7 réponses à ce sujet

[Legather]

Mini Review, with spoilers to taste.

So, I'll be honest: I couldn't finish DA:O. After the Origins part, it all became a bit of a simple 'grab your sword and fight the horde' for my taste. Sure that's not all it was, there was intrigue and there were some interesting characters. By and large however I was ungripped and couldn't make myself finish it.

I have finished DA2 though, not an hour ago so here are my fresh conclusions:

I liked the story. The status of the mages was one of the interesting things in DA:O and to see it take the centre stage in 2 was most enjoyable. Given that my first character in a fantasy rpg tends to be a mage, perhaps this makes me biased, since mages occupy this unique strata in society however I found them and their situation to be good material for a story.
Also, I liked the Qunari element and what they brought to the story. I shall say that DA2's plot made me give a crap, I could see the Qunari's perspective and I dare say I might have supported them if that was the tale available. And I could see both sides of the Mage/Templar argument.

I liked that the story had 'one' main character. Sure you can make Hawke male or female, a rogue mage or warrior; but having that central character interested me in a way that my silent protagonist of no fixed history from Origins did not. Perhaps that's just taste. But it seemed to me that the story wrapped around Hawke in a way that it did not the Warden.
Further I liked that the story takes place in one place, Kirkwall and its environs, and does so over a period of time. Again, this is just taste but I found it most enjoyable to play a story where you had ties to the setting and an investment to a future instead of roving a region in the imminent shadow of a battle.

The Mage auto attack animation, thank Christ, was vastly improved in DA2. I cannot emphasise how disheartening it was to see my Origins mage feebly pushing the air with his staff. It made me embarrassed to turn up to a fight, no joke. Perhaps it is a bit OTT in DA2, but I liked it.

I enjoyed the combat but found there to be an odd disparity between my mage whose only issue was a cooldown, and my rogue/warrior party mates who were not infrequently starved for stamina, especially when considering their % reserving modes. I wasn't playing on a high difficulty so I don't know if this gets more frustrating on hard mode, it simply struck me as odd.

The conversation trees were sometimes a little jarring, but this is nothing new to rpgs. The Anders thing, with his tendancy to view anything friendly/supportive as an invitation to the pants party was irritating, especially when he got in a black funk when you tell him he's barking up the wrong tree.
I was playing a funny/nice guy and managed to stay mostly humourous throughout my playthrough, but I did end up sighing when my guy's humour didn't change to something slightly more subtle and bitter in sombre moments. True that's where your nice guys takes over but it is a bit of a 'really?' moment when you say something completely flippant to the Viscount before he breaks into sobs.

I said above that I play mages and that's where my support lies. Naturally that showed itself most prominantly in the third act where the Mage/Templar strife kicks in in earnest but throughout the game, unless the mage was obviously beyond redemption I tended to give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, I imagine there was supposed to be some measure of sympathy due to the mages by those who aren't naturally disposed to be that way. This doesn't really come across when the majority of mages you meet in the game are insane blood mages or possessed monsters. Fenris has it right, for every nice guy like me there are a dozen megalomaniac magisters. Even the First Enchanter who comes across as a reasonable guy does a complete 180 and becomes a blood mage corpse monster. This doesn't even touch on the Tevinters who are a nation of power hungry magocrats.
There really needed to be more of an even keel here, we know there are dangerous mages, that's why there are Templars. Sure, some of the abominations are victims but having legions of them alongside legions of willing blood mages doesn't make a case for giving mages on the whole a fair chance. They really are portrayed near unilaterally as a waiting threat. Perhaps that's the intention, but it robs it of an element of sympathy.

I only ran into three bugs. Once a conversation repeated itself immediately, I simply had to redo it. One quest involving an elf in the docks at daytime you could hand in and complete but stayed active. And one 3rd act quest involving a bandit leader on the Broken Coast wouldn't start as he just stood there.

I did of course notice the recycled cave/mansion/warehouse. There's not much you can say for them.

So that's that. I think I'll try a warrior next, not sure if he'll be damagey or tankey. He'll tend toward the hostile though, see where that gets me. Probably still supporting mages, maybe not.

Oh, and welsh elves... brilliant. Welves.

[coolair74]

If you couldnt finish DA:O then you really dont like RPGs. This game was hardly an RPG. True RPGs give you a choice and an outcome the effects the game. This game gives you the illusion of choice. Several times I chose all 3 option only to get the same outcome.

DA:O was a long game and it not for those that like hack n slash and simply skip all the dialogue. DA:O was a far better storyline and far better game.

But yes the combat was improved and the ME2 concept did work, the story was just bland.

Modifié par coolair74, 18 mars 2011 - 07:44 .

[Zalocx]

coolair74 wrote...

If you couldnt finish DA:O then you really dont like RPGs. This game was hardly an RPG. True RPGs give you a choice and an outcome the effects the game. This game gives you the illusion of choice. Several times I chose all 3 option only to get the same outcome.

DA:O was a long game and it not for those that like hack n slash and simply skip all the dialogue. DA:O was a far better storyline and far better game.

But yes the combat was improved and the ME2 concept did work, the story was just bland.

I disagree, DA:O had just as much illusion of choice as DA2 (and every other CRPG ever). Whatever your choices you end up at the Landsmeet, have to colaborate with Arl Eamon, have to later fight the Archdemon etc,

And I disagree with your definition of a "True RPG", for me an RPG is one where the world and characters react to what you do. Ie. you "Play a role", lasting and meaningful choices are nice but you can roleplay perfectly fine without them.

And lastly I disagree TREMENDOUSLY on DA:O having a better storyline, the "hero saves the world from an ancient evil" is overdone not just in Bioware games but in RPG's reguardless of medium. To have a personal and political story that makes you feel like someone caught between a rock and a rand place with everything going wrong reguardless of what you try to do was incredibly refreshing. DA2 is probably my favorite Bioware plot of all time.

[Dangerfoot]

Zalocx wrote...

I disagree, DA:O had just as much illusion of choice as DA2 (and every other CRPG ever). Whatever your choices you end up at the Landsmeet, have to colaborate with Arl Eamon, have to later fight the Archdemon etc,

The comparison ends at "there are key points you have to do". DA2 is infinitely less customizable. Just because there are several unavoidable parts in DAO does not make them indistinguishable.

[DrGulag]

Would have been a better game had they just removed the entire dialogue wheel and made it completely linear as far as the main quests were concerned.

This was basically a lottery of three conversation options with the same end result.

I'll quote myself

In Dragon Age 2

-It does not matter if you help Anders or not. You can kill him after the
deed but at that point the damage is done so there's really no effect on
Thedas.

-It is almost irrelevant if you side with the mages or
with the templars. You have no option but to kill the first enchanter
and Meredith regardless of your choice. The ending is pretty much
identical.

-You have options regarding your companions but it
always comes down to "help and get the quest" or "refuse to help and not
get the quest" but sometimes things still happen.

How many times do you have more than two options? You almost never have more than 3 options in a conversation...

*Calm* *Joke* *Angry*

...and
most of the time the difference is just the tone of voice and nothing
else. It's complete rubbish in comparison to Origins.

Most of
the time in DA2 you have no idea what Hawke will say. Sometimes you end
up with +5 rivarly and it doesnt make any logical sense.

"Hey Merrill I like your haircut" "Oh thanks Hawke"  <choose calm option>

+5 rivarly

"Here's a gift for you"   "Thanks a lot!"  <choose renegade option>

+10 rivarly

It's like playing a lottery instead of role playing.

In Origins

You had persuasion, intimidation and charm checks. You could lie and move
the conversation to a certain direction, because you actually saw the
lines before they were spoken. You could often talk yourself out from a
bad spot by picking the logical lines instead of just guessing and
hoping that you get lucky.

More gameplay and customization.

The romances were not *press heart
symbol to have sex*, instead you had conversations with your companions.
The whole gift system was broken though. 

Choices? You
could choose sides, leave people to defend themselves, make peace
between factions, make huge decisions regarding Thedas. And you dont
even have to slay the Archdemon, there was stuff like Loghain making
amends my sacrificing himself. A lot of ways to end the game.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 08:19 .

[Gabey5]

coolair74 wrote...

If you couldnt finish DA:O then you really dont like RPGs. This game was hardly an RPG. True RPGs give you a choice and an outcome the effects the game. .

Hahaha a "true" rpg.

[coolair74]

Zalocx wrote...

coolair74 wrote...

If you couldnt finish DA:O then you really dont like RPGs. This game was hardly an RPG. True RPGs give you a choice and an outcome the effects the game. This game gives you the illusion of choice. Several times I chose all 3 option only to get the same outcome.

DA:O was a long game and it not for those that like hack n slash and simply skip all the dialogue. DA:O was a far better storyline and far better game.

But yes the combat was improved and the ME2 concept did work, the story was just bland.

I disagree, DA:O had just as much illusion of choice as DA2 (and every other CRPG ever). Whatever your choices you end up at the Landsmeet, have to colaborate with Arl Eamon, have to later fight the Archdemon etc,

And I disagree with your definition of a "True RPG", for me an RPG is one where the world and characters react to what you do. Ie. you "Play a role", lasting and meaningful choices are nice but you can roleplay perfectly fine without them.

And lastly I disagree TREMENDOUSLY on DA:O having a better storyline, the "hero saves the world from an ancient evil" is overdone not just in Bioware games but in RPG's reguardless of medium. To have a personal and political story that makes you feel like someone caught between a rock and a rand place with everything going wrong reguardless of what you try to do was incredibly refreshing. DA2 is probably my favorite Bioware plot of all time.

DA:O had more politics than this, you had choices when it came to the throne, and those choices actually stuck.

Never once in DA2 did I get that epic feel to the game. Many times in DA:O it was there. The epic speech when you go to defend Denerim , at the end of game , Liliana busting out in song.  This game had NONE of that. I guess this game was far to lowbrough for me. It was bland , tasteless and disappointing.

[Aynslie]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Zalocx wrote...

I disagree, DA:O had just as much illusion of choice as DA2 (and every other CRPG ever). Whatever your choices you end up at the Landsmeet, have to colaborate with Arl Eamon, have to later fight the Archdemon etc,

The comparison ends at "there are key points you have to do". DA2 is infinitely less customizable. Just because there are several unavoidable parts in DAO does not make them indistinguishable.

DAII had key points but also many quests where your choices mattered and came up in later acts, unlike DAO where all of your choices came to head in the epilogue.  But lets not forget that this was a pre-told story and nothing that was done in DAII was set in present time.  I also enjoyed the story, it was highly personal and a great change of pace.  Don't get me wrong I love DAO, but DAII was pretty good as well.  Both the combat and the story comes down to our personal tastes and really there is no point in arguing about it.  I mean there are A LOT of people who think ME2's story is gold...ugh.  Live and let live.