87 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I think this thread sums up everything consumers dislike about the game.

[Eshaye]

I enjoy it more then Origins personally. Origins was more epic not better, for fans of this type of RPG that equals better maybe. The story in Origins I felt was not really the Warden's but seen through their eyes, the story was a lot more about Ferelden during the Blight and putting Alistair on the throne (if you went that way it seems to fit really well).

In DA2 it's about Hawke and now that character really is the focus of the story. It's not epic but that doesn't mean it won't be important. I can see why people feel this is like an expansion and if it wasn't for the engine tweaks and combat refinement (imo) I'd agree. I am not done the game but so far I feel the story is much better told. I also think DA2 is a stepping stone to what awaits in DA2, I think the epic feel will merge with the improvements made in DA3 and make for a really awesome third installment (conclusion?).

Modifié par Eshaye, 14 mars 2011 - 12:47 .

[Eshaye]

mrsph wrote...

seinVerstand wrote...
You did play DA:O right?  They did the same thing. Only difference in the environments in that game was "slighty more gore".

This is every Bioware game.

Mass Effect used the same damn base 100 times

Requoting for great justice. (JUSTICE!!!!) In most BW games dungeon art is used over and over. I thought it would get horrible in ACT II but it's the same as Origins and ME yes.

[xScarecrowX]

imo, I loved this game. Origins was amazing, don't get me wrong, but this made me feel more, i don't know, powerfull. I felt like things that I chose to do affected the game a lot more then in Origins. I did like the tactics in Origins better. Also, the environments got a little old, but I didn't really mind. The stories in both games were fantastic.
*Spoilers*
I didn't get the ending with Liliana showing up and the Seeker asking about the Warden and the Champion. Did they both disappear at the same time to go to the same thing or what?
Oh, and I loved when Anders blew up the building! I think I screamed with excitment!

[rft]

xScarecrowX wrote...

imo, I loved this game. Origins was amazing, don't get me wrong, but this made me feel more, i don't know, powerfull. I felt like things that I chose to do affected the game a lot more then in Origins. I did like the tactics in Origins better. Also, the environments got a little old, but I didn't really mind. The stories in both games were fantastic.
*Spoilers*
I didn't get the ending with Liliana showing up and the Seeker asking about the Warden and the Champion. Did they both disappear at the same time to go to the same thing or what?
Oh, and I loved when Anders blew up the building! I think I screamed with excitment!

That was one of the most surprising things in a game. I was so surprised that Anders did that.

[DoubleOhSolo]

ExiledMimic wrote...

I think DA2 would have been a good expansion, but it sits so far into Origin's shadow it's silly. I didn't like the button mashing combat much. I missed the strategy of Origins in a fight. I also hated how my choices made 0 difference in the world. I get that they wanted X ending, but I would have liked to have seen my choices have some affect on the way there.

The ending... well for the story it wasn't bad. I would have liked just a little more to shave the edges off, but I'll deal with it. My major issue is that with all the repetitive areas, meaningless choice options that don't affect the world and linear game-play I really don't believe I can even manage a second play-through. I blame all of this on it being released far too soon.

I don't understand how people say your choices didn't mean anything. Throughout the entire story you could see [though admittedly at times it would be subtle] the impact of decisions you made earlier on. Remember those apostates in the caves near the coast? Kill their leader, let them live, the leader's lady friend comes back to kill you.

That's impact. 


Anyway doe. I have to say, I LOVED this game. From the minute I entered Kirkwall, I was hooked. My first playthrough clocked in at 50 hours, and I still skipped a few quests during Act One. In those hours I can honestly say I forged a connection with not only my Hawke, but the world that he was in. I think that's the biggest strength DA: II has. That personal feeling that Origins lacked. I felt as if Dragon Age Two was far more personal, from companion quests, to the main story. 

Carver for example. I wanted to beat the crap out of my bro during Act One, because lets be real...Carver was a ******. But that moment when he stopped in the Deep Roads my heart dropped: my little bro was about to die. I FELT for that, it was way more emotion than I did for the majority of Origins, simply because I felt as if the Warden was a very...stoic character. 

Varric was my boy, Isabella [and Merril for a point :whistle:] was my lady. And I really felt that. I feel like Bioware mastered one of the most important parts of storytelling with this game, and that's immersion.


Then again, that's just me. 

Modifié par DoubleOhSolo, 14 mars 2011 - 02:51 .

[R-F]

Wow the spoilers board is actually made up of people who can form a coherent thought. Maybe I'll just pretend general doesn't exist.

Personally I loved DA2, it was a great game and kept me playing for 12 hours a day, 4 days straight. I plan to replay it at least two more times to pick up the remaining achievements and to import my other two wardens. The reused assets got a bit irritating but caves are caves so it didn't really break the immersion too much.

I like the plot a lot more. Origins was great, but the plot was basically every fantasy plot ever. Here you had several moral dilemmas and a bunch of underlying themes which cropped up throughout the game.

The combat was more fun, you still have to pause on the upper difficulties and make sure you have a good party (I don't udnerstand how people debate that), and on top of that the combat is fun. I hated how slow Origins was for that, playing a 2H character was awful, and Mages weren't fun until level 10. DA2 I had fun as a Mage from level 1-23.

Also Merrill, most adorable companion ever.

Modifié par R-F, 14 mars 2011 - 03:03 .

[jasonontko]

DA2 was alot less tactical than DAO. DAO is to chess what DA2 is to checkers.

In DAO spells were important, having the right spells casted by your mages meant the difference between defeat and victory. DA2 not so much. It was all Diablo hack and slash. Still the best RPG this year just not as good as DAO.

[AlexXIV]

The problem with DA2 is that it was a rushed development hence they didn't have enough time to test enough, think enough and finally put in any detail that makes the game more than a scavenger hunt.

First off, I like the concept and the story in general. Maybe even better than DA:O. DA:O seemed alot more generic 'gather allies to fight an ancient evil' thing. I like the idea of a hero of humble beginnings who then rises up to power with his or her family etc.

Now it comes. I didn't see the rise to power. The protagonist got rich in only one endeavor, finding a huge treasure. That was the rise to power? The next thing is to become champion, which wasn't half as glorious as shown in the destiny trailer. Ok, Hawke beats the Arishok in a duel. Big deal. The 'war' with the qunari could have been much more epic and more than just killing the Arishok before Meredith and the templars arrive. I mean I never felt that the qunari actually had a chance to win anyway. The last bit of the rise is the final battle. You only have the choice to join the mages or templars, and only if you join the templars there is really a rise to power. Otherwise the champion just leaves and is not heard of again.

So the family part. You don't even get a family member as full companion. And hardly quests or things to do that actually are about the family. The only thing the family is there for seems to be to make the player sad. They die or are taken away. So much for 'DA2 will show how it is if the hero has a family as in opposed to other games in which the heroes family died before the game'. Yeah in DA2 it dies in the game. That was really different ... not.

Last but not least I don't understand the time jumps. They make the whole thing even more ridiculous. People all stay young, yet 10 years pass. And you don't even know why it has to be 10 years. It could have been 3 or 5, the story isn't really that epic that it must take 10 years. I mean alone 7 years just pass without the hero doing anything. Why? And in the end you get to see a Leliana 10 years after Lothering who looks even younger than 10 years earlier. Not to mention other timeline holes which just make you think the writers have lost any sense of time and space.
 
Romances and dialogues are shorter and less than in DA:O, yet take 10 years. Really? They just made a game that could have been the same time span as Origins and just said oh and btw, 3 years passed. The best point you see that is when you come back from the deep roads, they take away Bethany, you move in the new house, then 3 years pass and then you find your house for the first time and mom hawke talks about how strange it is to be back in the house even though they should live there for 3 years already.

Gameplay wise you don't really have much choices. Neither in combat nor in dialogues or quests. You can even decline quests and they still count as accepted. What did you say Champion? You don't want to do this, very funny, now go do it. And you only have 2 factions to choose, mages and templars, and only in the end. That's the only really political decision that matters.

Don't get me wrong but only fanboys and -girls can say this game is good. It was meant to be good, great even. But clearly it shows that in the short development time it was not able to meet up with the expectations. It's a Bioware game. And it's the slobbiest and worst executed I have ever played. And I played them all. So I am kind of in a dilemma. While I love the story in general and the characters, it is just the worst possible execution. It's not the narrative's fault, and not the setting or the story as such. To blame is EA for not giving Bioware enough time to do it right. And now it will be bearing this flaw forever which is a real shame.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 14 mars 2011 - 03:23 .

[Cajeb]

The whole third act was pretty contrived and I really felt like I was on rails. So far I've experienced several glitches and freezes. They recycled areas way too much. I also agree about the game not needing to take 10 years. There was nothing that really seemed to make that make sense except people kept mentioning the time

[Grave_Chapel]

It's buggy as hell, I've had textures not load and missions that could not be completed resulting in achievements being locked or missed.

[Dordro]

I think it was a good game. It could've been a great game but it was evident that it was rushed by EA for money (like releasing a DLC to get a character for freaking 7 bucks). The story was there and the characters were there but neither were fully developed.

My main problems with DA2 were:
1) Horrible companion interaction. I don't want to be told when I can talk to them and what to say if I want them to think a certain way by icons in the dialog wheel. I want to talk to them and learn about them and who they were and what they did, not meaningless quests.

2) Romances. I could not feel at all that I was actually building up a relationship with someone. Basically all you do is click the dialog choice with the glowing heart in it a couple of times and you get in bed with them. In DA:O I could talk to them whenever I wanted and build up a relationship with them and they would talk to me different depending on how much they loved/liked/ or hated me.

3) Overused areas. This doesn't need any explaining, it is blatantly obvious. Not to mention since there are so few places you would think every place would look beautiful.

4) Glitches. I ran into things such as quest glitches where I couldn't do the quest or a person was glitched in it. The biggest annoyance in the category to me is since I was romancing Merrill I went through all of her quests and at the beginning on Act 3 you get a glitched cutscene that is supposed to play after you kill the Keeper. Glitches should never be in a game release, there is absolutely no excuse for it, EA just wants to milk our wallets.

Overall I enjoyed it, but it could've been so much better. I am just sad that after the great success of DA:O EA decided to milk the franchise and release unfinished, unpolished games and DLCs to make more money. I can only sincerely hope that DA3 is at least as good as DA:O.

[Rallion01]

Most of the problems people have with this game stem from the fact that they had decided to hate it before they played it.

That's why they complain about the character depth (which is about the same as in DA:O), the "meaningless side quests" (which are rarer and less annoying than DA:O), not caring about the city (can't care about something you already decided to hate) and, most of all, the combat system (where all the substantial changes from DA:O were aesthetic).

I'm not claiming that Bioware has created the most perfect game in the history of time here, but most of the complaints don't make any sense at all now that I've completed the game.

[AtreiyaN7]

I think one issue might be that some people favor a straightforward story with the typical big bad at the end. In DA2, I think it was pretty bold going with a more politically oriented storyline, one in which major tensions between two major factions that we've seen in DA:O finally came to a head.

[NRO TYN]

My main thing is Hawke dosent feel like MY Character, Sure i can choose what s/he looks and act like and how s/he got to power but i just dont get the feeling that this is my person like that of the Warden.

[Cajeb]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I think one issue might be that some people favor a straightforward story with the typical big bad at the end. In DA2, I think it was pretty bold going with a more politically oriented storyline, one in which major tensions between two major factions that we've seen in DA:O finally came to a head.

Except DA2 had two big bads and you had to beat them both. If you want to do a political storyline don't do it in a heavy handed way where the game is on rails.

[MajorStranger]

mrsph wrote...

seinVerstand wrote...
You did play DA:O right?  They did the same thing. Only difference in the environments in that game was "slighty more gore".

This is every Bioware game.

Mass Effect used the same damn base 100 times

Mass Effect actually as some reason for that. they are pre-built  compound made to be easily placed.

[AlexXIV]

Cajeb wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I think one issue might be that some people favor a straightforward story with the typical big bad at the end. In DA2, I think it was pretty bold going with a more politically oriented storyline, one in which major tensions between two major factions that we've seen in DA:O finally came to a head.

Except DA2 had two big bads and you had to beat them both. If you want to do a political storyline don't do it in a heavy handed way where the game is on rails.

There were politics, but between templars and mages. The player could say his or her part to it, but not change anything. Not even personal quests like saving your mother. The game is supposed to have 13 different endings, I only know 2. The templars win, Hawke sides with templars. And the templars win, Hawke sides with mages. You can't really compare that to games like Fallout New Vegas where you could choose whether Cesar wins or the NCR and even had 2 more options, that Mr. House takes over New Vegas or even the player himself. Compare this to the DA2 story. Or compare the DA:O story to to DA2. In DA:O you could choose the king of Orzammar, even become king of orzammar. You could choose the future ruler of Ferelden. You could choose to destroy an elven clan. You could save the Circle or destroy it. In DA2 you can only watch what happened, comment it and in the end decide whether you want to be on the winning or losing side.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 14 mars 2011 - 03:54 .

[Niten-Ichi]

Rallion01 wrote...

Most of the problems people have with this game stem from the fact that they had decided to hate it before they played it.

That's why they complain about the character depth (which is about the same as in DA:O), the "meaningless side quests" (which are rarer and less annoying than DA:O), not caring about the city (can't care about something you already decided to hate) and, most of all, the combat system (where all the substantial changes from DA:O were aesthetic).

I'm not claiming that Bioware has created the most perfect game in the history of time here, but most of the complaints don't make any sense at all now that I've completed the game.

So true! people hated the game efore even havin played or finished it! At first a really thought that this game was a complete fail but I really loved it, the begenning is a bit slow but the rest of the story is good. there are flaws, many flaws ( linear maps, same dongeons, not bein able to customise your companions armor, etc...) nonetheless i don't regret spending my money on it. Love the new combat system, played as a mage for the 1st time in the Dragon age universe and I absolutely loved it!

[rft]

A lot more descriptive reasons of why people hate the game then in the General fourm.

[boraxalmighty]

AlexXIV wrote...

Cajeb wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I think one issue might be that some people favor a straightforward story with the typical big bad at the end. In DA2, I think it was pretty bold going with a more politically oriented storyline, one in which major tensions between two major factions that we've seen in DA:O finally came to a head.

Except DA2 had two big bads and you had to beat them both. If you want to do a political storyline don't do it in a heavy handed way where the game is on rails.

There were politics, but between templars and mages. The player could say his or her part to it, but not change anything. Not even personal quests like saving your mother. The game is supposed to have 13 different endings, I only know 2. The templars win, Hawke sides with templars. And the templars win, Hawke sides with mages. You can't really compare that to games like Fallout New Vegas where you could choose whether Cesar wins or the NCR and even had 2 more options, that Mr. House takes over New Vegas or even the player himself. Compare this to the DA2 story. Or compare the DA:O story to to DA2. In DA:O you could choose the king of Orzammar, even become king of orzammar. You could choose the future ruler of Ferelden. You could choose to destroy an elven clan. You could save the Circle or destroy it. In DA2 you can only watch what happened, comment it and in the end decide whether you want to be on the winning or losing side.

 Thats because this is not your story. What people seem to not realize is that your role in this game is to define the character at the heart of this story not the story itself. This is a retelling of past events so the outcome is inevitable. All you're doing is shaping the person Hawke is and the decisions s/he made that brought him/her to that point. It's like having two people tell their side of the story on the same event. Their stories may differ completely but they both ultimately reach the same conclusion.

[Icy Magebane]

Well, the story didn't make any sense while playing as a mage... apparently there's some kind of crackdown, yet a known Ferelden apostate can just come and go as he/she pleases, even when you're just some poor sod from Lowtown. In fact, the story was really my biggest problem, but after a while, I just stopped caring. Nothing I did had much of an effect, not in a good way, at least. Too much doom and gloom, and nothing to be happy about when all was said and done. Oh, and half the decisions my Warden made didn't matter. That was annoying as hell.

While the class system was highly restrictive, the combat was a lot of fun. In fact, I'd say it was excellent. I didn't mind using specific parties to take advantage of cross-class combos, but that's mainly because I really liked my 3 most effective party members, Varric, Aveline, and Fenris. The characters I disliked weren't really that useful in combat, so it was no problem. That's really my favorite part of this game... not sure if that's a compliment, considering Bioware's history.

rft wrote...

A lot more descriptive reasons of why people hate the game then in the General fourm.

Well, my excuse is that I just got here.  I didn't want to risk visiting the spoiler page, or even the general page, before actually beating the game.  There's a thread here about reviews though... I thing they've removed the search function, but if you're interested, it's out there.  Some guy there wrote the longest comment I've ever read on any forum... ever.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 14 mars 2011 - 03:11 .

[Everwarden]

rft wrote...

I would really like to know what all this hate is about. DA2 is definally not as good as DA:O but that doesn't stop it from being a bad game does it? The two main problems i saw were that:

Dragon Age 2 as just a game is fine, solid value for your money. The reason for all of the hate is that it's a huge, huge step in the wrong direction and didn't even come close to living up to the original. 

1. The story had no real point untill Act 2

Fixed.

It seems people for some reason doesn't like the game because it wasn't as good as DA:O.

Yep. They made a dumbed down, shallow version of Dragon Age and lied about what they were making to sell it. There are no meaningful choices that shape the world in Dragon Age 2, the end is the same regardless of what sort of Hawke you want to play. And playing your own version of Hawke boils down to whether you want to be polite, sarcastic, or a jerk. That isn't roleplaying, and it's an offensive backpeddle from the awesome diversity of dialogue options in Origins. 

[Darth Obvious]

What is wrong with Dragon Age 2?

Where to begin...

- The 3rd Act was extremely weak from a plot perspective. Fighting some stupid, annoying old woman as the final fight was utterly lame, and her supposed "possession" by the shard or whatever wasn't hashed out nearly enough to even remotely make sense. One of the biggest let-downs in video game history. The 2nd and 3rd Acts should obviously have been switched, with a massive invasion by the Qunari being the ultimate climax.

- The repetitive spawning of enemies in every battle is EXTREMELY tiresome and unnecessary, and it makes the combat really boring. If Bioware was trying to make Dragon Age 2 into a totally mindless hack-and-slash game, they succeeded. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could not be bored by this.

- The characters in your party weren't nearly as interesting in DA2 as they were in DA:O, and there isn't nearly as much dialogue with them. Hey Bioware, have you ever heard the expression, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”? I guess not.

- Just like with ME2, Bioware decided to TAKE AWAY player options in comparison to the first game in the series, like customizing your allies' armor/appearance (and even the main character's appearance options are drastically limited this time around). How is LESS choice a good thing when it comes to an RPG? That's what completely killed the replay value in ME2, and what will kill the replay value in DA2.