27 réponses à ce sujet

[Raltar]

I agree. This was actually dark fantasy. Which is funny because they never advertised it was dark fantasy like they did for DAO.

[Dark Specie]

But not dark HEROIC fantasy, no.

[Raltar]

Games don't need to be heroic fantasy to be good. Dark or not. That's actually one of the things I like most about Dragon Age 2.

[AlexXIV]

Well that's all fine, but consequences don't bite you ... wherever. You don't make choices that matter. Give me any example of a quest and I tell you how it always bites you in the ass. Yes, the story is darker, and I welcome that also ... with one exception. But what made DA:O better than other RPGs was that you could influence things. In DA2 you can't. It's a good story for a book or a movie. But for a game? An RPG? Meh.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 19 mars 2011 - 11:14 .

[naledgeborn]

Not really. The difference is that in DA:O you could abandon Redcliffe, Annul the Circle, Slay the Dalish, and Spare the Anvil.... or not. DA 2 is more linear, in the end Anders will always blow up the Chantry and you have to pick a side. DAO is almost 2 games in one if you play polar opposites in 2 different playthroughs.

[Johnny20]

If pants means dark, you're right.

[monima]

The end is always the same no matter what. I wasnt sitting at the edge of my seat by the end of it, because I already knew it would end badly. It became predictable. To make it exiting some happy endings must be in it. Not all darkness.

[gelfie]

It feels like fantasy-politics-lite to me thus far. :/

[Dangerfoot]

They were both just regular fantasy games that dipped their toes into the "dark". Mentioning rape a couple times and having people die doesn't seem genre-bending to me.

[Clonedzero]

naledgeborn wrote...

Not really. The difference is that in DA:O you could abandon Redcliffe, Annul the Circle, Slay the Dalish, and Spare the Anvil.... or not. DA 2 is more linear, in the end Anders will always blow up the Chantry and you have to pick a side. DAO is almost 2 games in one if you play polar opposites in 2 different playthroughs.

The circle will always get over run with abominations.
the dalish will always be plagued by werewolves.
orzimmar will always be in political turmoil.
you will always lose ostogar.

anders will always blow up the chantry.

plot points are plot points. not being able to prevent them doesnt make it bad because you want to prevent it. i could say the samet hing "i never wanted the mage tower to be overrun with abominations, i had no choice over that wah wah wah" wtf? seriously?

DA2's plot points are stronger because they're more personal. but they're no different than the static storypoints in DA:O.

you'll always be dumb and go to redcliffe so the game has a conveient way of getting the darkspawn army to denemrium and you being away at redcliffe for no good reason.

complaining that you dont have control of one plot point in one game is silly if you think its perfectly fine for DA:O to do exactly the same thing.

[Raltar]

DAO is just as linear as DA2. People don't seem to know what linear means. A non-linear game would have no set path and things would change in the world while the PC was doing other things. In DAO, you may have a choice in where to go after Lothering, but no matter what order you do things in, each area will be exactly the same when you go there. You could spend 9 years wandering around and the Blight will never take over Fereldan. Arl Eamon will remain in his coma. Conner will remain passive if you go to get the mage's help and then decide to do every other sidequest in the entire game. Everything is in stasis outside of the area you are in.

If the game was non-linear, Conner would go back to killing people(or get killed himself), the Rite of Annulment would arrive before you reached the Circle Tower, Arl Eamon would eventually die. The Werewolves and the Dalish would kill each other off. The Blight would destroy the country. None of this happens, regardless of how long you take or which order you decide to do things in. It gives you the illusion of choice and impact when there is none. The only things that are different is the endings.

[naledgeborn]

Woah there, hold your horses. No one's complaining here. In MY honest opinion, Dragon Age: Origins' "EVIL" playthrough is darker than Dragon Age 2. No need to write a 5 paragraph rant on why my opinion is wrong and I'm a whiner?? Seriously what you don't make me ****.

[Freeway911]

Darker yes. The mom and sister deaths just suck.

I understand what people are getting at here. The choices in DAO actually had some effect on the outcome of the game. Kill the Dalish and keep the werewolves, keep the anvil and get some golems at the end, etc.

DA2 side with the mages and still have every bloodmage and apostate in the game try to kill you, and have to fight and kill Meredeth and Orsino. Side with the Templars and the same thing happens. I mean you can bend over backwards to help with the mages and BAM walk into a group and you get Hey he works for Meredeth kill them all. Nothing like walking into a cave "hey guys I am here to help" and having them attack you anyway.

Modifié par Freeway911, 19 mars 2011 - 11:40 .

[Dangerfoot]

Clonedzero wrote...
The circle will always get over run with abominations.
the dalish will always be plagued by werewolves.
orzimmar will always be in political turmoil.
you will always lose ostogar.

anders will always blow up the chantry.

You're comparing the fact that Anders always blows up the Chantry in DA2 to the fact that you can choose between multiple outcomes at most of the plot points in DAO. Face it, there are more choices in DAO, they just aren't the same type of game.

[AlexXIV]

simfamSP wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well that's all fine, but consequences don't bite you ... wherever. You don't make choices that matter. Give me any example of a quest and I tell you how it always bites you in the ass. Yes, the story is darker, and I welcome that also ... with one exception. But what made DA:O better than other RPGs was that you could influence things. In DA2 you can't. It's a good story for a book or a movie. But for a game? An RPG? Meh.

You were always going to kill the archdemon
Denerim was always going to be destroyed
No matter how long you get back from the sacred ashes quest your still going to save eamon
No matter what route you take first your going to get the same outcome

I understand that not all choices can be open. Especially he main story/quests must be somewhat streamlined. But why the sidequests? There is no variation in doing them either. Just get the quest, do whatever, doesn't matter, finished. Well I should say that the companion quests are the exception of course. Because there you can have an impact. But only there.

[Dangerfoot]

simfamSP wrote...

You were always going to kill the archdemon
Denerim was always going to be destroyed
No matter how long you get back from the sacred ashes quest your still going to save eamon
No matter what route you take first your going to get the same outcome

I love it when people choose the only static things about DAO when DA2 is a completely static game.

As if listing the few parts of the game that don't change the ending is the same thing as a whole game that only has one real ending, two if you count the same ending with some different wording.

[Sandmanifest]

I politely disagree. I play a ruthless character 90% of the time and the options I had in DA:O were much darker than DA2 in my opinion (Blackpowder Courtesy came the closest to me). For example watching your character kill a child to get rid of a demon is pretty messed up. And "Look, he's already dead. See?" Is always satisfying lol

[AlexXIV]

mrsph wrote...

Origins had too many third options that always resulted in happy endings.

The thing about options is that you don't have to take them. I don't really understand why people always pick the perfect option and then complain that there is one. It's not like anyone in the game knows that you could have had a perfect option if you didn't use them.

[SkittlesKat96]

DA:O was still a really dark fantasy though, everywhere you went in DA:O there was suffering, stupidity and really messed up stuff, DA2 was too but I wouldn't go so far as to saying DA:O wasn't, DA:O was a really rich world too and Ferelden is a really dirty place.

[Medhia Nox]

I don't see it any darker than the current glut of torture porn.

In Dragon Age 2 - when the bad things happen, I get sweeping screen shots, big music, and gasps.

In Dragon Age: Origins - when I kill a little boy - I get a crying mother and an appalled father.

"Dark" is sensationalized in Dragon Age 2 - "The Chantry blew up - now FIGHT!"

I believe in the banality of evil - and Dragon Age achieves that. What happens when you do something like destroy Andraste's ashes... is there a big spectacle? I never did it. If it's just Liliana freaking out - then that's what I'm talking about (I still have the death of Isolde or Conner to prove my point about banality - but this point came to mind too).