276 réponses à ce sujet

[Unichrone]

People need to validate their purchase. Simple as that. I did the same thing with Final Fantasy VIII until one day I simply realized the game was awful.

[zthix]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I get that, it just does not fit with the way Bioware was presenting the game. I wonder if false advertising applies to games.

Again your argument is "This is not the game i expected". Your expectations were incorrect, this is not an example of short comings of any final product but its advertising which is kind of a different problem, and certainly a valid point about advertising in general. In terms of problems with the game look at what it was aiming to do, ie Story driven RPG and claim success or failure upon that rather than preconcieved ideas.

BobSmith101 wrote...
The catalyst is the "item" from the deep roads.

We're circling the same point  here  - Everything that Hawke does could have been done by any person on the street, making Hawke interchangable with with any character in the enviroment. The fact that Hawke does them, however, elevates Hawke as the main character of the narrative.
Trying to keep this spoiler free, that is the basis of the story, we start believing he is very much the predestined hero (or villian), the aixis of his world in the same way we would look at a character like Commander Shepard, however, as the plot is developed we realise he is a piece of a greater story about Kirkwall itself and the factions of the city. The events of the game would have occured with or without Hawke, but through Hawke we as players get to live them out.

In short, Hawke isnt important but becomes important by cirumstance. Its okay not to like that type of story or character, there are numerous great alternatives such as Mass Effect where you play the all important hero that saves the day but DA2 presents a different type of story, one thats non-conformity to the Saviour Hero narrative makes it almost exceptional, rather than bad or wrong.

Modifié par zthix, 23 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[MajorJoeKickass]

I liked the story, its not the typical Bad Guy-Build Army-Kill Bad Guy story its diffrent now (dont get me wrong i liked DA:O, and i love mass effect) you have to build your self from (i played a mage so a poor apostate) to Champion, deal in politcal fights and such, i mean its kinda hard to not do the typical ''theres a bad guy threatening the world you gotta kill him! so get there and gather allies and destroy them!'' i agree that recycled areas got annoying but nothing i could deal with - the waves of enemies isnt really Biowares style but i didnt care so much (I cant speak for those who played in insanity but i bet it were annoying for them)
I actually only played it once so far but im gonna play it again - that i know.
Body explosions - ...i could easily pass that exept for perhaps walking bomb
The thing that ruined the game a bit were these damn glitches and bugs... i will not replay it until it gotten patch it ruined the some of the feel and flow of the story, but if theres and DA3 (and it should be as the story isnt over yet) ill buy it, no questions asked.

[Persephone]

Aireoth wrote...

Thats my question, we all know that this game has the following massive problems:

A) Enemies recycled/poping out of thin air.
Recycled Areas. 
C) Average plot : I will quantify this, by plot I mean the wholistic feeling of immersion, freedom to chose (and face consequences), reaction of characters in the world to you (and you to them) as well as your NPC companions stories, the plot was poor/average from bioware. This is better then most other developers, but we hold bioware to a higher standard, otherwise we might as well play Two Worlds.
D) Lack of Replay value : Tied to plot problems.
E) Lack of Polish: ie Lack of Finishers/Silly body explosions, under designed character models (darkspawn), under populated areas (city).

I am not going to touch on DAO, or how it differed and thus upset many of us. In reality the big problems are as above. What I don't get is peoples insistance that this game be defended, even upheld, as one of the greats from Bioware:blink:. Sure its fun compared to Two Worlds, but its a load of garbage compared to DAO, ME, ME2, KOTOR, BG, BG2. 

I for one will not, and cannot defend or excuse this game. I know the Short Dev Cycle is to blame, but its biowares fault for trying to reinvent the wheel within that short cycle, rather then reusing resources from DAO. My only option is to try and hold Bioware accountable, and hope they listen to a long time fan (I visited their HQ in Edmonton when they first opened). If I don't, I can't expect them to be any better then every other cookie cutter developer.

:EDIT: pulled from response below because it helps clarify

I understand you enjoy the plot, as I said, I didn't find it bad, just poor compaired to other bioware games. To clairfy, picking up and item and bam, a quest to deliver it. Also having no actual effect on the plot or ending based on my choices. That also leads to only one play thru.

C) You felt that your choices, actions and friendships shapped the game? and thus D you could replay it to experience a different game? I am not trying to hash out the 'big evil' vs 'rags to riches', but the actual effect you had on the world itself through choice and action (thus making it yours). Perhaps I said it wrong in my post.

E) Are you (and others) saying that the city didn't feel empty? That the exploding bodies didn't seem a bit.. .out of place at times?

I am trying to keep opinions out of this, but of course they do factor in, as 'I have no issues with A and B' thats an opinion, it doesn't change the fact that it breaks the realism of the game, you just chose to ignore it. What I'm saying is, why defend it? Do you want your games to be well, better? Can you really say that fixing A & B (which are my biggest problems) would break the game?

Different strokes for different folks.

A) That doesn't bother me much, I play on Casual and don't care about the combat. I can understand why those who do may be miffed about it though.

 Yeah, that's an issue, I agree. But usually I am too caught up in the story/banter/romance to notice. Would like a fix for that though. Esp. the dungeons & mansions. The outside enviroments are lovely (I.E. Wounded Coast) though. Still want more!

C) I love LOVE LOVE the story, the banters, the intense plot heavy romances....biggest plus in my case. Esp. abolishing "approval"....the implemented  friend/rival paths, no more pointless gifts, no "Vanquish a big evil" stereotype...

D)  There's a mod to turn off exploding bodies. ("No gibbing" no DA Nexus) I am currently on my third playthrough and discovering new details all the time.

E) I felt Kirkwall felt more populated and alive than Denerim ever did. Don't mind the new darkspawn, they play a minor role here anyway.

Modifié par Persephone, 23 mars 2011 - 03:05 .

[MajorJoeKickass]

Double post  - sorry

Modifié par MajorJoeKickass, 23 mars 2011 - 03:06 .

[Daryl_A]

Fredvdp wrote...

The biggest flaws in DA2:

Recycled levels
Enemy waves
Little customization

The biggest flaws in Origins:

Bad storyline
Unoriginal characters
Absurd load times
Not being able to level a character before being ambushed on the world map
Dungeons that are way too long
The Fade
Main character has no personality
Shallow design

This is exactly how I feel about both games.  I really enjoyed both, and have sunk more time in both than any other single player game out there.  While I love both, DA2 strikes me as a better made, better polished game.  The story was more engaging, the characters were better developed, the art direction was far better, and the game was overall more fun to play.

The recycled environments was surprising to see at first, but I never felt bored by them.  That's not to say I want to see recycled environments used so prominently in the next game, but after the shock of seeing them dissipated, I never thought twice about it.  Hell, I hated the random encounter environments in DA:O far more than the recycled ones in DA2. 

The waves of enemies did bug me a little bit, because it's not exactly what I want from my strategy RPG, but plowing through bad guys was still enjoyable despite it. 

As for the customization, that I didn't care about.  I've seen lots of complaints that Fenris couldn't be a SnS tank or that they took Anders because only he could heal, but it didn't make a difference to me.  In DA:O, I didn't stray from the heavily suggested path given to the companions and I don't care that I had the choice to.  I don't care that in DA2 all the armour was meant for Hawke, and companions were limited to one type of weapon upgrade.  I never had to grit my teeth and give my companions some ugly ass outfit because it was the best I had for them.  There were no stupid looking helms for them to wear.  I never had to worry when I was forced to bring a companion along for plot reasons, and never had to desperately scramble through my inventory to find a mismatch of items to through on them until that sequence is done.

Finally, I found the story in DA2 to be far better crafted and much more enjoyable to be a part of than in DA:O.  DA:O never felt epic. It merely felt like a cliche. I found the Blight boring, I found the "twists" mundane, the lore uninspired, and overall I was in it to hear what my companions were going to say next. I felt like my choices mattered little because I was so far removed from the story. The Warden felt transparent and distant from his lack of voice.  Roaming around Ferelden lacked a sense of continuity, because it felt more like going to satellite "worlds" than crosscountry travel.  Aside from Morrigan, Alistair and Oghren (and Anders in Awakening), the companions were largely disappointing.

I feel quite strongly that DA2 was the better game. If I had to recommend someone only play one or the other, I would suggest DA2.

[Persephone]

Daryl_A wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

The biggest flaws in DA2:

Recycled levels
Enemy waves
Little customization

The biggest flaws in Origins:

Bad storyline
Unoriginal characters
Absurd load times
Not being able to level a character before being ambushed on the world map
Dungeons that are way too long
The Fade
Main character has no personality
Shallow design

This is exactly how I feel about both games.  I really enjoyed both, and have sunk more time in both than any other single player game out there.  While I love both, DA2 strikes me as a better made, better polished game.  The story was more engaging, the characters were better developed, the art direction was far better, and the game was overall more fun to play.

The recycled environments was surprising to see at first, but I never felt bored by them.  That's not to say I want to see recycled environments used so prominently in the next game, but after the shock of seeing them dissipated, I never thought twice about it.  Hell, I hated the random encounter environments in DA:O far more than the recycled ones in DA2. 

The waves of enemies did bug me a little bit, because it's not exactly what I want from my strategy RPG, but plowing through bad guys was still enjoyable despite it. 

As for the customization, that I didn't care about.  I've seen lots of complaints that Fenris couldn't be a SnS tank or that they took Anders because only he could heal, but it didn't make a difference to me.  In DA:O, I didn't stray from the heavily suggested path given to the companions and I don't care that I had the choice to.  I don't care that in DA2 all the armour was meant for Hawke, and companions were limited to one type of weapon upgrade.  I never had to grit my teeth and give my companions some ugly ass outfit because it was the best I had for them.  There were no stupid looking helms for them to wear.  I never had to worry when I was forced to bring a companion along for plot reasons, and never had to desperately scramble through my inventory to find a mismatch of items to through on them until that sequence is done.

Finally, I found the story in DA2 to be far better crafted and much more enjoyable to be a part of than in DA:O.  DA:O never felt epic. It merely felt like a cliche. I found the Blight boring, I found the "twists" mundane, the lore uninspired, and overall I was in it to hear what my companions were going to say next. I felt like my choices mattered little because I was so far removed from the story. The Warden felt transparent and distant from his lack of voice.  Roaming around Ferelden lacked a sense of continuity, because it felt more like going to satellite "worlds" than crosscountry travel.  Aside from Morrigan, Alistair and Oghren (and Anders in Awakening), the companions were largely disappointing.

I feel quite strongly that DA2 was the better game. If I had to recommend someone only play one or the other, I would suggest DA2.

While think you're bit harsh towards Origins, you raise some EXCELLENT points. 

[AkiKishi]

zthix wrote...

Again your argument is "This is not the game i expected". Your expectations were incorrect, this is not an example of short comings of any final product but its advertising which is kind of a different problem, and certainly a valid point about advertising in general. In terms of problems with the game look at what it was aiming to do, ie Story driven RPG and claim success or failure upon that rather than preconcieved ideas.

We're circling the same point  here  - Everything that Hawke does could have been done by any person on the street, making Hawke interchangable with with any character in the enviroment. The fact that Hawke does them, however, elevates Hawke as the main character of the narrative.
Trying to keep this spoiler free, that is the basis of the story, we start believing he is very much the predestined hero (or villian), the aixis of his world in the same way we would look at a character like Commander Shepard, however, as the plot is developed we realise he is a piece of a greater story about Kirkwall itself and the factions of the city. The events of the game would have occured with or without Hawke, but through Hawke we as players get to live them out.

In short, Hawke isnt important but becomes important by cirumstance. Its okay not to like that type of story or character, there are numerous great alternatives such as Mass Effect where you play the all important hero that saves the day but DA2 presents a different type of story, one thats non-conformity to the Saviour Hero narrative makes it almost exceptional, rather than bad or wrong.

Except that in the game we are told we have power when in fact we do not. It's a double fail, both in advertising and story telling.

This is contradicting both the advertising and the whole Champion of Kirkwall title. Congratulations on being able to rationalise it though.

The being in stasis for 3 years at a time to force events, that's not good storrytelling.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 mars 2011 - 03:47 .

[ginzaen]

BobSmith101 wrote...

zthix wrote...

Again your argument is "This is not the game i expected". Your expectations were incorrect, this is not an example of short comings of any final product but its advertising which is kind of a different problem, and certainly a valid point about advertising in general. In terms of problems with the game look at what it was aiming to do, ie Story driven RPG and claim success or failure upon that rather than preconcieved ideas.

We're circling the same point  here  - Everything that Hawke does could have been done by any person on the street, making Hawke interchangable with with any character in the enviroment. The fact that Hawke does them, however, elevates Hawke as the main character of the narrative.
Trying to keep this spoiler free, that is the basis of the story, we start believing he is very much the predestined hero (or villian), the aixis of his world in the same way we would look at a character like Commander Shepard, however, as the plot is developed we realise he is a piece of a greater story about Kirkwall itself and the factions of the city. The events of the game would have occured with or without Hawke, but through Hawke we as players get to live them out.

In short, Hawke isnt important but becomes important by cirumstance. Its okay not to like that type of story or character, there are numerous great alternatives such as Mass Effect where you play the all important hero that saves the day but DA2 presents a different type of story, one thats non-conformity to the Saviour Hero narrative makes it almost exceptional, rather than bad or wrong.

Except that in the game we are told we have power when in fact we do not. It's a double fail, both in advertising and story telling.

This is contradicting both the advertising and the whole Champion of Kirkwall title. Congratulations on being able to rationalise it though.

Maybe you are missing something? we go to kirkwall as a nobody a random ferelden and work our way upto the status of champion:wizard:? Did you expect us to get the power of superman?

[AkiKishi]

ginzaen wrote...

Maybe you are missing something? we go to kirkwall as a nobody a random ferelden and work our way upto the status of champion:wizard:? Did you expect us to get the power of superman?

All ready had that even with scaling.

What I expected was the power to go with the title, not 3 years of stasis.

[deaths origin]

they did they same thing with me2 me1 was awsome but then they developed the story more in me2 hopefully with me3 and da3 they do huge campains that takes hours to finish i can finish da2 on casual in 8 hours i expect da3 and me3 to take me at least 24 hours of game time optimally 48-55 hours of game time

[Elite Midget]

What's the point of fighting change?

[Jamie9]

I'll say this first; I play BioWare's games for the story. The gameplay comes second to the story and that is why I love BioWare. So to me, Dragon Age 2 did not disappoint, it wasn't as good as Origins, but it was still amazing, and it was better than Awakening (I consider it a sequel, not an expansion).

Origins > Dragon Age II > Awakening

Like every game BioWare has done recently. Keep it up!

[Shadowwot]

Because I finished the game and had a great time playing it despite the flaws the game has.

[zthix]

BobSmith101 wrote...

This is contradicting both the advertising and the whole Champion of Kirkwall title. Congratulations on being able to rationalise it though.

Its easy  to rationalise, given the contextual confines of the game it is indeed rational

Modifié par zthix, 23 mars 2011 - 04:31 .

[Carlthestrange]

So... liking the game makes me a defending fangirl? *Shrug* Whatever boy.

[Shadout]

A) While it looks silly to have enemies popping out of thin air, the concept of more enemies rushing to the battle seems perfectly fine. Sure it is a concept they could refine a lot, so the spawning of enemies would be more consistent/predictable, and more varied (does every single group of enemies have to be in waves for example?).
Waves of enemies in itself is fine though (imo), even if the execution and fine-tuning could be better.

Recycled areas in the game is too much. Even Bioware somewhat agrees on this in interviews.
For me personally Biowares games aren't about unique looking caves though, so most of the recycling isn't really bothering me.
More unique outdoor locations however would have been very nice. And more changes in the areas in Kirkwall between the different acts.

C) I can't understand the critique of the plot and consequences.
It was refreshing with a smaller plot without 'saving the world' narrative.
Also, there seemed to be a lot of consequences in the game, even if it wasn't affecting the ending very much. For example choices and consequences in the companion storylines was generally quite good in my opinion.
As far as the somewhat limited consequences in the ending of the game, it can be both good and bad for the series. When you have very different endings, like ME1 (saving the council or not) or DA1 (is the warden alive or not), it gets incredibly hard to follow up on these different endings and keep them relevant. In ME2 the choice you made about the council is thrown in as a sidenote pretty much, and in DA2 there are some obvious flaws in regards to the death or alive status of the Warden. Tbh, I prefer a more coherent story, where the choices you can make have consequences in the story of future games, rather than giving us a single world changing choice at the end of the game with consequences Bioware fails to fully implement in the next games anyway (because it would be nearly impossible to build a coherent world/plot where each of those world-changing choices still exists).

The biggest flaw in the plot/presentation imo, is the low impact of being a mage in the game. NPC's should really not be ignorant to the fact that the player might be a blood mage for example.
It would have been nice with something extra here, like a quest where the Mage Hawke was taken by the templars and somehow had to get out of their grasp again. Like fighting your way out of the Gallows or proving your value as an apostate or whatever - or something else entirely, which could justify the weak NPC reactions and make you feel a bit more threatened in a city which supposedly aren't very fond of mages. We kinda get this when Hawkes sister is a mage, but never when Hawke it is him/herself

D) As for replay value, I've found lots of it so far. Having different party members bantering with each other, different options in quests depending on your teammembers, how Hawke reacts to situations etc. all adds to the replay value. The replay value is there to be found in all the small things; from companion banter to small changes in Hawkes choices in handling situations.

[Burnham1]

Aireoth wrote...

Thats my question, we all know that this game has the following massive problems:

A) Enemies recycled/poping out of thin air.
Recycled Areas. 
C) Average plot : I will quantify this, by plot I mean the wholistic feeling of immersion, freedom to chose (and face consequences), reaction of characters in the world to you (and you to them) as well as your NPC companions stories, the plot was poor/average from bioware. This is better then most other developers, but we hold bioware to a higher standard, otherwise we might as well play Two Worlds.
D) Lack of Replay value : Tied to plot problems.
E) Lack of Polish: ie Lack of Finishers/Silly body explosions, under designed character models (darkspawn), under populated areas (city).

A) Enemies are recycled in every single game. Nothing new here. Poping out of thin air doesn't bother me in the least. More guys to fight = more excitment. I could care less how they got there.

It never got to me. I noticed it and thought, well that's lazy of them. After the third or forth time I got over it and didn't care. The game is still fun to play and there is still cool stuff to do even if every single cave/home/mountainside looks alike.

C) Plot was actually very good. Wholistic feeling of immersion doesn't matter to me. I don't need to feel immersed in the game world. I'm not Hawke, Hawke is Hawke. I don't live in Kirkwall, the characters in the game do. It is like watching a movie. And characters did react differently to you. In Act 1 they treated you like a poor refugee who had no business in the city. In Act 2 they treated you as someone who was able to make something out of nothing and looked at you with some respect. In Act 3 you were their Champion and they admired you and listened for your opinion on the issues between mages and templars. Overall, I felt the story was good.

D) I'm on my fourth playthrough. I think it has replay value for me.

E) Finishers were there for key/important boss battles. I was fine with that being the only time you saw them. I thought the body explosions were cool. I think the darkspawn look is funny and they remind me of Putties from Power Rangers. So I approve of their look because it brings back awesome childhood memories. The city was just as populated as the cities in Origins were.

So no, I don't see those massive problems that you do.

Modifié par Burnham1, 23 mars 2011 - 04:57 .

[hazarkazra]

The thing is, that DA2 gets bashed for a lot of stuff thats commonly present in ANY Bioware game, but in DA 2 is suddenly a problem. To me it feels a bit hypocrite to bash the recycled areas yet say how awesome ME1 is *who did exactly the same*. Complain about the graphics eventhough most faces in DA: Origins were bordering the uncanny valley and there is now a consistency to the world that was missing in DA: Origins. Areas have always been a bit too empty in Bioware games. If you can't look past that, I can't blame you, but how did you like Bioware games before if these are such important issues to you?

What I loved about this game is that I did feel like the companions were more flashed out, a lot more then I did in DA and ME. These people had clear opinions about everything, were not afraid to share them to me. They have clear dynamics towards each other too. Also, I felt like I actually needed them. In ME it seems more like people need Shepard then he/she needs them.  Then having party members along was because I need an extra mage or I need a tank. Now when you go into the Deep Roads the game makes you think: Should I bring the Grey Warden along? Or when you are trying to talk your way out of something you think about bringing Varric to help you along. The game rewards you for thinking like that.

Is it the best Bioware has ever done? No, definetely not. But once you get down the huge expitations you had for this game, it's still a solid piece that has a lot going for it.

Modifié par hazarkazra, 23 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[BY-TOR STORMDRAGON]

Bottom line people...IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED TO DRAGON AGE ORIGINS. This game stands on it's own merits. If you start comparing games- then it's preposterous. If you didn't like shelling out the $60, stop whining and trade it in!!! I admit I hate the blood and gore. I got over it. I also have NEVER played a BioWare game until DA:O. My loss? NO! I rented and tried all the favorites. I prefer Final Fantasy 7 thank you. Or Oblivion, but I think DA:O kicked it's azz.
Share your opinions, talk it out, and either go back to the game, or go play Tiger Woods PGA 12. PEOPLE! ARGH. I need to go smash some darkspawn! DA:2 Kicks azz!

[neppakyo]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Bottom line people...IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED TO DRAGON AGE ORIGINS. This game stands on it's own merits. If you start comparing games- then it's preposterous. If you didn't like shelling out the $60, stop whining and trade it in!!! I admit I hate the blood and gore. I got over it. I also have NEVER played a BioWare game until DA:O. My loss? NO! I rented and tried all the favorites. I prefer Final Fantasy 7 thank you. Or Oblivion, but I think DA:O kicked it's azz.
Share your opinions, talk it out, and either go back to the game, or go play Tiger Woods PGA 12. PEOPLE! ARGH. I need to go smash some darkspawn! DA:2 Kicks azz!

It was billed as a sequel to DA:O by biowaree/ea

[TJSolo]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Bottom line people...IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED TO DRAGON AGE ORIGINS. This game stands on it's own merits. If you start comparing games- then it's preposterous. If you didn't like shelling out the $60, stop whining and trade it in!!! I admit I hate the blood and gore. I got over it. I also have NEVER played a BioWare game until DA:O. My loss? NO! I rented and tried all the favorites. I prefer Final Fantasy 7 thank you. Or Oblivion, but I think DA:O kicked it's azz.
Share your opinions, talk it out, and either go back to the game, or go play Tiger Woods PGA 12. PEOPLE! ARGH. I need to go smash some darkspawn! DA:2 Kicks azz!

How can I share my opinion if my opinion compares DA2 to DAO?
The people complaining about paying $60 for the game are might mostly be PC gamers because the $50 is the MSRP for most games and trading in a PC game is not an option.

[Reinveil]

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Bottom line people...IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED TO DRAGON AGE ORIGINS. This game stands on it's own merits. If you start comparing games- then it's preposterous. If you didn't like shelling out the $60, stop whining and trade it in!!! I admit I hate the blood and gore. I got over it. I also have NEVER played a BioWare game until DA:O. My loss? NO! I rented and tried all the favorites. I prefer Final Fantasy 7 thank you. Or Oblivion, but I think DA:O kicked it's azz.
Share your opinions, talk it out, and either go back to the game, or go play Tiger Woods PGA 12. PEOPLE! ARGH. I need to go smash some darkspawn! DA:2 Kicks azz!

Yes, sequels should never be compared to their predecessors.  That's just preposterous.

This "HURR, it's not Dragon Age: Origins II" defense is getting as tired as the rest of them.  Since there wasn't a game called plain 'ol "Dragon Age", and because there's that pesky Roman numeral "II" at the end of the title, I don't think one can be faulted for thinking the game is a proper numbered sequel to Origins.  BECAUSE IT IS.

And I'm sure there's a huge overlap between Bioware fans and EA Sports gamers.  Kudos I guess for not telling everyone to go play Call of DutyHalo/insert popular FPS here instead (the usual defender rage response).

There is a difference between "whining" and criticism.  That you're so defensive about it says more about you than the fans that are disappointed.

"People", indeed.

[neppakyo]

Reinveil wrote...

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

Bottom line people...IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED TO DRAGON AGE ORIGINS. This game stands on it's own merits. If you start comparing games- then it's preposterous. If you didn't like shelling out the $60, stop whining and trade it in!!! I admit I hate the blood and gore. I got over it. I also have NEVER played a BioWare game until DA:O. My loss? NO! I rented and tried all the favorites. I prefer Final Fantasy 7 thank you. Or Oblivion, but I think DA:O kicked it's azz.
Share your opinions, talk it out, and either go back to the game, or go play Tiger Woods PGA 12. PEOPLE! ARGH. I need to go smash some darkspawn! DA:2 Kicks azz!

Yes, sequels should never be compared to their predecessors.  That's just preposterous.

This "HURR, it's not Dragon Age: Origins II" defense is getting as tired as the rest of them.  Since there wasn't a game called plain 'ol "Dragon Age", and because there's that pesky Roman numeral "II" at the end of the title, I don't think one can be faulted for thinking the game is a proper numbered sequel to Origins.  BECAUSE IT IS.

And I'm sure there's a huge overlap between Bioware fans and EA Sports gamers.  Kudos I guess for not telling everyone to go play Call of DutyHalo/insert popular FPS here instead (the usual defender rage response).

There is a difference between "whining" and criticism.  That you're so defensive about it says more about you than the fans that are disappointed.

"People", indeed.

So, like in movies I shouldnt compare the sequel to the original? So for Xmen I shouldn't of compared Xmen2 to it, you know, expecting a continuation of it, so if they replace Xavier with a clown, i shouldn't **** about it?

"se·quel  (skwl)
n.
1. Something that follows; a continuation.2. A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work." 

Modifié par neppakyo, 23 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[Vollkeule]

if someone says that you cannot compare DA2 to DAO, he is simply epicly wrong. Full ack to OP.

Yes, sequels should never be compared to their predecessors. That's just preposterous.

sorry, that argument is downright ridiculous. of course they need to be compared. which game would you compare it to?... no sorry, it makes no sense at all

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction <-- try this

oh flamed the wrong one ... anyway argument is standing

Modifié par Vollkeule, 23 mars 2011 - 06:15 .