ehhh?  I think DA2 needed more than just polishing.  It just wasn't very well thought out and little consideration was put into environment/story/companions.  It was very short and lacked content.  Sorta like when you have a college paper due 3 months from now.  It's a big project and you know you can pull something amazing if you start now and stay focused.  But instead you wait till the last week.  So you start out with good intentions but wind up rushing the heck out of all the good ideas you had.  Then try to sell it off to your professor as quality work.  It's very transparent.

ME2 was definitely polished and also felt very big and well thought out.  Not to say that I didn't definitely see a couple areas where the devs cut some pretty big corners.  But, for the most part it delivered what I wanted despite removing some features I liked from ME1.  ME2 added some pretty sweet new features.  I felt like there were some definite trade off between ME1 and ME2.  They weren't all hit and they weren't all miss for me.  Overall it felt like a game the developers poured some tlc into and wanted to come out right.  DA2 was just a sorry mess 

Modifié par jcainhaze, 03 janvier 2012 - 02:21 .

[jcainhaze]

Aaleel wrote...
But at the end of the day I'm a person who looks forward to where the game is going to take me next, what's next to see.  So the whole one city thing, coupled with the recycled areas when you got to leave the city just made the game too stagnant.  In ME2 you still saw new places as you progressed through the game.

Exactly! 

[Meris]

jcainhaze wrote...

Ehhh?  I think DA2 needed more than just polishing.  It just wasn't very well thought out and little consideration was put into environment/story/companions.

Well, I'd say that a lot of thought went into Dragon Age 2, but little of that came to fruition. I'm full into the belief that the problems with the game are less what was conceived for it, and more the implementation. Its one of those games planned to be epic but falling short because half way through the development someone wanted to make a quick buck.

Its the difference between having an issue that feels like the symptom of the rush and another that is a real questionable design choice at this point. So even though I'm very up against voicing the protagonist, I can see merits in this choice, but removing the isometric view? Not so much.

Though the setting suffered so much that yeah, polishing isn't the right word.

jcainhaze wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
But at the end of the day I'm a person who looks forward to where the game is going to take me next, what's next to see.  So the whole one city thing, coupled with the recycled areas when you got to leave the city just made the game too stagnant.  In ME2 you still saw new places as you progressed through the game.

Exactly!  

And see? The problem doesn't lie with the perfectly valid design decision (exploring a single city and its surroundings), its not making the same effort you did when exploring distant places. Were Kirkwall both as reactive as promised and as varied as the things you see in DA:O, then I'm sure it would have been a nice voyage.

Modifié par Meris, 03 janvier 2012 - 02:25 .

[Aaleel]

Meris wrote...

And see? The problem doesn't lie with the perfectly valid design decision (exploring a single city and its surroundings), its not making the same effort you did when exploring distant places. Were Kirkwall both as reactive as promised and as varied as the things you see in DA:O, then I'm sure it would have been a nice voyage.

The design decision to use a single city wasn't the problem.  The decision to recycle the areas under and around the city to the ridiculous extent they did was the bad one.  Even if they had changed areas each act and then recycled them for the act it would have been better.  But by the end of act one you had seen every unique area in the game.

I've said it before, Kirkwall was a horrible effort seeing that they only had the one city to worry about making well.  I'll never forget the moment I walked in after all of the "we're full" talk and the place was a ghost town, I really just sat there like "WTF, you're joking right"

[Meris]

Aaleel wrote...

Meris wrote...

And see? The problem doesn't lie with the perfectly valid design decision (exploring a single city and its surroundings), its not making the same effort you did when exploring distant places. Were Kirkwall both as reactive as promised and as varied as the things you see in DA:O, then I'm sure it would have been a nice voyage.

The design decision to use a single city wasn't the problem.  The decision to recycle the areas under and around the city to the ridiculous extent they did was the bad one.  Even if they had changed areas each act and then recycled them for the act it would have been better.  But by the end of act one you had seen every unique area in the game.

That's exactly what I tried to say. And for that reason (and others) I'm sure people, in general, wouldn't have hated on DA2 so much if BioWare was more serious about it.

So I'm optimistic about the DA series as long as the next game doesn't have barely a year and a half as a development cycle.

[jcainhaze]

Meris wrote...

jcainhaze wrote...

Ehhh?  I think DA2 needed more than just polishing.  It just wasn't very well thought out and little consideration was put into environment/story/companions.

Well, I'd say that a lot of thought went into Dragon Age 2, but little of that came to fruition. I'm full into the belief that the problems with the game are less what was conceived for it, and more the implementation. Its one of those games planned to be epic but falling short because half way through the development someone wanted to make a quick buck.

Its the difference between having an issue that feels like the symptom of the rush and another that is a real questionable design choice at this point. So even though I'm very up against voicing the protagonist, I can see merits in this choice, but removing the isometric view? Not so much.

Though the setting suffered so much that yeah, polishing isn't the right word.

jcainhaze wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
But at the end of the day I'm a person who looks forward to where the game is going to take me next, what's next to see.  So the whole one city thing, coupled with the recycled areas when you got to leave the city just made the game too stagnant.  In ME2 you still saw new places as you progressed through the game.

Exactly!  

And see? The problem doesn't lie with the perfectly valid design decision (exploring a single city and its surroundings), its not making the same effort you did when exploring distant places. Were Kirkwall both as reactive as promised and as varied as the things you see in DA:O, then I'm sure it would have been a nice voyage.

I think we agree.  It's like the college paper that was rushed.  All the good ideas are still in my head because I didn't give myself enough time to translate everything from my mind onto paper.  It's the challenge of creating anything artistic.  You need resources and time to make the translation from idea to life.  DA2 just never fully came to life because it was unfinished in a big way.  I'm sure lots of stuff was left in the dev's heads.  Whole cities, characters, etc never made it to the game.  

I'm thinking the proper amount of resources were not allocated to the project.  Bioware just didn't provide the right combination of time and money to make DA2 complete.  ME2 was good, not great IMO,  on a short cycle.

Or maybe the resources were available but the team dropped the ball.  People drop the ball all the time.  People make promises, cut corners, evade, and mislead when they aren't doing what they were expected and it eventually catches up to drag the whole team down.  It's possible some team members just got lazy or have lost their fire.

Whatever the cause....DA2 stinks.  It needed may more than just polishing.  It needs complete content first.

[Aaleel]

Meris wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

The design decision to use a single city wasn't the problem.  The decision to recycle the areas under and around the city to the ridiculous extent they did was the bad one.  Even if they had changed areas each act and then recycled them for the act it would have been better.  But by the end of act one you had seen every unique area in the game.

That's exactly what I tried to say. And for that reason (and others) I'm sure people, in general, wouldn't have hated on DA2 so much if BioWare was more serious about it.

So I'm optimistic about the DA series as long as the next game doesn't have barely a year and a half as a development cycle.

We'll I'm not a person who disliked DA2 because it wasn't Origins, I disliked it because it didn't do what it was trying to do well.

Had the time skips happened more frequently, where I got to play through my first year where I made my name, and some other events that were just told to me.

Had the "political" story actually had me make political decisions that helped or hurt me with factions.  Where I could make pro mage decisions and maybe have Andres trust me enough to take me to the mage underground, or pro templar decisions maybe had me conspire with Meredith to undermine the Viscount, stuff like that.

Had the waves been better implemented and people weren't falling out the sky and through ceilings.

Had they given me a workbench in my house to craft.  Something as simple as that.  The whole idea of me finding ingredients and then having to pay to get back the stuff I found I just found absurd all game, and that's not even crafting, in just buying stuff at home.

Then they just didn't do the little things.  Giving items names and little histories to make them unique, the whole ring, belt, ornate amulet once again just screamed lack of effort. 

They could have made DA2 an enjoyable game for me, even with some of the changes they made, just like I still enjoyed ME2 despite some of the changes.  I'm not one of the people who say I applaud Bioware for what they tried, or it was good for the time they spent on it.  That's enabling to me, people shouldn't be allowed to mail things in and get credit IMHO.

Modifié par Aaleel, 03 janvier 2012 - 03:08 .

[DreamwareStudio]

jcainhaze wrote...


I'm just saying compared to DAO the graphics were noticeably better in DA2. 

Obviously the Witcher2 has far superior graphics.....and design.  Skyrim too.  

 

Ah, got your intent now.  To an extent I will agree the graphics were better in DA 2 than Origins, but only to an extent.  The armor and scenery looked better for the most part, but most model renders are horrible, the elf design straight out of Avatar, and the Darkspawn an updated version of Skeletor.

[DreamwareStudio]

Aaleel wrote...

I'm not one of the people who say I applaud Bioware for what they tried, or it was good for the time they spent on it.  That's enabling to me, people shouldn't be allowed to mail things in and get credit IMHO.

That is a superb way of putting it.

[jcainhaze]

google_calasade wrote...

jcainhaze wrote...


I'm just saying compared to DAO the graphics were noticeably better in DA2. 

Obviously the Witcher2 has far superior graphics.....and design.  Skyrim too.  

 

Ah, got your intent now.  To an extent I will agree the graphics were better in DA 2 than Origins, but only to an extent.  The armor and scenery looked better for the most part, but most model renders are horrible, the elf design straight out of Avatar, and the Darkspawn an updated version of Skeletor.

I totally know what you're saying.  To me I was just thinking the design was way better in Origins but graphics better in DA2.  I really did like the design of DAO better.  DA2 was like ok hey new better prettier graphics but not very artfully done or interesting images to show off with the better graphics.

Modifié par jcainhaze, 03 janvier 2012 - 03:32 .

[Sinuphro]

dragon age 2 = fail. it was a total disappointment; even with the dlcs that were released, da 2 is still a horrible game

[Morroian]

 

jcainhaze wrote...

I don't understand why they went and changed the basic gameplay of both.  I like ME1 and DAO way better then their sequels

I don't think the basic gameplay of either is markedly different from their first games. IMHO DA2 still feels like a DA game with some tweaking, likewise ME2 (Shepard just doesn't develop). If they had polished the game better (no area re-use, better implementation of Act 3 etc.)  DA2 would come across quite differently.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plus, the amount of polish put on ME2 versus DA2 is worlds apart in my mind. Almost every location you visited in ME2 was unique (or at least was skinned that way). Most quests had story enough to make me care and remember. Companions could be talked to fairly regularly

Not IMHO, no more than the DA2 companions, there was dialogue around their recruit mission then their loyalty mission but apart from that not much. And IMHO DA2 structured the companion quests far better in relation to the main plots.

[Fast Jimmy]

Morroian wrote...

Not IMHO, no more than the DA2 companions, there was dialogue around their recruit mission then their loyalty mission but apart from that not much. And IMHO DA2 structured the companion quests far better in relation to the main plots.

I disagree. You could go visit a companion between missions and hear about their life or their culture or their family. For instance, speaking with Mordin reveals that he has heard from his nephew and that his family suspects he does less-than-legal work. He goes on to tell us about salarian non-verbal communication and how whether or not a relative is concealing secrets, and if those secrets are better left uncovered or not.

Nothing to do with his loyalty mission with genophage and nothing to do with recruiting him. In DA2, when do we talk to Anders outside of hearing him discuss the mage/templar conflict? When do we talk to Merril outside of hearing her talk about the Eluvian? Few and far between. The romances do have some depth, but if I have to romance a companion to feel like they are a real character, then that really limits how believable the companions are.

I'm used to Bioware games where I could enjoy what companions have to say and who they are without ultimately having sex with them. Sten and Wynne, two non-romanceable characters in DAO, where among the two I found most interesting. And Wrex was the coolest companion I've seen in a game in a long time. I'd love to finish a mission just to come back and hear some of his war stories or his conflict with uniting the clans, none of which had anything to do with his recruitment or his loyalty. I loved hearing about Thane and the story of the Drell, how they were saved by the Hanar, but ultimately doomed by the moisture in the Hanar homeworld. None of which has anything to do with his recruitment (the assassination mission on Illium) or his loyalty mission (finding his son).

My point being, if DA2 had been more like ME2 in a lot of respects, I think it would have been a better game. They did better with choices that were imported, they did a better job with cameos from previous games, they did better with streamlining elements and making the action more enjoyable and they did better removing elements people didn't like (like the tedious trips in the Mako) and introducing new level designs (like the level where there are no enemies but the ship is slowing collapsing underneath your feet). All well done (although not to perfection) and still remaining in the spirit of its predecessor.