141 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Lumikki wrote...

Only reason why Warden did what he/she did, was because there was no other choise.

DAO starts ------------------------------- DAO ends there linear game proven.

My point is both games where extreme linear.

Point also is that player Warden was only important to defeting the blight and become important for everyone else after defeatign the blight. Before it, she /he was like any other 100's of wardens.

You fail

6 possible start points and umm forget how many end points not linear. By any definition, nice try though.

You were not a Warden at the start of DA, did you not play the game or do you not pay attention?

[Lumikki]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lets take 2 situations very similar in from both games. a) DA2 Arishok and how that payed out, very linear. DA:O Elves and Werewolves not linear because there was 3 possible outcomes of choices you make through out that story part that had massive effect on outcome.

Lets take situation, DA2 Deep Road and there is more than one outcome.

[Lumikki]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You were not a Warden at the start of DA, did you not play the game or do you not pay attention?

You where not champion of Kirkwall in start of the DA2, don't you pay attention?

My point is that people see what they want to see. You deside hate one and love other, that's you decission. I liked my self DAO story alot more than DA2. But I'm not blind to say, that one is linear and one is not.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 mars 2011 - 05:54 .

[Alelsa]

Lumikki wrote...

Only reason why Warden did what he/she did, was because there was no other choise.

DAO starts ------------------------------- DAO ends there linear game proven.

My point is both games where extreme linear.

At the end of the day, we can have a choice between games with fixed endings that allow for sequels to pick up the story, standalone games with lots of story branches, or games that cost $200 and come on 10 discs because the previous game in the series had so many different endings.

Both DA:O and DA2 pretty much channel us into performing a fixed act at the end, with the only real choices being how we get there, who we can influence to help us do it, and the state of various other people and organisations in the world once we've done it.  

Compare this to Fallout: New Vegas, which doesn't presume to decide that you want to even be a hero in the first place. 

Both valid ways of presenting a game.  Both enjoyable (for me, at least).  Both completely different animals.  If we want more freedom of choice in DA games, however, we'll have to live with sequels that don't take what we did into account in any way whatsoever.  While its possible to make the point that DA2 doesn't take into account very much from DA:O, it *does* assume the most important thing of all - that someone actually ended the Blight.

So, DA:O was a story about "how the Blight was ended".  DA2 was a story about "How Hawke became Champion of Kirkwall".  Both pretty linear really, mostly out of necessity for building up to the DA3 story.

[AkiKishi]

Lumikki wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You were not a Warden at the start of DA, did you not play the game or do you not pay attention?

You where not champion of Kirkwall in start of the DA2, don't you pay attention?

Where did I say you were ? You are always Hawke though.

You said you were 1 of 100's of Wardens you were wrong.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 26 mars 2011 - 05:43 .

[Lumikki]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You said you were 1 of 100's of Wardens you were wrong.

You where not in battle of Ostagar ? I mean who did die there?

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 mars 2011 - 05:45 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lumikki wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lets take 2 situations very similar in from both games. a) DA2 Arishok and how that payed out, very linear. DA:O Elves and Werewolves not linear because there was 3 possible outcomes of choices you make through out that story part that had massive effect on outcome.

Lets take situation, DA2 Deep Road and there is more than one outcome.

(spoiler)

No there isn't, there is one outcome but the only difference is whether your family member will vanish for most of the game and return as one thing or the other, like I already pointed out all the choices in DA2 tend to only effect companions. Even then you have almost no interaction with them with exception of a few quests at certain points during the entire game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 mars 2011 - 05:50 .

[AkiKishi]

Lumikki wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You said you were 1 of 100's of Wardens you were wrong.

You where not in battle of Ostagar ? I mean who did die there?

You don't start the game as a Warden. The games not linear deal with it

[AFCommando]

MaesterSeymour wrote...

I need to vent my frustrations and my opinion about this game, im not expecting everyone to agree but I do hope im not the only one that feels this way. This isnt trolling, im stating my concerns with the overall product.

1. Overused dungeons. Pretty much the worst example I have ever seen of reused dungeons and reused environments. Its terrible. You have taken a giant leap backwards on this one. How did this game end up like this, when even DOA had far more dungeon/environment variety?

2. Lack Of Content. Bioware you have charged us for the price of a full game, and given us half of one. The story in this game is not concluded, the game itself did not even run a 10 year span. All we got was a battle with mages and then "he disappeared" ending. And do you know what makes this worse? You are going to charge us extortionate amounts for DLC, just to play the rest of the game we already paid money for! With Dragon Age: Origins we at least had a completed story arc, and for the most part the DLC was mainly spin off quests. I feel cheated. A game should be a full one, completely the story Arc. Not half of a game, and the rest to be released in overly priced DLC.

3. Simplified Combat. You managed to take another huge step back. 

4. Bugs. While i realise this wont apply to everyone, I had a variety of bugs. From broken quests, repeated cut scenes, even my ending was bugged? I romanced Merrill and nobody else, and someone how I ran off with Anders.

5. Restricted World. Whilst DOA gave us a huge, sprawling and unique world to explore, in DA2 you are constantly stuck within the same city. Repeated textures and repeated mansions/houses make this even more boring. Denerim in DOA seemed far more varied and populated than Kirkwall did, and that is just one of many places in DOA.

6. Decisions make no true impact on the story. Yeah you get to make decisions, and yeah it does kinda have an impact. But the impact is barely noticeable. Hardly anything will change in the game based on your actions. In DOA the choices you made had a huge impact.

7. Companions/Romances.  While some companions are memorable, others are not at all. And whats with Anders being the only NPC able to act as healer? The romances are extremely simplified when compared to DOA and also why the need to travel to each persons home to interact with them? Especially when said person is already in your party?

Whats shocking is that besides this hefty list of flaws I did still get some enjoyment out of it.

So there it is. Ive said my piece, some I hope you can agree with. Its honestly no wonder the users are rating this game so poorly, and how you managed to get high scores from critics is astonishing. Im saddened to see Dragon Age turn out this way when Origins was so great. 

i agree this game is below average and the story had so many holes its like swiss cheese. 

[mintee1]

I agree with the post author. Although If I had not played DA:O then the chances are I would have enjoyed DAII a great deal more, but am left disappointed to say the least. Too simple, dumbed down, nowhere near as epic and moving as the original. Sad to say this, as I had such high hopes. Played DAO (not to menion ME1 and 2) several times through. I should give this game another chance but am finding it difficult to get the motivation and will to go back in and get disappointed all over again.

[MaesterSeymour]

Im glad the majority have agreed with the points I made

[Wyndham711]

I agree with all of MaesterSeymour's points. As a side note, some people argue that the lack of high-impact, high profile choises in the game is OK because the story is supposed to be a more personal one. And, sure, I get the thinking behind that and would actually be a fan of it had it actually been truly thought out and well executed in the game. Sadly that was not the case.

What we in fact got is a game that is in a kind of limbo between a personal story and an epic adventure, not really satisfying either goal. For instance, why do we have to play a generic badass hero character and and a natural born leader, if this is supposed to be a personal, more low key story? Even in DA:O we were able to play a shy or irresponsible character, for example, and there we actually had a heroic plotline filled with grand decisions. But we still had the option to go against the archetype.

In a low-key story we should be able to play a low key character. Perhaps a scumbag, perhaps a slacker, perhaps a criminal, perhaps a familyman, perhaps a zealot, the options for more varied and interesting characters would have been endless. Instead we were forced to play your typical badass hero even though the storyline and thematic setup of the game was apparently supposed to be something less heroic.

This, of course, is only one among of the game's plethora of weaknesses, but I felt I needed to underline it in this context.

[MDarwin]

Wyndham711 wrote...

I agree with all of MaesterSeymour's points. As a side note, some people argue that the lack of high-impact, high profile choises in the game is OK because the story is supposed to be a more personal one. And, sure, I get the thinking behind that and would actually be a fan of it had it actually been truly thought out and well executed in the game. Sadly that was not the case.

What we in fact got is a game that is in a kind of limbo between a personal story and an epic adventure, not really satisfying either goal. For instance, why do we have to play a generic badass hero character and and a natural born leader, if this is supposed to be a personal, more low key story? Even in DA:O we were able to play a shy or irresponsible character, for example, and there we actually had a heroic plotline filled with grand decisions. But we still had the option to go against the archetype.

In a low-key story we should be able to play a low key character. Perhaps a scumbag, perhaps a slacker, perhaps a criminal, perhaps a familyman, perhaps a zealot, the options for more varied and interesting characters would have been endless. Instead we were forced to play your typical badass hero even though the storyline and thematic setup of the game was apparently supposed to be something less heroic.

This, of course, is only one among of the game's plethora of weaknesses, but I felt I needed to underline it in this context.

That is a very good point. I agree.

[MaesterSeymour]

MDarwin wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

I agree with all of MaesterSeymour's points. As a side note, some people argue that the lack of high-impact, high profile choises in the game is OK because the story is supposed to be a more personal one. And, sure, I get the thinking behind that and would actually be a fan of it had it actually been truly thought out and well executed in the game. Sadly that was not the case.

What we in fact got is a game that is in a kind of limbo between a personal story and an epic adventure, not really satisfying either goal. For instance, why do we have to play a generic badass hero character and and a natural born leader, if this is supposed to be a personal, more low key story? Even in DA:O we were able to play a shy or irresponsible character, for example, and there we actually had a heroic plotline filled with grand decisions. But we still had the option to go against the archetype.

In a low-key story we should be able to play a low key character. Perhaps a scumbag, perhaps a slacker, perhaps a criminal, perhaps a familyman, perhaps a zealot, the options for more varied and interesting characters would have been endless. Instead we were forced to play your typical badass hero even though the storyline and thematic setup of the game was apparently supposed to be something less heroic.

This, of course, is only one among of the game's plethora of weaknesses, but I felt I needed to underline it in this context.

That is a very good point. I agree.

Yeah I agree too

[JaegerBane]

MaesterSeymour wrote...

I need to vent my frustrations and my opinion about this game, im not expecting everyone to agree but I do hope im not the only one that feels this way. This isnt trolling, im stating my concerns with the overall product.

1. Overused dungeons. Pretty much the worst example I have ever seen of reused dungeons and reused environments. Its terrible. You have taken a giant leap backwards on this one. How did this game end up like this, when even DOA had far more dungeon/environment variety?

2. Lack Of Content. Bioware you have charged us for the price of a full game, and given us half of one. The story in this game is not concluded, the game itself did not even run a 10 year span. All we got was a battle with mages and then "he disappeared" ending. And do you know what makes this worse? You are going to charge us extortionate amounts for DLC, just to play the rest of the game we already paid money for! With Dragon Age: Origins we at least had a completed story arc, and for the most part the DLC was mainly spin off quests. I feel cheated. A game should be a full one, completely the story Arc. Not half of a game, and the rest to be released in overly priced DLC.

3. Simplified Combat. You managed to take another huge step back. 

4. Bugs. While i realise this wont apply to everyone, I had a variety of bugs. From broken quests, repeated cut scenes, even my ending was bugged? I romanced Merrill and nobody else, and someone how I ran off with Anders.

5. Restricted World. Whilst DOA gave us a huge, sprawling and unique world to explore, in DA2 you are constantly stuck within the same city. Repeated textures and repeated mansions/houses make this even more boring. Denerim in DOA seemed far more varied and populated than Kirkwall did, and that is just one of many places in DOA.

6. Decisions make no true impact on the story. Yeah you get to make decisions, and yeah it does kinda have an impact. But the impact is barely noticeable. Hardly anything will change in the game based on your actions. In DOA the choices you made had a huge impact.

7. Companions/Romances.  While some companions are memorable, others are not at all. And whats with Anders being the only NPC able to act as healer? The romances are extremely simplified when compared to DOA and also why the need to travel to each persons home to interact with them? Especially when said person is already in your party?

Whats shocking is that besides this hefty list of flaws I did still get some enjoyment out of it.

So there it is. Ive said my piece, some I hope you can agree with. Its honestly no wonder the users are rating this game so poorly, and how you managed to get high scores from critics is astonishing. Im saddened to see Dragon Age turn out this way when Origins was so great. 

The only area I take issue with is your mention of simplified combat. I really like how rapid and violent it's been made, particularly playing as a mage. Hell, the combat is the only reason why I kept playing.

The rest, I think, are fair points. DA2 isn't a bad game in of itself but as a Bioware game and a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, it's a joke. I'll be in no hurry to buy DA3 or DLCs.

[Blacklash93]

The Minority wrote...

And also everytime one of these threads pop up, it's the exact same stuff.

And that's because everyone can agree on most of the game's flaws.

... Unless you live in some different reality.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 mars 2011 - 09:55 .

[MaesterSeymour]

Blacklash93 wrote...

The Minority wrote...

And also everytime one of these threads pop up, it's the exact same stuff.

And that's because everyone can agree on most of the game's flaws.

... Unless you live in some different reality.

The flaws being mentioned all seem to be the same things I mentioned. So its definitely a pretty big fail on Biowares part.