I think DA2 is a very good game, but it isn't a sequel to DA:O. It feels closer to the Witcher than a true party-based RPG. And to be clear, I'm happy with a Witcher-meets-Thedas game. I just have a hard time considering this a 'sequel' to the sprawling epic of DA:O. Most of the reasons have been listed, and come down the reduction of player choices.
And no, I'm sorry, the dialogue wheel doesn't work in DA, for reasons people have noted. In Mass Effect, which is more cinematic, that's fine. But when we're talking about a game where player choice is supposed to rule, the paring down of dialogues to make it fit the wheel (and voicing constraints) removes the depth the first game had. All the people on the forum who screamed for a voiced Warden should be able to see now that it simply isn't the same game if you go that route.
Again, I'm not saying it's 'bad' or I didn't enjoy it. I did. It's just too different from DA:O to merit having the title, IMHO.
Constructive Criticism
Débuté par
HawXV2
, mars 15 2011 06:50
Retour en haut
#2277
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 02:10
cheshire137
-
- Members
- 14 messages
My biggest complaint is the reused maps. It really breaks the RPG feel of the game when I go to a "new" place (in terms of story, location) and see it's the same old terrain I've already covered ten times before, just with different parts closed off and me starting from a different point. I know exactly where to check for loot, exactly where enemies are going to spawn, etc. Even in my first playthrough of DA2, I knew this stuff midway through the game. It should be new to me each time, unless it's some chance encounter where I get attacked while traveling or something. I didn't mind Origins reusing maps for those encounters. But for big quests? Main storylines? Those should all use different maps. This goes for more than just dungeons, too: I refuse to believe that there's only one architect in Hightown who designed Fenris', Bartrand's, etc. mansions.
I also feel more cramped in DA2 than in Origins. I loved that there were so many vastly different areas in Origins, and they looked spread across this big continent instead of all confined to the area around a city. Icy mountains, lush forests, little villages, crumbling ruins, etc. I would love to see more of that. Even if it's all surrounding a city, like in DA2, there just needs to be more variety.
I also feel more cramped in DA2 than in Origins. I loved that there were so many vastly different areas in Origins, and they looked spread across this big continent instead of all confined to the area around a city. Icy mountains, lush forests, little villages, crumbling ruins, etc. I would love to see more of that. Even if it's all surrounding a city, like in DA2, there just needs to be more variety.
#2278
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 02:11
cheshire137
-
- Members
- 14 messages
Double post, sorry.
Modifié par cheshire137, 17 mai 2011 - 02:12 .
#2279
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 04:16
RangerSG
-
- Members
- 1 041 messages
cheshire137 wrote...
My biggest complaint is the reused maps. It really breaks the RPG feel of the game when I go to a "new" place (in terms of story, location) and see it's the same old terrain I've already covered ten times before, just with different parts closed off and me starting from a different point. I know exactly where to check for loot, exactly where enemies are going to spawn, etc. Even in my first playthrough of DA2, I knew this stuff midway through the game. It should be new to me each time, unless it's some chance encounter where I get attacked while traveling or something. I didn't mind Origins reusing maps for those encounters. But for big quests? Main storylines? Those should all use different maps. This goes for more than just dungeons, too: I refuse to believe that there's only one architect in Hightown who designed Fenris', Bartrand's, etc. mansions.
I also feel more cramped in DA2 than in Origins. I loved that there were so many vastly different areas in Origins, and they looked spread across this big continent instead of all confined to the area around a city. Icy mountains, lush forests, little villages, crumbling ruins, etc. I would love to see more of that. Even if it's all surrounding a city, like in DA2, there just needs to be more variety.
I didn't mind the city aspect of the story. It gave it a different feel that I could appreciate. But yes, the recycled maps for exteriors was excessive, I agree.
#2280
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 09:58
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
Kirkwall : We don't get much to see the city as a whole during cutscenes. I think it would have helped me to get a better feeling of it. Hightown was interesting but lowtown was definetely lacking more interesting vistas. Outside of quests you didn't had enough things in this city to make it feel like a place you lived.
Why don't we ever see all of Kirkwall?
It would have made the place feel more real to us. I mean, if we were on Mount Sundermont then shouldn't we have looked down and seen this sprawling city with slums, influential areas, docks, and the Gallows? See the whole scope of the city and get an understanding of its layout?
It's merely a series of disjointed load zones. Imagine if you could look over Lowtown from the Keep? Just a simple painted vista, not even a whole city like something Rockstar or Bethesda do.
A sense of location, I guess. The Citadel in Mass Effect is a series of load zones but I felt a scale of scope and location (although it's wrong in ME1, the Presidium in the cutscenes, finale, and in ME2 and the Presidium in-game are very very different. But still...)
Although, I don't know what I'd have thought of a sandbox Kirkwall. A part of me is worried BioWare could even pull it off (they'd need a few people who have experience with these things) but if the game was to take place in one location....a sandbox would be the way to do it.
You could have multiple boroughs with different NPC types, trash, shops, and the like. It would have been great fun...with one problem.
Transportation needs to be fun. Just running in a direction until you arrive there isn't interesting or fun. It's just tedious. GTA and the like have the fun of driving cars and aircraft. Assassin's Creed has the enjoyment of using the world as a jungle gym.
Short of bringing in horses I don't know how make that enjoyable. Coach services like Red Dead Redemption, mounts, going on foot, and probably some form of fast travel would all help.
I'm rambling.
#2281
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 10:01
mdigs150
-
- Members
- 53 messages
Kaylis DX wrote...
The only complaint I have, besides the copy/paste enviroments, is the combat. While it may look faster, it isn't. In Dragon Age 1, I'm killing enemies a lot more quickly in every class. You actually feel like you're getting stronger and skills actually feel worth getting. I think the problem was the enemies.
In DA2, there are 4 types of enemies and they all vary, not on what they fight with, but what their helth bar is. Low health, Medium Health, High Health and Boss class Health. I almost never felt like I was fighting anybody different, even with Mages. They all did pretty much the same amount of damage, occasionally had knockback attacks and that was it.
The only two bosses that gave me any sort of variation was the High Dragon and the Harvester. The Dragon had varied attacks, moved around the field and summoned other dragons to fight for it. This strategy was later adopted by the Final Boss, but without the excitement or the variety of the High Dragon. I can say with certainty that the Dragon was the single best fight in the game simply because of the variety.
The Harvester actually had an interesting concept but was executed poorly. Whack away at the outer shell to get to the core. Fairly simply, yes? However, fighting the core is.....Well, very boring. You smack it a bit, it tries to run and then after a while it goes back to its body. Basically, you could have taken out the core part and added some extra health on the shell. The fight wouldn't be much different either way.
Overall, the enemies really dragged this game down. They make the game boring and makes the flaws in the story that much more apparent since you'll be paying more attention to that than the gameplay.
Now, there are some class issues, such as DAGGERS being more powerful than regular melee weapons in every encounter even without backstab, Bows being the most powerful weapons by far and mages being rather boring to play but we can't really fix that now that the game is released. :T
Hopefully this gets fixed in the next installment.
This is so true. In origins when you managed to get in close to a mage with a two handed warrior it took very little time to dispatch them with pommel strike and mighty blow, whereas in da2 it can take forever (unless you have assassinate plus twin fangs - seems a bit odd that this would do more damage than an enormous two handed axe being smacked down on someone's head). Somehow, despite the animations and speed the combat seems less satisfying
#2282
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 10:11
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
If we're going to talk about boss fights then we have to talk about how interesting and fun the Spectral Dragon was in Awakening.
That was a well thought out boss fight. It had clearly defined stages, objectives in each stage, and was fairly challenging the first time through Awakening (after my first play I learned enough to build really fearsome neigh-unstoppable builds and the Dragon lost a lot of its difficulty.)
The Harvester in Golems was different. That had clear objectives and stages but it never got easier. That's a monstrous beast of a fight. If it wasn't for the fact that poisons stacked to obscene levels I might not have ever killed it on Insanity.
That was a well thought out boss fight. It had clearly defined stages, objectives in each stage, and was fairly challenging the first time through Awakening (after my first play I learned enough to build really fearsome neigh-unstoppable builds and the Dragon lost a lot of its difficulty.)
The Harvester in Golems was different. That had clear objectives and stages but it never got easier. That's a monstrous beast of a fight. If it wasn't for the fact that poisons stacked to obscene levels I might not have ever killed it on Insanity.
#2283
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 01:06
DecCylonus
-
- Members
- 269 messages
I agree with Kaylis DX. While the animations were faster, the combat was slower because damage output is too low. Having to press a button for every attack really drives that flaw home.
A bigger problem is that special attacks aren't very special. None of them would do significant damage to even the lowliest of peons until Act 3. Worse yet, Stun, Stagger, and Brittle don't really last long enough to exploit. To take advantage, you either have to micromanage your party, or you have to program the tactics so that party members stay together and reserve special attacks to exploit these. Either of these methods defeats the purpose of faster combat and aiming at more casual players. Micromanaging means you're pausing all the time. Programming tactics is daunting if you aren't familiar with the system. New players will likely get it wrong.
Making bosses immune to special attacks was the poorest design decision of the game, on par with the repeated maps. It reduces special attacks to nothing but extra damage dealers. Any strategy in using special attacks is taken away. Combine that with the bosses' insane hitpoints, and boss fights turn into nothing but a button mash that lasts far too long. It gets tedious after five minutes, and often lasts twenty. Not fun. Now add in the bosses' own devastating specials, and the fights are cheap as well as boring. The boss can slam me for half my hitpoints and stun me, but just laughs at my coolest move. It would be forgiveable if it was just the high dragon that was this powerful, as it would make sense for such a huge creature. Alas, it's every major boss.
IMO, Bioware needs to look back to DA:O for combat. I don't mind the action oriented approach. I could even live with the over-the-top animations. What Bioware missed is that this approach not only needs to look cool, it needs to feel good too. When an attack looks awesome but deals very little damage, there is a disconnect. Regular enemies need to take signifcant damage and / or be badly disabled by special attacks. This worked so well in DA:O. Bosses need to have some vulnerability to every class, instead of being immune to everything. That's classic game design: give them a weakness that the player can figure out and exploit. I don't know how Bioware missed these things.
A bigger problem is that special attacks aren't very special. None of them would do significant damage to even the lowliest of peons until Act 3. Worse yet, Stun, Stagger, and Brittle don't really last long enough to exploit. To take advantage, you either have to micromanage your party, or you have to program the tactics so that party members stay together and reserve special attacks to exploit these. Either of these methods defeats the purpose of faster combat and aiming at more casual players. Micromanaging means you're pausing all the time. Programming tactics is daunting if you aren't familiar with the system. New players will likely get it wrong.
Making bosses immune to special attacks was the poorest design decision of the game, on par with the repeated maps. It reduces special attacks to nothing but extra damage dealers. Any strategy in using special attacks is taken away. Combine that with the bosses' insane hitpoints, and boss fights turn into nothing but a button mash that lasts far too long. It gets tedious after five minutes, and often lasts twenty. Not fun. Now add in the bosses' own devastating specials, and the fights are cheap as well as boring. The boss can slam me for half my hitpoints and stun me, but just laughs at my coolest move. It would be forgiveable if it was just the high dragon that was this powerful, as it would make sense for such a huge creature. Alas, it's every major boss.
IMO, Bioware needs to look back to DA:O for combat. I don't mind the action oriented approach. I could even live with the over-the-top animations. What Bioware missed is that this approach not only needs to look cool, it needs to feel good too. When an attack looks awesome but deals very little damage, there is a disconnect. Regular enemies need to take signifcant damage and / or be badly disabled by special attacks. This worked so well in DA:O. Bosses need to have some vulnerability to every class, instead of being immune to everything. That's classic game design: give them a weakness that the player can figure out and exploit. I don't know how Bioware missed these things.
#2284
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 01:20
DadeLeviathan
-
- Members
- 678 messages
DecCylonus wrote...
<snip>
IMO, Bioware needs to look back to DA:O for combat. I don't mind the action oriented approach. I could even live with the over-the-top animations. What Bioware missed is that this approach not only needs to look cool, it needs to feel good too. When an attack looks awesome but deals very little damage, there is a disconnect. Regular enemies need to take signifcant damage and / or be badly disabled by special attacks. This worked so well in DA:O. Bosses need to have some vulnerability to every class, instead of being immune to everything. That's classic game design: give them a weakness that the player can figure out and exploit. I don't know how Bioware missed these things.
I agree. While the combat is 'faster' in some respects, it is, at least for me, boring. Most fights turn into a waiting game, especially with the boss fights. For me, a good boss fight has to have a clear strategy (or better yet, a few clear ones) and it also needs to be fun, engaging and epic. The boss fights in DA2 have none of these qualities. Making a boss immune to some things is classic RPG design. But making them immune to everything, especially on harder difficulties, just makes the fights tedious.
#2285
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 01:54
Ohpus
-
- Members
- 752 messages
DecCylonus wrote...
IMO, Bioware needs to look back to DA:O for combat. I don't mind the action oriented approach. I could even live with the over-the-top animations. What Bioware missed is that this approach not only needs to look cool, it needs to feel good too. When an attack looks awesome but deals very little damage, there is a disconnect. Regular enemies need to take signifcant damage and / or be badly disabled by special attacks. This worked so well in DA:O. Bosses need to have some vulnerability to every class, instead of being immune to everything. That's classic game design: give them a weakness that the player can figure out and exploit. I don't know how Bioware missed these things.
One other problem with the over-the-top animations is that even if you turned off persistant gore under Options you still had very messy kills. Then you had one great sword that had the additional ability "messy kills." So what, more messier than turning them into chunks of bloody Lego blocks?
#2286
Posté 17 mai 2011 - 07:08
MrProliferation
-
- Members
- 149 messages
I think the combat in DA2 was a vast improvement over DA:O, but still had some flaws.
I second the bit about low damage and boss fights being more about surviving that strategizing, however I for one was glad they made archery effective. Archery was useless in DA:O. DA2 made it worthwhile. And, while they improved 2 handers, which was a class that was only good over level 15 in DA:O, it still doesn't feel right. I think they should've slowed down the Attack Speed of 2 handers and increased their damage. I
I like the reach of the weapon hitting multiple enemies, and same with the sword and shield vs. daggers, but it would've made 2 handers better if they swung a little more slowly but that the damage difference between them and a faster 1-hander was more pronounced.
That said, I think DA2 made the Warrior and a melee rogue more interesting classes to play. I was doing the warden shuffle almost every swing in DAO and got really tired of it. Especially with auto-attack. Auto-attack totally changed the dynamic of DA2 once it was added and was a vast improvement.
I second the bit about low damage and boss fights being more about surviving that strategizing, however I for one was glad they made archery effective. Archery was useless in DA:O. DA2 made it worthwhile. And, while they improved 2 handers, which was a class that was only good over level 15 in DA:O, it still doesn't feel right. I think they should've slowed down the Attack Speed of 2 handers and increased their damage. I
I like the reach of the weapon hitting multiple enemies, and same with the sword and shield vs. daggers, but it would've made 2 handers better if they swung a little more slowly but that the damage difference between them and a faster 1-hander was more pronounced.
That said, I think DA2 made the Warrior and a melee rogue more interesting classes to play. I was doing the warden shuffle almost every swing in DAO and got really tired of it. Especially with auto-attack. Auto-attack totally changed the dynamic of DA2 once it was added and was a vast improvement.
#2287
Posté 18 mai 2011 - 11:44
sojourner77
-
- Members
- 16 messages
I've played 4 runthroughs now (mage x2, dh warrior, dw rogue, all on hard), so probably time for some feedback. As you can probably tell, I like the game 
stuff I liked:
*Character banter was great. Made the characters much more like real people with lives of their own. Particularly liked the evolution of Aveline and Isabella's relationship. The variety here makes the game really replayable.
*I actually liked the pacing a lot. I find it really breaks immersion when you have to pause rushing to save lives to help a companion with something. DA2's structure really avoided that and allowed a lot of flexible structure.
*Character builds were better than DA:O. More flexibility, more distinct directions.More features unique to the player character. I found I could fight with just about any combo of companions, which provided some challenge/variety (not provided by fight structure, see below)
*The morally grey world of the companions - I liked that it was more complex than goodies and baddies. Their being a spectrum of opinion. Rivalry as an option helped this.
* Storyline. As always with Bioware games, immersive and cool.
*Fenris' animation. Deserves a mention. Also voice acting for Merrill. Aveline was great as a character - I know some people hated her, I liked having a woman with her own life along.
*Sarcastic and Violent Hawke both felt like real people. Sarcastic Hawke was a blast to play - like a crazy, awesome,fleshed out character.
*I have arthritis in my hands, and without pause, I couldn't play on anything over casual. I know pause is standard in these games, but still wanted to say thank you
Stuff I didn't like:
* Lack of variety in combat. Some of the boss fights were just tedious - the Arishok duel was silly given the epic setting, having to kite broke immersion and was boring to boot. Nothing wrong with respawning enemies, but just. too. much. of it. By Act 2, it was easy to predict how a fight would go, and I was getting bored. At one point i contemplated shifting combat to casual just to get it over faster, and get on with the story, which I haven't before in any game. (I didn't, and actually played three more play throughs, so y'know )
* The down side of fleshed out Hawke is that I didn't really feel like I could create the character's personality. I understand that this bothered a lot of people more than me.
*Far from being an exercise in how your choices impact the world, it felt more like a morality tale about how powerless heroes are to change anything. Nothing you decided had much impact - in some ways this was kinda cool: the ultimate argument for the futility of powerful individuals, but not necessarily what you want from a Bioware game. I know there are simply limitations to how open a game can be, but it's annoying to have the illusion of choice.
*I made huge efforts to be unspoiled going into the game The Merrill bug in Act 3 was really spoilery, and that was intensely frustrating.
* I don't mind buildings with the same layout - cause hey, lots do have them. But caves??? That was annoying. Really reduced the pleasure of exploration as well, as there wasn't any surprises, adding to a sense of tedium late game.
* Running around in full mage gear chucking fire and having no-one realise you were an apostate was really, really dumb.
Things I wish any RPG would do:
*Make choice consequences harder. This game took a step towards that, but stuff like - if you loot the chantry, there are serious consequences. If you do all the side missions, you end up late for a main mission and cost lives. More missions where if you choose one, several others don't appear. Would add to replayability, even if it shortened each run-through, and having to agonise over consequences is really immersive.
*Cater to those who read subtitles more (after the first run through, I play in front of tv with family, sound off mostly) party banter is behind you - subtitles should appear in front
thanks for an awesome game!
stuff I liked:
*Character banter was great. Made the characters much more like real people with lives of their own. Particularly liked the evolution of Aveline and Isabella's relationship. The variety here makes the game really replayable.
*I actually liked the pacing a lot. I find it really breaks immersion when you have to pause rushing to save lives to help a companion with something. DA2's structure really avoided that and allowed a lot of flexible structure.
*Character builds were better than DA:O. More flexibility, more distinct directions.More features unique to the player character. I found I could fight with just about any combo of companions, which provided some challenge/variety (not provided by fight structure, see below)
*The morally grey world of the companions - I liked that it was more complex than goodies and baddies. Their being a spectrum of opinion. Rivalry as an option helped this.
* Storyline. As always with Bioware games, immersive and cool.
*Fenris' animation. Deserves a mention. Also voice acting for Merrill. Aveline was great as a character - I know some people hated her, I liked having a woman with her own life along.
*Sarcastic and Violent Hawke both felt like real people. Sarcastic Hawke was a blast to play - like a crazy, awesome,fleshed out character.
*I have arthritis in my hands, and without pause, I couldn't play on anything over casual. I know pause is standard in these games, but still wanted to say thank you
Stuff I didn't like:
* Lack of variety in combat. Some of the boss fights were just tedious - the Arishok duel was silly given the epic setting, having to kite broke immersion and was boring to boot. Nothing wrong with respawning enemies, but just. too. much. of it. By Act 2, it was easy to predict how a fight would go, and I was getting bored. At one point i contemplated shifting combat to casual just to get it over faster, and get on with the story, which I haven't before in any game. (I didn't, and actually played three more play throughs, so y'know
)* The down side of fleshed out Hawke is that I didn't really feel like I could create the character's personality. I understand that this bothered a lot of people more than me.
*Far from being an exercise in how your choices impact the world, it felt more like a morality tale about how powerless heroes are to change anything. Nothing you decided had much impact - in some ways this was kinda cool: the ultimate argument for the futility of powerful individuals, but not necessarily what you want from a Bioware game. I know there are simply limitations to how open a game can be, but it's annoying to have the illusion of choice.
*I made huge efforts to be unspoiled going into the game The Merrill bug in Act 3 was really spoilery, and that was intensely frustrating.
* I don't mind buildings with the same layout - cause hey, lots do have them. But caves??? That was annoying. Really reduced the pleasure of exploration as well, as there wasn't any surprises, adding to a sense of tedium late game.
* Running around in full mage gear chucking fire and having no-one realise you were an apostate was really, really dumb.
Things I wish any RPG would do:
*Make choice consequences harder. This game took a step towards that, but stuff like - if you loot the chantry, there are serious consequences. If you do all the side missions, you end up late for a main mission and cost lives. More missions where if you choose one, several others don't appear. Would add to replayability, even if it shortened each run-through, and having to agonise over consequences is really immersive.
*Cater to those who read subtitles more (after the first run through, I play in front of tv with family, sound off mostly)
party banter is behind you - subtitles should appear in front thanks for an awesome game!
#2288
Posté 18 mai 2011 - 12:48
DecCylonus
-
- Members
- 269 messages
MrProliferation wrote...
I think the combat in DA2 was a vast improvement over DA:O, but still had some flaws.
I second the bit about low damage and boss fights being more about surviving that strategizing, however I for one was glad they made archery effective. Archery was useless in DA:O. DA2 made it worthwhile. And, while they improved 2 handers, which was a class that was only good over level 15 in DA:O, it still doesn't feel right. I think they should've slowed down the Attack Speed of 2 handers and increased their damage. I
I like the reach of the weapon hitting multiple enemies, and same with the sword and shield vs. daggers, but it would've made 2 handers better if they swung a little more slowly but that the damage difference between them and a faster 1-hander was more pronounced.
That said, I think DA2 made the Warrior and a melee rogue more interesting classes to play. I was doing the warden shuffle almost every swing in DAO and got really tired of it. Especially with auto-attack. Auto-attack totally changed the dynamic of DA2 once it was added and was a vast improvement.
I actually found archery pretty effective in DA:O. Damage was mediocre, but the disabling effects could turn the tide. There was nothing like pinning a mage with an arrow while my two hander ran up to whack them. Anyway, I think giving archers better damage in DA2 was an improvement, especially with their slow attack speed. Like other classes though, thier special attacks were pretty well nerfed in DA2.
Another problem in DA2 is the baffling over-use of area effect. Turn friendly fire on, and you discover that those wonderful two hander swings are area effect. Before you know it, you're beating up your own tank and rogue. It pretty much means you leave two handers at home on Nightmare. A lot of the special abilities of every class are area effect as well, so you almost never use them. DA2's battlefields are a lot more cramped than DA:O's. Enemies also tend to spawn on top of you, instead of having to run towards you. There is little opportunity to use area effect abilities safely if friendly fire is on.
I agree that two handers were improved in DA2, but their area effect attacks are both unrealistic and counter productive. It would be better if they were able to do massive damage to a single target with every blow, and slowed down a bit as you suggest. Give them one or two area effect attacks to use when they are surrounded, but otherwise they should focus on a single target.
#2289
Posté 20 mai 2011 - 04:21
Diegofsv
-
- Members
- 74 messages
Well, after so much time that I end DA2, I feel like I'm finally over the fact that I didn't enjoy it, and I can help instead of scream why Bioware got this game so bad.
so lets start what I didn't like
1 - The conversation wheel with icons show us what is good and what is bad and what is neutral, while in DA:O all was gray and fun. For god's sake this is a RPG, so plz make us think about what our character would say, not the "you want the angel answer or the evil answer" style;
2 - Hack and slash combat with enemies spawning from the wall. The removed tactical battle killed the game for me. Whats the purpose of putting my mages far away from the combat if enemies will spawn from the floor and kill them anyway?
3 - Combat animations that seems like an anime. While the first one was target to more mature audiences, this one if clearly made to teenagers.
4 - Almost no customization. Really, only armor for main character? Warrior with 2h or tank only?
5 - Ridiculous skill trees.
6 - Reuse of the same map over and over. That felt boring as hell really fast.
7 - Complete redesign of races and characters of the first one. While I'm not against change some of the design, see some of them so revamped put this game even more apart from the first game.
8 - Story and characters are weaks. Can't use spoilers so I can't tell everything that I hate from the story (almost everything).
9 - Almost no relation to DA:O
The things that Bioware did get right:
1 - Inventory, specially the junk one, is a good idea.
2 - Storytelling was a good idea
3 - I thought that the final conflict depicted in the game would be more epic, but either way I like the idea behind it.
That was it. I felt like this game was an action game based on DA world, and not a sequel on its own. I hope that you guys can change back to DA:O for DA3.
so lets start what I didn't like
1 - The conversation wheel with icons show us what is good and what is bad and what is neutral, while in DA:O all was gray and fun. For god's sake this is a RPG, so plz make us think about what our character would say, not the "you want the angel answer or the evil answer" style;
2 - Hack and slash combat with enemies spawning from the wall. The removed tactical battle killed the game for me. Whats the purpose of putting my mages far away from the combat if enemies will spawn from the floor and kill them anyway?
3 - Combat animations that seems like an anime. While the first one was target to more mature audiences, this one if clearly made to teenagers.
4 - Almost no customization. Really, only armor for main character? Warrior with 2h or tank only?
5 - Ridiculous skill trees.
6 - Reuse of the same map over and over. That felt boring as hell really fast.
7 - Complete redesign of races and characters of the first one. While I'm not against change some of the design, see some of them so revamped put this game even more apart from the first game.
8 - Story and characters are weaks. Can't use spoilers so I can't tell everything that I hate from the story (almost everything).
9 - Almost no relation to DA:O
The things that Bioware did get right:
1 - Inventory, specially the junk one, is a good idea.
2 - Storytelling was a good idea
3 - I thought that the final conflict depicted in the game would be more epic, but either way I like the idea behind it.
That was it. I felt like this game was an action game based on DA world, and not a sequel on its own. I hope that you guys can change back to DA:O for DA3.
#2290
Posté 20 mai 2011 - 04:27
Minitris
-
- Members
- 1 messages
Ok so this is where I can give feedback about the game.
Just for the context, I played the PC version, and I have played dragon age 2, DA origins and baldur's gate 2 amongst others, and I didn't like DA2 at all.
So lets begin with the good points, because they do exist :
- the general design which is far better in DA 2, everything feels less generic.
- the general storyline is good.
- social interactions are still present, and even deeper than before.
- the talents tree that allows to improve your prefered skills (there is good and bad in the talents tree)
And now for the (unfortunately) long list of bad things in this game :
- level design : what to say, recycling, recycling and recycling again the same places, be they meant for primary or secondary quests, and hiding the global emptyness with boring battles every 10 meters.
- yes the battles are boring : because you lose entirely the tactical aproach DA1 had without gaining any dynamism in return. Whatever the placement you choose, random waves of enemies WILL just pop out of nowhere in your line of mages, regardless of any realism. There is no tactical view worthy of the name, and that coupled with poor aiming with the mouse, because it centers automatically on enemies make AoE placement a nightmare. All those reasons ruin the experience in nightmare, or even in hard mode, anything below that doesn't present enough challenge to be mentioned. In the end your only "tactic" can be resumed in getting the maximum amount of DPS, since CC are useless (whats the point of controlling the battlefield if enemies pop everywhere anyways).
- the PC porting of the game is downright insulting, it is one of the worst PC ports I have ever seen. The game is riddled with bugs, that happen every single fights : misclicks, target changes regardless of your orders, AI incoherences, graphical and sound bugs (these are more rare), and last but not least an interface which is not adapted to the support.
- about the menus interface : let us compare with an older bioware game, like baldur's gate 2 : back then you had an inventory that was more limited in size. it allowed to have a global overview of what a character was carrying on a single screen, and you actually had to think about what to pick up and what to leave behind. Now you have unending lists of random stuff you get from every single monster, and you have to lose so much time searching for the good items lost within the useless ones. And of course, five people can carry around 20 armors 30 swords and axes and 10 shields without breaking a sweat...
- ingame interface : it is quite standart MMO interface, nothing much to say, except that you often have to click multiple times on a skill for the game to understand that you want to select it, and that you have to pray your character will actually target what you told him to. I also note the loss of the backstab mechanic for rogues, and they lose much of their interest because of that, now the only things that differenciate them from DPS fighters is that they can open chests and disarm traps out of battles, and that they are less durable when targeted by enemies.
- Character customization : few specialties, limited roles for each given class and some roles are not even viable on harder modes because of the new game mechanics (i.e. random waves of ennemies and crowd control mages, friendly fire and excessively large AoE...). There are no more hybrid classes (arcane warrior...) We lose skills entirely, so no eloquence, survival, poisons or bombs can be used by anyone without training, or traps, that were great in baldurs gate 2, bad in DA origins, and disapear entirely in this game. There are less talents to learn so less variety too, and so many of them have large AoE that they are useless with friendly fire on (and no, no one bothered to implement party friendly spells ingame).
- the difficulty is badly dosed, with some minor fights being incredibly hard, and some boss fights laughable. But the worst part about difficulty is that, as bad as the controls are, the battles happen so often and they take forever to end. In DA 1 the animations of the fights were less dynamic yes, but the dynamic of the battles was way faster. They ended quickly either with you winning or losing with the exception of the very big bosses or very particular fights. Here in every single battle you fight a first wave, then a second, often a third, sometimes a fourth, and bosses, be they normal humans or not can be focused by your whole team for 10/20 seconds and youll barely scratch them.
This is about it. Some might think that i am way too harsh on this game, but the fact is i played it through only because I like the world of DA and wanted to know more about it. I didn't enjoy this playthrough, it left me the impression of a half finished game in which the studio tried to extend the length of the story by making fights more frequent and longer (while being less interesting), and in which making a proper PC port was only a secondary thought.
Just for the context, I played the PC version, and I have played dragon age 2, DA origins and baldur's gate 2 amongst others, and I didn't like DA2 at all.
So lets begin with the good points, because they do exist :
- the general design which is far better in DA 2, everything feels less generic.
- the general storyline is good.
- social interactions are still present, and even deeper than before.
- the talents tree that allows to improve your prefered skills (there is good and bad in the talents tree)
And now for the (unfortunately) long list of bad things in this game :
- level design : what to say, recycling, recycling and recycling again the same places, be they meant for primary or secondary quests, and hiding the global emptyness with boring battles every 10 meters.
- yes the battles are boring : because you lose entirely the tactical aproach DA1 had without gaining any dynamism in return. Whatever the placement you choose, random waves of enemies WILL just pop out of nowhere in your line of mages, regardless of any realism. There is no tactical view worthy of the name, and that coupled with poor aiming with the mouse, because it centers automatically on enemies make AoE placement a nightmare. All those reasons ruin the experience in nightmare, or even in hard mode, anything below that doesn't present enough challenge to be mentioned. In the end your only "tactic" can be resumed in getting the maximum amount of DPS, since CC are useless (whats the point of controlling the battlefield if enemies pop everywhere anyways).
- the PC porting of the game is downright insulting, it is one of the worst PC ports I have ever seen. The game is riddled with bugs, that happen every single fights : misclicks, target changes regardless of your orders, AI incoherences, graphical and sound bugs (these are more rare), and last but not least an interface which is not adapted to the support.
- about the menus interface : let us compare with an older bioware game, like baldur's gate 2 : back then you had an inventory that was more limited in size. it allowed to have a global overview of what a character was carrying on a single screen, and you actually had to think about what to pick up and what to leave behind. Now you have unending lists of random stuff you get from every single monster, and you have to lose so much time searching for the good items lost within the useless ones. And of course, five people can carry around 20 armors 30 swords and axes and 10 shields without breaking a sweat...
- ingame interface : it is quite standart MMO interface, nothing much to say, except that you often have to click multiple times on a skill for the game to understand that you want to select it, and that you have to pray your character will actually target what you told him to. I also note the loss of the backstab mechanic for rogues, and they lose much of their interest because of that, now the only things that differenciate them from DPS fighters is that they can open chests and disarm traps out of battles, and that they are less durable when targeted by enemies.
- Character customization : few specialties, limited roles for each given class and some roles are not even viable on harder modes because of the new game mechanics (i.e. random waves of ennemies and crowd control mages, friendly fire and excessively large AoE...). There are no more hybrid classes (arcane warrior...) We lose skills entirely, so no eloquence, survival, poisons or bombs can be used by anyone without training, or traps, that were great in baldurs gate 2, bad in DA origins, and disapear entirely in this game. There are less talents to learn so less variety too, and so many of them have large AoE that they are useless with friendly fire on (and no, no one bothered to implement party friendly spells ingame).
- the difficulty is badly dosed, with some minor fights being incredibly hard, and some boss fights laughable. But the worst part about difficulty is that, as bad as the controls are, the battles happen so often and they take forever to end. In DA 1 the animations of the fights were less dynamic yes, but the dynamic of the battles was way faster. They ended quickly either with you winning or losing with the exception of the very big bosses or very particular fights. Here in every single battle you fight a first wave, then a second, often a third, sometimes a fourth, and bosses, be they normal humans or not can be focused by your whole team for 10/20 seconds and youll barely scratch them.
This is about it. Some might think that i am way too harsh on this game, but the fact is i played it through only because I like the world of DA and wanted to know more about it. I didn't enjoy this playthrough, it left me the impression of a half finished game in which the studio tried to extend the length of the story by making fights more frequent and longer (while being less interesting), and in which making a proper PC port was only a secondary thought.
#2291
Posté 20 mai 2011 - 06:53
Alexander1136
-
- Members
- 431 messages
I decided to place my opinion on the game. let my state that because its a sequel it should be compared to the original and there will be Spoilers. Now that that is out of way lets begin.
First the characters. Being that this game is a sequel it will be compared to the original game. The Characters in DA2 were shallow annoying and 1dimensional.
Anders wouldn't shut up about the templars.
Merill wouldn't shut up about blood magic being okay.
Fenris wouldn't shut upabout Mages.
Isabella wouldn't shut up about sex.
Sebastian Wouldn't shut up about the chantry.
Aveline and Varic were the only 2 characters that had depth and not much. Aveline was a guards women and dedicated to her job that's about it. Varric was a Dwarven story teller who was generally funny, that's about it. Sadly those two had more depth than any other Companion in the game. Your siblings had some dimension to them and you got to know them but unfortunately they are removed from your party for a majority of the game, despite the fact they survived the orge for the sake of party balance, they are still removed from your game. Your mother, you talk to her 4-5 times in 6 years so no attachment there. Your uncle plays the single role of dick verywell. Overall its hard to like any one in Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age : Origins however was an opposite situation I liked all of my companions and if i didnt like them, i could tell them to go away or kill them. Characters had lots of depth, you could talk to Morrigan about her lonely times in the wild or Alistair about his time in the monastery or about the other wardens. The two conversations i remember the most was Gossiping w/ my buddy Alistair about our opinions on the rest of the party and talking to Morrigan about why she was so afraid of being in love. Except for the Arishok who imo is the best character in Dragon Age 2 there wasn't a character i really knew a lot about. I wanted to join him, thinking that this was an RPG a sequel to the game were i could side with rapid werewolves and slaughter the elves, i thought when the time comes im going to help the qunari. Sadly however the game is "streamlined" and
linear so you cant do that bringing me to my next point Story.
They say that Hawke is the most important person in Thedas. Why? What did he do? He got rich? Killed a couple of quanari? Sided with eitherthe templars or mages in a war that would have happen even if he/she wasnt there? That doesnt sound like a hero.. maybe it was all those errands they ran in Kirkwall. As Branka would put it a Glorified Errand boy. Now the Warden, He did the following in 1 year instead of the 10years da2 takes place. Stop two civil Wars the dwarven one and the Ferelden one, Completed a Circle Annulment, Either wiped out the
werewolves or the Elves of the entire brecilian forest which is about The size of the entire freemarches, Then he slayed an archdemon ending the blight and for some survived and was the father of a reborn old
god. Thats just a list of major accomplishments. He also found the anvil
of the void, Walked the path of Andraste, Found the Urn of Sacred Ashes, Defeated flemeth in her High dragon form(mine did it solo)..
Need i go on. The Grey Warden is clearly a superior hero. The lack of choices in Da2 is disgusting you dont really accomplish any thing that wouldnt of happened if you weren't there. Meredith and Orsino would
have killed the qunari, and Anders would have still blown up the chantry. The only thing you really did was find the idol that drove Bartrand and Meredith mad which was immediately given to Bartrand who
would have gotten it whether or not you were there. next we move to theCombat system
The Combat system is one part to the
whole that makes up combat in Dragon Age. The way you encounter enemies is also a huge part of it. In Dragon Age: Origins you could tell your party to hold position and no matter how far away you
ventured from them they would hold. You could Stealth for as long as you wanted, set up traps and ambushes, and then quickly despatch groups of enemies tactically one by one drawing darkspawn away from its
large group. All of the "Reinforcements" were visible and approachable they did not magically drop from the skies. Now for actual combat. In Dragon Age Origins if you played as warrior or rouge
you would remember moves like Shield Pummel, Riposte, and pomel
strike. all moves at your disposal that helped alot when in combat. They had the tactical role of stunning your opponent and were fluid with the combat you felt like you were actually fighting. my favorite
combo was with momentum active Riposte-Backstap while stunned usually about 3-4 times- dual sweep-Punisher-cyclone-cripple. in Da2 you had to actually have a backstab talent you had next to no fancy weapon
moves and you couldnt ambush the enemy, set traps, or stealth to do recon. and there wasnt a secondary weapon. In Origins i very often would set up a distance and tell my party to hold, set traps, and then
lure the enemy over while they went through a field of traps getting pummeld by arrows and Morrigan's staff. In Da2 more bad guys magically appear all around you and they appear in waves.
Next Art Direction and Graphics all i really have to do is post a couple of then and now screen shots..http://social.bioware.com//uploads_user/230000/229123/108987.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/108988.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/109479.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/107686.jpg
http://social.biowar.../107687.jpgThat
should be all the argument i need. the original is more fantasy art
and the new one looks like idk crap american anime rip off.
Next the Stat system. In Dragon Age 2 the stat system is pretty lame you put points into 2 places depending on your class. While those places were also important depending on class in origins, they weren't
as important.My Warden
Strength 45 +2
Dexterity 54 +10
Willpower 21 +7
Magic 21
Cunning 50 +12
Constitution 21 +3
Clearly you can see that i placed points in
everything but focused on cunning and dexterity. My strength was needed to wield the two swords i have "Warden's companion" and "Duncan's sword" In Origins you could wear any armor based on Strength or Magic if you were a mageand it would have fatigue based on its weight. So if you were a rouge
and didnt deal much damage you wanted to wear light armor to increase your DPS. in DA2 there was no fatigue your speed was determined by class and depending on class you could only wear certain armors and use
specific weapons. Unlike origins you couldnt use Mace and a dagger or a long sword and a dagger. Just daggers and bows for rouges and S&S or 2 handed for warriors. it felt like a huge step back placing in all
kinds of restriction on the players desire for a set up. An example would be if i was a shield and sword Warrior and used light leather armor and a lighter shield but still had high attack i would have a higher DPS for the cost of defense. You couldnt do that in DA2 it was just pick the items with the most points.. lame.
Finally the Dialogue system. In origins you didnt have a Voiced PC. Now i know that this point is my opinion and some feel that a Voiced PCis better, I believed it made it so i didnt feel like i was my character. In Origins you could read exactly what you were going to saywhile in DA2 you got an icon and a poorly paraphrased short version. some said that in Origins you could accidentally flirt with zevran.. but thats why you read and learn about the character. you read a dialogue option and think.. zevran likes that , that would be flirting.
Its common sense really. Saying "do you really have to talk" to morrigan after you have sex makes her giggle. to leliana that might ****** her off. you have to understand the characters in order to say the
right things. that was awesome, i love that! it was so effortless to romance the already lame characters is da2 that i didnt feel an attachment. and it wasnt just my bias of the charcters. I remember
first meeting Morrigan thinking "oh, how lame a dark gothic girl with an attitude problem." but i fell in love with the women because i got to know her and that was all thanks to the dialogue system.
In closing Dragon Age 2 was bad and for Dragon Age 3 if they want to stay true to there RPG audience. then they need to make an RPG and forget about all the stupid annoying COD fanboys or whoever they are trying to branch out to. they are going to play COD or whatever don't waste your time trying to appeal to them. a lot of
gamers, myself included have kind of stopped gaming because of the lack of games that are deep, tactical, and immersive. Dont say we just need to play it on brutal or elite because i did that and it didn't
change the fact that the game is a hollow shell of the original. If your trying to attract more RPG fans that keep it an RPG game dont try to change it up. Yes lots of other games have RPG element but they lack depth that makes a real classic RPG an RPG. they joked with the Talkitive man saying that everything is simpler, but really its because they removed so much and took away any form of freedom the player to make certain builds and to have to think while in conversation.
First the characters. Being that this game is a sequel it will be compared to the original game. The Characters in DA2 were shallow annoying and 1dimensional.
Anders wouldn't shut up about the templars.
Merill wouldn't shut up about blood magic being okay.
Fenris wouldn't shut upabout Mages.
Isabella wouldn't shut up about sex.
Sebastian Wouldn't shut up about the chantry.
Aveline and Varic were the only 2 characters that had depth and not much. Aveline was a guards women and dedicated to her job that's about it. Varric was a Dwarven story teller who was generally funny, that's about it. Sadly those two had more depth than any other Companion in the game. Your siblings had some dimension to them and you got to know them but unfortunately they are removed from your party for a majority of the game, despite the fact they survived the orge for the sake of party balance, they are still removed from your game. Your mother, you talk to her 4-5 times in 6 years so no attachment there. Your uncle plays the single role of dick verywell. Overall its hard to like any one in Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age : Origins however was an opposite situation I liked all of my companions and if i didnt like them, i could tell them to go away or kill them. Characters had lots of depth, you could talk to Morrigan about her lonely times in the wild or Alistair about his time in the monastery or about the other wardens. The two conversations i remember the most was Gossiping w/ my buddy Alistair about our opinions on the rest of the party and talking to Morrigan about why she was so afraid of being in love. Except for the Arishok who imo is the best character in Dragon Age 2 there wasn't a character i really knew a lot about. I wanted to join him, thinking that this was an RPG a sequel to the game were i could side with rapid werewolves and slaughter the elves, i thought when the time comes im going to help the qunari. Sadly however the game is "streamlined" and
linear so you cant do that bringing me to my next point Story.
They say that Hawke is the most important person in Thedas. Why? What did he do? He got rich? Killed a couple of quanari? Sided with eitherthe templars or mages in a war that would have happen even if he/she wasnt there? That doesnt sound like a hero.. maybe it was all those errands they ran in Kirkwall. As Branka would put it a Glorified Errand boy. Now the Warden, He did the following in 1 year instead of the 10years da2 takes place. Stop two civil Wars the dwarven one and the Ferelden one, Completed a Circle Annulment, Either wiped out the
werewolves or the Elves of the entire brecilian forest which is about The size of the entire freemarches, Then he slayed an archdemon ending the blight and for some survived and was the father of a reborn old
god. Thats just a list of major accomplishments. He also found the anvil
of the void, Walked the path of Andraste, Found the Urn of Sacred Ashes, Defeated flemeth in her High dragon form(mine did it solo)..
Need i go on. The Grey Warden is clearly a superior hero. The lack of choices in Da2 is disgusting you dont really accomplish any thing that wouldnt of happened if you weren't there. Meredith and Orsino would
have killed the qunari, and Anders would have still blown up the chantry. The only thing you really did was find the idol that drove Bartrand and Meredith mad which was immediately given to Bartrand who
would have gotten it whether or not you were there. next we move to theCombat system
The Combat system is one part to the
whole that makes up combat in Dragon Age. The way you encounter enemies is also a huge part of it. In Dragon Age: Origins you could tell your party to hold position and no matter how far away you
ventured from them they would hold. You could Stealth for as long as you wanted, set up traps and ambushes, and then quickly despatch groups of enemies tactically one by one drawing darkspawn away from its
large group. All of the "Reinforcements" were visible and approachable they did not magically drop from the skies. Now for actual combat. In Dragon Age Origins if you played as warrior or rouge
you would remember moves like Shield Pummel, Riposte, and pomel
strike. all moves at your disposal that helped alot when in combat. They had the tactical role of stunning your opponent and were fluid with the combat you felt like you were actually fighting. my favorite
combo was with momentum active Riposte-Backstap while stunned usually about 3-4 times- dual sweep-Punisher-cyclone-cripple. in Da2 you had to actually have a backstab talent you had next to no fancy weapon
moves and you couldnt ambush the enemy, set traps, or stealth to do recon. and there wasnt a secondary weapon. In Origins i very often would set up a distance and tell my party to hold, set traps, and then
lure the enemy over while they went through a field of traps getting pummeld by arrows and Morrigan's staff. In Da2 more bad guys magically appear all around you and they appear in waves.
Next Art Direction and Graphics all i really have to do is post a couple of then and now screen shots..http://social.bioware.com//uploads_user/230000/229123/108987.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/108988.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/109479.jpg
http://social.biowar...9123/107686.jpg
http://social.biowar.../107687.jpgThat
should be all the argument i need. the original is more fantasy art
and the new one looks like idk crap american anime rip off.
Next the Stat system. In Dragon Age 2 the stat system is pretty lame you put points into 2 places depending on your class. While those places were also important depending on class in origins, they weren't
as important.My Warden
Strength 45 +2
Dexterity 54 +10
Willpower 21 +7
Magic 21
Cunning 50 +12
Constitution 21 +3
Clearly you can see that i placed points in
everything but focused on cunning and dexterity. My strength was needed to wield the two swords i have "Warden's companion" and "Duncan's sword" In Origins you could wear any armor based on Strength or Magic if you were a mageand it would have fatigue based on its weight. So if you were a rouge
and didnt deal much damage you wanted to wear light armor to increase your DPS. in DA2 there was no fatigue your speed was determined by class and depending on class you could only wear certain armors and use
specific weapons. Unlike origins you couldnt use Mace and a dagger or a long sword and a dagger. Just daggers and bows for rouges and S&S or 2 handed for warriors. it felt like a huge step back placing in all
kinds of restriction on the players desire for a set up. An example would be if i was a shield and sword Warrior and used light leather armor and a lighter shield but still had high attack i would have a higher DPS for the cost of defense. You couldnt do that in DA2 it was just pick the items with the most points.. lame.
Finally the Dialogue system. In origins you didnt have a Voiced PC. Now i know that this point is my opinion and some feel that a Voiced PCis better, I believed it made it so i didnt feel like i was my character. In Origins you could read exactly what you were going to saywhile in DA2 you got an icon and a poorly paraphrased short version. some said that in Origins you could accidentally flirt with zevran.. but thats why you read and learn about the character. you read a dialogue option and think.. zevran likes that , that would be flirting.
Its common sense really. Saying "do you really have to talk" to morrigan after you have sex makes her giggle. to leliana that might ****** her off. you have to understand the characters in order to say the
right things. that was awesome, i love that! it was so effortless to romance the already lame characters is da2 that i didnt feel an attachment. and it wasnt just my bias of the charcters. I remember
first meeting Morrigan thinking "oh, how lame a dark gothic girl with an attitude problem." but i fell in love with the women because i got to know her and that was all thanks to the dialogue system.
In closing Dragon Age 2 was bad and for Dragon Age 3 if they want to stay true to there RPG audience. then they need to make an RPG and forget about all the stupid annoying COD fanboys or whoever they are trying to branch out to. they are going to play COD or whatever don't waste your time trying to appeal to them. a lot of
gamers, myself included have kind of stopped gaming because of the lack of games that are deep, tactical, and immersive. Dont say we just need to play it on brutal or elite because i did that and it didn't
change the fact that the game is a hollow shell of the original. If your trying to attract more RPG fans that keep it an RPG game dont try to change it up. Yes lots of other games have RPG element but they lack depth that makes a real classic RPG an RPG. they joked with the Talkitive man saying that everything is simpler, but really its because they removed so much and took away any form of freedom the player to make certain builds and to have to think while in conversation.
Modifié par Alexander1136, 20 mai 2011 - 07:03 .
#2292
Posté 20 mai 2011 - 08:58
JamesMoriarty123
-
- Members
- 898 messages
I'll post more here later, but the first thing to really irritate me in DA2 was the lack of a tactical zoom.
The battles in DA2 were no were near as tactical or demanding as DA:O so I see why it wasn;t implemented, but it really took a lot of fun outta the game for me. Running around with OTS camera, it just didn't FEEL like Dragon Age, also trying to target a mage spell on a far away archer group was a pain in the arse. Having to manually run around till I can place my floor marker instead of just zooming, scrolling and clicking.
The battles in DA2 were no were near as tactical or demanding as DA:O so I see why it wasn;t implemented, but it really took a lot of fun outta the game for me. Running around with OTS camera, it just didn't FEEL like Dragon Age, also trying to target a mage spell on a far away archer group was a pain in the arse. Having to manually run around till I can place my floor marker instead of just zooming, scrolling and clicking.
#2293
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 06:51
sojourner77
-
- Members
- 16 messages
More stuff that occurs to me reading others:
* I missed tactical view a lot (although it's kinda odd when you can see much more than your character would, and I would have missed it less but for the difficulties of aiming spells).
* I loved having almost all characters romanceable by all genders. Just, to be honest, because it opened up a lot more choices. I find I care more about whether the character I imagine fits with another's personality than whether that makes them gay or straight. I suspect I am alone in this though. I also liked that Aveline wasn't interested, and that Anders made his own move (maybe would have been nice if you could avoid rivalry by picking a particular way of saying no). Maybe it's because I'm female, but being asked out seems more "usual" than always having to do the asking, and less immersion breaking. I also liked that companions responded better to some personalities than others, made it all more realistic.
* Respec potions made the game 600x easier for my newbie friends, and encouraged experimentation (I wish my first RPGs had had them! I still remember my bf's face when he asked about my KOTOR build and I said "you mean those numbers mattered? I figured if they did they wouldn't have made them so complicated"). May be immersion breaking, but in the best possible way!
*SPOILERS. Some of the choices were heartbreaking. There could have been more, but these were the ones which I found hard: (inc. where impact wasn't huge, but you didn't know that when playing): Anders vs war with Sebastian+army; Just ANDERS! everything actually; How to avoid massacring Merrill's tribe; Whether to tell Isabella she should have the book; whether to take Dougal's cash; whether to take sibling on expedition; whether to hand over Serebaas.
* I really liked the inventory system. LOVED trash - only improvement, indicating rough monetary value of trash might have added interest, as I always just hit "sell all trash" and never got a sense of whether some loot was worth more than others.
* Loved the cross-class combos. Added lots of interest to builds and party composition.
* I missed tactical view a lot (although it's kinda odd when you can see much more than your character would, and I would have missed it less but for the difficulties of aiming spells).
* I loved having almost all characters romanceable by all genders. Just, to be honest, because it opened up a lot more choices. I find I care more about whether the character I imagine fits with another's personality than whether that makes them gay or straight. I suspect I am alone in this though. I also liked that Aveline wasn't interested, and that Anders made his own move (maybe would have been nice if you could avoid rivalry by picking a particular way of saying no). Maybe it's because I'm female, but being asked out seems more "usual" than always having to do the asking, and less immersion breaking. I also liked that companions responded better to some personalities than others, made it all more realistic.
* Respec potions made the game 600x easier for my newbie friends, and encouraged experimentation (I wish my first RPGs had had them! I still remember my bf's face when he asked about my KOTOR build and I said "you mean those numbers mattered? I figured if they did they wouldn't have made them so complicated"). May be immersion breaking, but in the best possible way!
*SPOILERS. Some of the choices were heartbreaking. There could have been more, but these were the ones which I found hard: (inc. where impact wasn't huge, but you didn't know that when playing): Anders vs war with Sebastian+army; Just ANDERS! everything actually; How to avoid massacring Merrill's tribe; Whether to tell Isabella she should have the book; whether to take Dougal's cash; whether to take sibling on expedition; whether to hand over Serebaas.
* I really liked the inventory system. LOVED trash - only improvement, indicating rough monetary value of trash might have added interest, as I always just hit "sell all trash" and never got a sense of whether some loot was worth more than others.
* Loved the cross-class combos. Added lots of interest to builds and party composition.
#2294
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 11:08
nightcobra
-
- Members
- 6 206 messages
i personally liked the friendship/rivalry system but i thought it could be improved upon.
for one, i'd like it to be a system where points don't matter. in DA2 i felt my roleplaying was a bit restrictive when trying to max the friendship or rivalry meter. in this case i felt mass effect 2 handled it better but it isn't also without it's flaws, what i mean is, i think how characters view the PC should be handled a bit like how it was for Bhelen/harrowmont if i'm making any sense, in orzammar you could do personal quests for these two characters cementing their relationship with you as a supporter or a betrayer, and then culminating in the coronating choice where you could reward the character you supported with the crown or betraying him and giving the crown to the character you were supposedly working against.
i don't know if this makes much sense but here you have it.
for one, i'd like it to be a system where points don't matter. in DA2 i felt my roleplaying was a bit restrictive when trying to max the friendship or rivalry meter. in this case i felt mass effect 2 handled it better but it isn't also without it's flaws, what i mean is, i think how characters view the PC should be handled a bit like how it was for Bhelen/harrowmont if i'm making any sense, in orzammar you could do personal quests for these two characters cementing their relationship with you as a supporter or a betrayer, and then culminating in the coronating choice where you could reward the character you supported with the crown or betraying him and giving the crown to the character you were supposedly working against.
i don't know if this makes much sense but here you have it.
Modifié par nightcobra8928, 21 mai 2011 - 12:17 .
#2295
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 12:48
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
Not sure how to say this, but I think you game is turning more to be like Dungeon Siege.
Let me explain. There is only one solutions to every mission, hack and slash trough enemies. Also talent tree balance design suppports more damage dealer design and also gameplay supports only kill them all. Now that cause that all characters starts to be little bit same. Nuke or hack them down. Where's the alternative way to class gameplay. You have possibilities in class design, but you don't use them.
Why can't rogue be like Thief who stealth the hole mission to complete it. There is no other gameplay for rogue than hack. Now you scream doesn't talent trees have that other option? Yes, but game it self doesn't support it. Meaning the action balance is totally in damage dealing, there is no alternative gameplay.
Now same goes for mages. Mages use to be variety different kind of spells. Now they still have variety of spells, but they are all design to support nuke gameplay. You slowed mages ability use spells, then make staff and armor mean more for mages. Meaning mages are more like staff based battle mages. There isn't other options at all. You can turn mage to healer, but gameplay doesn't really need so much healing. You can turn to mage for controller, but control effects are inbuild in most damage spells allready. You kill the variety as making all classes about damage.
Example have you looked higher difficulty player made videos about mages. Did anyone notice how much mages was using staffs base attack? If you would change that visual effect to be arrows, what would be different to for archers? Mages doens't anymore use so much SPELL's, they use staff attacks.
Now warriors use to be fleaxiable what kind subclass they can use, now you force them to choose boring tank or two handed damage dealer. Warriors needs to make different kind of actions, not be molded to single rail roaded gameplay. This isn't Dungeon Siege, where there is only one action HIT, smash them all. Where's tactical gameplay, where you can change you style from offensive to more defensive based situations.
My point here is that, classes may have different talent trees, but they don't have they class gameplay. You treath all class same in you game. Like they are ALL weapon based damage dealers. Rogues doesn't have any different way to deal situation be melee or archer, that's the only choise. Mages are now all about staff weapon and nothing else.
Why not actually create gameplay for classes what gives different possibilities. Why would you force players so linear molded choises, be this or that. You only choise of action in quest is "this". Doesn't even matter what class you are, action choises are pretty much same in every quest. Hack and slash them all. Why not use that class potential, actually create different kind of gameplay for different classes.
Quest: Recover stolen item:
- Hack, stealth, charm or what ever different gameplay choises to complete the quest.
Let me explain. There is only one solutions to every mission, hack and slash trough enemies. Also talent tree balance design suppports more damage dealer design and also gameplay supports only kill them all. Now that cause that all characters starts to be little bit same. Nuke or hack them down. Where's the alternative way to class gameplay. You have possibilities in class design, but you don't use them.
Why can't rogue be like Thief who stealth the hole mission to complete it. There is no other gameplay for rogue than hack. Now you scream doesn't talent trees have that other option? Yes, but game it self doesn't support it. Meaning the action balance is totally in damage dealing, there is no alternative gameplay.
Now same goes for mages. Mages use to be variety different kind of spells. Now they still have variety of spells, but they are all design to support nuke gameplay. You slowed mages ability use spells, then make staff and armor mean more for mages. Meaning mages are more like staff based battle mages. There isn't other options at all. You can turn mage to healer, but gameplay doesn't really need so much healing. You can turn to mage for controller, but control effects are inbuild in most damage spells allready. You kill the variety as making all classes about damage.
Example have you looked higher difficulty player made videos about mages. Did anyone notice how much mages was using staffs base attack? If you would change that visual effect to be arrows, what would be different to for archers? Mages doens't anymore use so much SPELL's, they use staff attacks.
Now warriors use to be fleaxiable what kind subclass they can use, now you force them to choose boring tank or two handed damage dealer. Warriors needs to make different kind of actions, not be molded to single rail roaded gameplay. This isn't Dungeon Siege, where there is only one action HIT, smash them all. Where's tactical gameplay, where you can change you style from offensive to more defensive based situations.
My point here is that, classes may have different talent trees, but they don't have they class gameplay. You treath all class same in you game. Like they are ALL weapon based damage dealers. Rogues doesn't have any different way to deal situation be melee or archer, that's the only choise. Mages are now all about staff weapon and nothing else.
Why not actually create gameplay for classes what gives different possibilities. Why would you force players so linear molded choises, be this or that. You only choise of action in quest is "this". Doesn't even matter what class you are, action choises are pretty much same in every quest. Hack and slash them all. Why not use that class potential, actually create different kind of gameplay for different classes.
Quest: Recover stolen item:
- Hack, stealth, charm or what ever different gameplay choises to complete the quest.
Modifié par Lumikki, 21 mai 2011 - 12:55 .
#2296
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 02:07
Huntress
-
- Members
- 2 464 messages
Foolsfolly wrote...
Kirkwall : We don't get much to see the city as a whole during cutscenes. I think it would have helped me to get a better feeling of it. Hightown was interesting but lowtown was definetely lacking more interesting vistas. Outside of quests you didn't had enough things in this city to make it feel like a place you lived.
Why don't we ever see all of Kirkwall?
It would have made the place feel more real to us. I mean, if we were on Mount Sundermont then shouldn't we have looked down and seen this sprawling city with slums, influential areas, docks, and the Gallows? See the whole scope of the city and get an understanding of its layout?
It's merely a series of disjointed load zones. Imagine if you could look over Lowtown from the Keep? Just a simple painted vista, not even a whole city like something Rockstar or Bethesda do.
A sense of location, I guess. The Citadel in Mass Effect is a series of load zones but I felt a scale of scope and location (although it's wrong in ME1, the Presidium in the cutscenes, finale, and in ME2 and the Presidium in-game are very very different. But still...)
Although, I don't know what I'd have thought of a sandbox Kirkwall. A part of me is worried BioWare could even pull it off (they'd need a few people who have experience with these things) but if the game was to take place in one location....a sandbox would be the way to do it.
You could have multiple boroughs with different NPC types, trash, shops, and the like. It would have been great fun...with one problem.
Transportation needs to be fun. Just running in a direction until you arrive there isn't interesting or fun. It's just tedious. GTA and the like have the fun of driving cars and aircraft. Assassin's Creed has the enjoyment of using the world as a jungle gym.
Short of bringing in horses I don't know how make that enjoyable. Coach services like Red Dead Redemption, mounts, going on foot, and probably some form of fast travel would all help.
I'm rambling.
Yes
lol j/k!The problem is the game is not open world, hopefully we have more info on the new patch, and something cool as DLC, gosh i hope DLC will add to the game story, and is new map outside the city. But first! I need a patch!!!
fenris won't change gear even when I have found all 4 of them and is a Li.
#2297
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 06:12
cheshire137
-
- Members
- 14 messages
Alexander1136 wrote...
Your mother, you talk to her 4-5 times in 6 years so no attachment there. ... Except for the Arishok who imo is the best character in Dragon Age 2 there wasn't a character i really knew a lot about. I wanted to join him, thinking that this was an RPG a sequel to the game were i could side with rapid werewolves and slaughter the elves, i thought when the time comes im going to help the qunari. Sadly however the game is "streamlined" and
linear so you cant do that bringing me to my next point Story.
They say that Hawke is the most important person in Thedas. Why? What did he do? He got rich? Killed a couple of quanari? Sided with eitherthe templars or mages in a war that would have happen even if he/she wasnt there? That doesnt sound like a hero.. maybe it was all those errands they ran in Kirkwall. As Branka would put it a Glorified Errand boy. Now the Warden, He did the following in 1 year instead of the 10years da2 takes place. Stop two civil Wars the dwarven one and the Ferelden one, Completed a Circle Annulment, Either wiped out the
werewolves or the Elves of the entire brecilian forest which is about The size of the entire freemarches, Then he slayed an archdemon ending the blight and for some survived and was the father of a reborn old
god. Thats just a list of major accomplishments. He also found the anvil
of the void, Walked the path of Andraste, Found the Urn of Sacred Ashes, Defeated flemeth in her High dragon form(mine did it solo)..
Need i go on. The Grey Warden is clearly a superior hero. The lack of choices in Da2 is disgusting you dont really accomplish any thing that wouldnt of happened if you weren't there. Meredith and Orsino would
have killed the qunari, and Anders would have still blown up the chantry. The only thing you really did was find the idol that drove Bartrand and Meredith mad which was immediately given to Bartrand who
would have gotten it whether or not you were there. next we move to theCombat system ...
I really agree with your whole post, and you brought up some good points I hadn't considered, like the Arishok/Qunari thing. If DA2 were like Origins, we would have had the choice to side with the Qunari and kill off everyone in Kirkwall, like we could have done with the elves in Origins. Everything felt so fixed in DA2. My dad watched me play for a while and kept yelling for me to cut Sister/Mother Petrice's head off, but of course I couldn't because it's a fixed point that I have to work with her and can't just kill her. That's just a small example of the lack of choice in DA2, or rather the lack of any meaningful choice. The fact that the whole game is a flashback doesn't help; you can tell from Cassandra and Varric's conversation that everything goes to **** anyway. Sure in Origins you ultimately battle the Archdemon and stop the Blight, but along the way you can either really f*ck areas up or really help them out. Kill Isolde or Conner, or save both? Kill the werewolves or the elves, or save both? Opt to fight with Redcliffe and save the village, or say 'nah' and let them die? Kill Zevran or keep him? I want to affect the world in major ways, not just minor choices.
#2298
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 09:46
vania z
-
- Members
- 471 messages
HI all:)
Wanted to add my opinion after some time from my playthrough have passed.
First, what I enjoyed most:
1) Merrill romance was quite good, dialogue with her after Mother's death was what all Bioware games lacked before,
2) New combat system is nice(except from bugs and assassins),
3) Nice graphics,
...and overall impression is good
What was not so good:
1)I may have missed something, but it seems to me that npc characters are not deep enough.
2)While the game left good impression, there is almost no great scenes(I think the only one is mother's death). I have completed DAO a year ago, and I still remember clearly death of blind templar, song about brood mother, dark ritual and so on.
3)crazy amount of waves in combat.
4) should I mention huge amount of bugs and broken dx11 on nvidia cards on release?
5) reused areas
_______
Some suggestions:
it would be nice to be able to influence npcs' beliefs(origins had that, although oversimplified)
it seems more logical to me to add second bar to friend/rival. Something like respect, from 0 to 100. Character who does not respect you and is your rival won't fall in love with you or do something serious for you. I think the game really lacked that(without it rival romance seems silly to me).
Motivation. I saw motivation in the first act - flee darkspawn and become reach. later - it was interesting for me to play, but I dont understand why would I do that if I were Hawke. There could be some nice political games, it would have suited Hawke better.
Hawke is not the only one who lacks motivation. I do not understand why on hell Orsino turned himself into a monster. It is completely illogical.
Wanted to add my opinion after some time from my playthrough have passed.
First, what I enjoyed most:
1) Merrill romance was quite good, dialogue with her after Mother's death was what all Bioware games lacked before,
2) New combat system is nice(except from bugs and assassins),
3) Nice graphics,
...and overall impression is good
What was not so good:
1)I may have missed something, but it seems to me that npc characters are not deep enough.
2)While the game left good impression, there is almost no great scenes(I think the only one is mother's death). I have completed DAO a year ago, and I still remember clearly death of blind templar, song about brood mother, dark ritual and so on.
3)crazy amount of waves in combat.
4) should I mention huge amount of bugs and broken dx11 on nvidia cards on release?
5) reused areas
_______
Some suggestions:
it would be nice to be able to influence npcs' beliefs(origins had that, although oversimplified)
it seems more logical to me to add second bar to friend/rival. Something like respect, from 0 to 100. Character who does not respect you and is your rival won't fall in love with you or do something serious for you. I think the game really lacked that(without it rival romance seems silly to me).
Motivation. I saw motivation in the first act - flee darkspawn and become reach. later - it was interesting for me to play, but I dont understand why would I do that if I were Hawke. There could be some nice political games, it would have suited Hawke better.
Hawke is not the only one who lacks motivation. I do not understand why on hell Orsino turned himself into a monster. It is completely illogical.
Modifié par vania z, 21 mai 2011 - 09:57 .
#2299
Posté 22 mai 2011 - 04:56
Jimmy008
-
- Members
- 2 messages
The story sucked. It was like chewing a stick of juicy fruit, it was sweet for about 2 minutes then you're just chewing just to get it over with. Once you are in act 2 then the story is basically dead and you end up just beating a dead horse of a game. How can you possibly have an RPG story without an arch nemesis like Sephiroth?
The action and combat is pretty much the only thing that stopped this game from being below average. Also this game obviously had a lot of fans before release so any game reviewer would be committing suicide if they did not give it at least an 80. As a dragon age fan, I would have given it an 80 but to someone who's never heard of dragon age, 80 is pretty generous.
RPG's is about beautiful environments and a story that you actually get into. Instead, this is like a resident evil game where everybody just skips the story and kill zombies all day. The environments were so well done that the developers wanted you to quest through them at least a dozen times.
This game should have been titled just another action game. Normally in a sequel, you'd try to improve upon the original, instead of reinventing the wheel. They only managed to improved the combat aspects since that is the most important attribute of an action game. I am hoping that they will get somebody who can actually write for DA3 instead of a story that died half way through. I certainly would not pre-order DA3 until I found out the story isn't another RAWR me champion and me quest endlessly because that's what champions do.
The action and combat is pretty much the only thing that stopped this game from being below average. Also this game obviously had a lot of fans before release so any game reviewer would be committing suicide if they did not give it at least an 80. As a dragon age fan, I would have given it an 80 but to someone who's never heard of dragon age, 80 is pretty generous.
RPG's is about beautiful environments and a story that you actually get into. Instead, this is like a resident evil game where everybody just skips the story and kill zombies all day. The environments were so well done that the developers wanted you to quest through them at least a dozen times.
This game should have been titled just another action game. Normally in a sequel, you'd try to improve upon the original, instead of reinventing the wheel. They only managed to improved the combat aspects since that is the most important attribute of an action game. I am hoping that they will get somebody who can actually write for DA3 instead of a story that died half way through. I certainly would not pre-order DA3 until I found out the story isn't another RAWR me champion and me quest endlessly because that's what champions do.
#2300
Posté 22 mai 2011 - 04:53
MEBengal2008
-
- Members
- 214 messages
93 pages of criticism. Has anyone counted the number of users here that has made recommendations for the next installment of the DA series? I wonder if it is the same users making criticism or if there are enough of us here talking to make a serious push for improvements in DA3.
