260 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaduggar]

Impmacaque wrote...

1) There were hardly any massive bugs like the Isabella bug in DA:O three weeks after the game released. They released a patch resolving some of the more seirous ones three days after DA:O released. It's now been.. what.. 20 days? And we STILL have all the major, pants-on-head retarded game-breaking bugs in DA2? Instead of focusing on fixing these bugs, they're shoving poorly-made Day 1 DLC down our throats.

2) The comparison isn't between Kirkwall and Denerim. It's between Kirkwall and the entire game of DA:O. 90% of DA2's content takes place in Kirkwall, whereas DA:O had multiple cities, towns, forests, ruins, caves, you name it. DA2's Kirkwall is the same 5 or 6 areas blatantly re-used in a "day-night" cycle that changes nothing but adding annoying bandits that spawn out of thin air. There is no *exploration* to be had in Kirkwall - and in lieu of this absence there should've been a number of places outside of Kirkwall for us to explore, find optional quests, etc. There is not.

3) A basic RPG feature like equipping companions should be put in the game by developers, not modders.

4) Ehh. Honestly, the writing felt extremely weak at many points and I found it *very* hard to develop a relationship with ANY of the characters. Aveline stayed locked in her keep all day, so when her Donnic side quest came I could seriously care less about her (stereotypical) lack of social/romance skills. Fenris' was pretty 2-dimensional. Emo run-away pretty-boy slave? Oh boy. It's as if they hired fanfic writers specifically to design a character that would appeal to... that female demographic. Anders did nothing but whine and hit on me the entire game, and I seriously see his character as being ten steps backwards from what it was in awakenings.

All that remains was probably one of the worst quests in the game for me. The drama is entirely forced. Oh boy, out of nowhere my mother is kidnapped by a crazy bloodmage and made into a Frankenstein-esque abomination. Was I seriously supposed to feel something here? It was so inexplicably random and cheesy specifically because the game didn't bother to make me feel an attachment to my mother before this event happens. We engage mother directly in what... two scripted dialogue scenes before this? If this was enough to move you to tears, I would say you have a very shallow emotional threshold.

A series of random unfortunate events. Yawn.

5) I listed numerous instances in Dragon Age Origins where the game-world is irreversibly changed as a direct result of your actions. If you're going to choose to completely ignore them and claim that DA2 has even a semblence of choice vs. consequence to the degree that DA:O does, I'm not going to bother helping you take the fangirl/fanboy lenses off. There is not a single major plot point in DA2 which I can think of in which your choices affect any outcome.

There are nearly no branched story-paths in DA2. There were dozens of major ones in DA:O. This is a statement of fact, not opinion.

1) Wait, what? How can they be busy doing something they already did?

2) Yep.

3) Hey, if you want to do something and you're somehow able to do it, go ahead and do it. The more popular certain mods become, the more likely the devs are to listen. It's an age old process. That's not saying no one's faulting them for choosing what choices they made in the first place.

4) From what I can read of your earlier posts, you didn't have Aveline in your party. If this were the case, I'd say you shouldn't be so quick to judge. The thing with these games is, if you don't have certain characters tagging along with you, they are going to seem shallow. And, really, this makes sense. If you aren't going to spend time with somebody, it becomes very easy to reduce them down to a basic (and fallacious) archetype.

I can't speak for Fenris--I'm just starting my second playthrough, now with the party members of Isabela, Merrill (sp?), and Fenris. One of the reasons it took me so long to replay DA:O was because I was convinced all of the other characters I had outside my party were completely two-dimensional--they weren't, at all. I can't exactly say that's the case in this situation (other than being prepared to counter-argue your position on Aveline) with Fenris, but it does remain an option.

And, that's weird about Anders. He came on strong for about one line of dialogue in our first conversation. I turned him down (with the broken heart icon) and he never once tried get some of dat ever again. I was even playing the diplomatic, save-the-kittens type of hero. And, yeah, I saw him as a step back. The combination of him and Justice was just too character-changing--it's as if Alistair turned into Sten. I mean, I love Sten, but who would want that? Should've just stuck Justice into Sir Pounce-A-Lot (But that would change the narrative completely).

All That Remains was horrible. I can't believe somebody would choose that as one of the most emotionally engaging parts of the game. Shepherding Wolves? Now that was a fantastic mission. Nothing unique about the gameplay, but the combination of Dragon Age's lore and power behind the dialogue at the end of that quest, that's what stuck with me. Merrill's final companion quest was also quite good. All That Remains? Ugh.

Oh, but also comparing DA2's sidequests to DA:O's? DA2 gets the gold. DA:O's were so horrible. They were horribly designed and absolutely confusing. 90% of the time you had no idea where you were supposed to go for anything. God, the sheer amount of collection quests in DA:O make me never want to play that game again (as I would force myself to do those quests, as I am a completionist--my fault, I know).

5) I hated DA:O's ending. I hated the confined and buggy Denerim fight. I didn't care for a single sequence that made it up. The Archdemon fight was a joke. It was a copy-pasted high dragon fight that we fought a couple times over. And to top it all off? They give us twenty pages of text of stuff that happened because of us. For me, that doesn't fly anymore. It's not 1999. You know how quickly they could have made a sequence like that for DA2? I'm glad they didn't include something like that--something that summarizes the changes in the lives of the people you had come across, how your companions faired ten years from then because of the decisions you made during their quests, and whatever. If they deliberately chose not to finish the game like that, I praise them for it.

Personally, I see DA:O's ending has being a bigger rush than the whole of DA2 (In perspective, that is)

Now, those final moments in the throne room? That was kind of cool. It was satisfying. It didn't appear to be completely half-assed. I liked it--much better than the oh-so melodramatic cliffhanger at the end of DA2.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 27 mars 2011 - 06:20 .

[Impmacaque]

1) Wait, what? How can they be busy doing something they already did?

2) Yep.

3) Hey, if you want to do something and you're somehow able to do it, go ahead and do it. The more popular certain mods become, the more likely the devs are to listen. It's an age old process. That's not saying no one's faulting them for choosing what choices they made in the first place.

4) From what I can read of your earlier posts, you didn't have Aveline in your party. If this were the case, I'd say you shouldn't be so quick to judge. The thing with these games is, if you don't have certain characters tagging along with you, they are going to seem shallow. And, really, this makes sense. If you aren't going to spend time with somebody, it becomes very easy to reduce them down to a basic (and fallacious) archetype.

I can't speak for Fenris--I'm just starting my second playthrough, now with the party members of Isabela, Merrill (sp?), and Fenris. One of the reasons it took me so long to replay DA:O was because I was convinced all of the other characters I had outside my party were completely two-dimensional--they weren't, at all. I can't exactly say that's the case in this situation (other than being prepared to counter-argue your position on Aveline) with Fenris, but it does remain an option.

And, that's weird about Anders. He came on strong for about one line of dialogue in our first conversation. I turned him down (with the broken heart icon) and he never once tried get some of dat ever again. I was even playing the diplomatic, save-the-kittens type of hero. And, yeah, I saw him as a step back. The combination of him and Justice was just too character-changing--it's as if Alistair turned into Sten. I mean, I love Sten, but who would want that? Should've just stuck Justice into Sir Pounce-A-Lot (But that would change the narrative completely).

All That Remains was horrible. I can't believe somebody would choose that as one of the most emotionally engaging parts of the game. Shepherding Wolves? Now that was a fantastic mission. Nothing unique about the gameplay, but the combination of Dragon Age's lore and power behind the dialogue at the end of that quest, that's what stuck with me. Merrill's final companion quest was also quite good. All That Remains? Ugh.

Oh, but also comparing DA2's sidequests to DA:O's? DA2 gets the gold. DA:O's were so horrible. They were horribly designed and absolutely confusing. 90% of the time you had no idea where you were supposed to go for anything. God, the sheer amount of collection quests in DA:O make me never want to play that game again (as I would force myself to do those quests, as I am a completionist--my fault, I know).

5) I hated DA:O's ending. I hated the confined and buggy Denerim fight. I didn't care for a single sequence that made it up. The Archdemon fight was a joke. It was a copy-pasted high dragon fight that we fought a couple times over. And to top it all off? They give us twenty pages of text of stuff that happened because of us. For me, that doesn't fly anymore. It's not 1999. You know how quickly they could have made a sequence like that for DA2? I'm glad they didn't include something like that--something that summarizes the changes in the lives of the people you had come across, how your companions faired ten years from then because of the decisions you made during their quests, and whatever. If they deliberately chose not to finish the game like that, I praise them for it.

Personally, I see DA:O's ending has being a bigger rush than the whole of DA2 (In perspective, that is)

Now, those final moments in the throne room? That was kind of cool. It was satisfying. It didn't appear to be completely half-assed. I liked it--much better than the oh-so melodramatic cliffhanger at the end of DA2.

1) What I meant to say was that it felt as if more effort was put into day one DLC than into bug-testing and perfecting the retail version of the game. It's a very subjective thing for many, but I don't  think DLC should be released if the main game still has major flaws/is in need of major patching. I'd rather that development time and effort go into the game we paid for.

2) -

3) Well, I know that mods are great and plentiful - but console gamers don't get the luxury of using them. :|

4) This is true, I did not use Aveline in either of my playthroughs. I'll try using her and see if it helps her case. I did, however, use Fenris/Isabella/Anders, and found pretty big faults with all three. Fenris was predictable and a little out-of-place (his voice acting and casual conversations sort of redeemed his lackluster plotline). Anders was ruined for me. His character was so great and likable in Awakenings, and all of a sudden (as you say) he does a complete 180 into being an incessantly whining, permanently serious, pro-mage extremist. It took all the charm out of his character and made him into something else.

Sheparding wolves was unbelievably awesome, if a bit dissappointing because the game could've done so much more with the Qunari. Honestly, this whole game should've been focused on the Qunari conflict and expanded on the events of Act 2, and it would've been a better game for it. So much potential all throughout Act 2 that was never fully realised. Merill bothered me because her plot made her an absolutely retarded/absurd/unbelievable character. NOBODY can be as stupid as Merill is throughout her entire mirror/blood magic story. She repeatedly has been exposed to the horrific consequences of Blood Magic, yet is still a cheery/happy/bubbly personality? She casually discusses demons and pursues fixing the mirror after she saw it destroy Tamlen? It's inconsistent and makes for a poorly concieved character.

5) Point taken - I didn't much care for the actual end fight either. I guess my biggest gripe with DA2's quests is that we don't have any branched-path plots. If a quest like Sheparding Wolves were in DA:O, we would've had a huge number of solutions depending on the dialogue/actions we took. In DA2, everyone dies no matter what. This is characteristic of EVERY big quest in the game - you literally never change the outcome of any major event in DA2.

All in all, you wrote a fantastic post - I agree with you on nearly every point. DA2 might have better quests game-play wise, but I find the plot/tasks assigned to Hawke to be largely irrelevant most of the time (Act 1 is the worst offender of boring, irrelevant quests). Combined with the fact that our choices rarely change the outcome of any interesting quests, it really makes it hard to enjoy all the filler in the game.

[Baelyn]

Jaduggar wrote...

Impmacaque wrote...

1) There were hardly any massive bugs like the Isabella bug in DA:O three weeks after the game released. They released a patch resolving some of the more seirous ones three days after DA:O released. It's now been.. what.. 20 days? And we STILL have all the major, pants-on-head retarded game-breaking bugs in DA2? Instead of focusing on fixing these bugs, they're shoving poorly-made Day 1 DLC down our throats.

2) The comparison isn't between Kirkwall and Denerim. It's between Kirkwall and the entire game of DA:O. 90% of DA2's content takes place in Kirkwall, whereas DA:O had multiple cities, towns, forests, ruins, caves, you name it. DA2's Kirkwall is the same 5 or 6 areas blatantly re-used in a "day-night" cycle that changes nothing but adding annoying bandits that spawn out of thin air. There is no *exploration* to be had in Kirkwall - and in lieu of this absence there should've been a number of places outside of Kirkwall for us to explore, find optional quests, etc. There is not.

3) A basic RPG feature like equipping companions should be put in the game by developers, not modders.

4) Ehh. Honestly, the writing felt extremely weak at many points and I found it *very* hard to develop a relationship with ANY of the characters. Aveline stayed locked in her keep all day, so when her Donnic side quest came I could seriously care less about her (stereotypical) lack of social/romance skills. Fenris' was pretty 2-dimensional. Emo run-away pretty-boy slave? Oh boy. It's as if they hired fanfic writers specifically to design a character that would appeal to... that female demographic. Anders did nothing but whine and hit on me the entire game, and I seriously see his character as being ten steps backwards from what it was in awakenings.

All that remains was probably one of the worst quests in the game for me. The drama is entirely forced. Oh boy, out of nowhere my mother is kidnapped by a crazy bloodmage and made into a Frankenstein-esque abomination. Was I seriously supposed to feel something here? It was so inexplicably random and cheesy specifically because the game didn't bother to make me feel an attachment to my mother before this event happens. We engage mother directly in what... two scripted dialogue scenes before this? If this was enough to move you to tears, I would say you have a very shallow emotional threshold.

A series of random unfortunate events. Yawn.

5) I listed numerous instances in Dragon Age Origins where the game-world is irreversibly changed as a direct result of your actions. If you're going to choose to completely ignore them and claim that DA2 has even a semblence of choice vs. consequence to the degree that DA:O does, I'm not going to bother helping you take the fangirl/fanboy lenses off. There is not a single major plot point in DA2 which I can think of in which your choices affect any outcome.

There are nearly no branched story-paths in DA2. There were dozens of major ones in DA:O. This is a statement of fact, not opinion.

1) Wait, what? How can they be busy doing something they already did?

2) Yep.

3) Hey, if you want to do something and you're somehow able to do it, go ahead and do it. The more popular certain mods become, the more likely the devs are to listen. It's an age old process. That's not saying no one's faulting them for choosing what choices they made in the first place.

4) From what I can read of your earlier posts, you didn't have Aveline in your party. If this were the case, I'd say you shouldn't be so quick to judge. The thing with these games is, if you don't have certain characters tagging along with you, they are going to seem shallow. And, really, this makes sense. If you aren't going to spend time with somebody, it becomes very easy to reduce them down to a basic (and fallacious) archetype.

I can't speak for Fenris--I'm just starting my second playthrough, now with the party members of Isabela, Merrill (sp?), and Fenris. One of the reasons it took me so long to replay DA:O was because I was convinced all of the other characters I had outside my party were completely two-dimensional--they weren't, at all. I can't exactly say that's the case in this situation (other than being prepared to counter-argue your position on Aveline) with Fenris, but it does remain an option.

And, that's weird about Anders. He came on strong for about one line of dialogue in our first conversation. I turned him down (with the broken heart icon) and he never once tried get some of dat ever again. I was even playing the diplomatic, save-the-kittens type of hero. And, yeah, I saw him as a step back. The combination of him and Justice was just too character-changing--it's as if Alistair turned into Sten. I mean, I love Sten, but who would want that? Should've just stuck Justice into Sir Pounce-A-Lot (But that would change the narrative completely).

All That Remains was horrible. I can't believe somebody would choose that as one of the most emotionally engaging parts of the game. Shepherding Wolves? Now that was a fantastic mission. Nothing unique about the gameplay, but the combination of Dragon Age's lore and power behind the dialogue at the end of that quest, that's what stuck with me. Merrill's final companion quest was also quite good. All That Remains? Ugh.

Oh, but also comparing DA2's sidequests to DA:O's? DA2 gets the gold. DA:O's were so horrible. They were horribly designed and absolutely confusing. 90% of the time you had no idea where you were supposed to go for anything. God, the sheer amount of collection quests in DA:O make me never want to play that game again (as I would force myself to do those quests, as I am a completionist--my fault, I know).

5) I hated DA:O's ending. I hated the confined and buggy Denerim fight. I didn't care for a single sequence that made it up. The Archdemon fight was a joke. It was a copy-pasted high dragon fight that we fought a couple times over. And to top it all off? They give us twenty pages of text of stuff that happened because of us. For me, that doesn't fly anymore. It's not 1999. You know how quickly they could have made a sequence like that for DA2? I'm glad they didn't include something like that--something that summarizes the changes in the lives of the people you had come across, how your companions faired ten years from then because of the decisions you made during their quests, and whatever. If they deliberately chose not to finish the game like that, I praise them for it.

Personally, I see DA:O's ending has being a bigger rush than the whole of DA2 (In perspective, that is)

Now, those final moments in the throne room? That was kind of cool. It was satisfying. It didn't appear to be completely half-assed. I liked it--much better than the oh-so melodramatic cliffhanger at the end of DA2.

I don't think there are words to express how much I agree with everything in this post. Seriously.

[Merced652]

Mantaal wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

There`s a lot of stupid in that review. Some of it is just wrong.

I wonder what would that be. I didnt see anything wrong in the review.

Clearly his opinion. DUH.

Also are people really going to compare Denerim to Kirkwall? Uhhh did you spend 90% of origins in Denerim?


edit: I had Anders, Isabella and Varric with me quite a bit. They still seemed shallow. But thats my opinion of course, seems its one shared however. 

Modifié par Merced652, 27 mars 2011 - 07:14 .

[Mantaal]

Merced652 wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

There`s a lot of stupid in that review. Some of it is just wrong.

I wonder what would that be. I didnt see anything wrong in the review.

Clearly his opinion. DUH.

Also are people really going to compare Denerim to Kirkwall? Uhhh did you spend 90% of origins in Denerim?


edit: I had Anders, Isabella and Varric with me quite a bit. They still seemed shallow. But thats my opinion of course, seems its one shared however. 

An Opinion can be right or wrong? Oh didnt know that.....

[Jaduggar]

Impmacaque wrote...
Point taken - I didn't much care for the actual end fight either. I guess my biggest gripe with DA2's quests is that we don't have any branched-path plots. If a quest like Sheparding Wolves were in DA:O, we would've had a huge number of solutions depending on the dialogue/actions we took. In DA2, everyone dies no matter what. This is characteristic of EVERY big quest in the game - you literally never change the outcome of any major event in DA2.

It's strange--I sort of prefer this, but I absolutely understand why Bioware shouldn't do this. For me, linearity has always been the key to a great narrative. In Bioware's position, they could create a significantly more cohesive and specific world if they just cut player choice all-together. If the character does not play to the story, themes will change, motivations will change, the world will change. In the end, you are stuck reinforcing all of them--everything has to be canon and expectations become impossible. Also, if you would, take Shepherding Wolves for an example. If that quest were to end in any way other than the two possible, it has the potential to lose so much, if not all, of its meaning.

I really appreciate that most of the choices in this game revolve around changing people, and not the fate of the world. It's small scale, but it's personal. You can even see it take form in front of your eyes. The Warden Carver rivalry really leads to a satisfying conclusion. I wish Bioware would continue doing this rather than focusing on giving the player the choice of which mountains to move, but then they reject what they built their name upon. I don't play Bioware games for a linear story and the qualities thereof, so I come in understanding the faults inherent to their narrative.

[MingWolf]

Just had a read through that review for the first time. It was epic.

[orbit991]

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

Modifié par orbit991, 27 mars 2011 - 05:29 .

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

surrendering changed nothing in the game in origins. you just had a few lines of dialouge and a lame "escape". after you can go to anora and get her support by talking to her. and in all honesty there were not many changes at all in origins...

[orbit991]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

surrendering changed nothing in the game in origins. you just had a few lines of dialouge and a lame "escape". after you can go to anora and get her support by talking to her. and in all honesty there were not many changes at all in origins...

It's not what I implied, it opened a different route and different content, which makes multiple playthroughs much more interesting. It's certainly no Witcher where in the first hour my main quest giver was slaughtered due to my doings, but its a hell of a lot more then DA2 had to offer.

[Mantaal]

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

No Difference? 
So please tell me did i fight the Last Battle with Alistair or Loghain, with Dwarves or Golems, with Elves or Werewolves? Did i Die in the End or life? Who is King of Ferelden? 
Sure the Archdeamon died in the end. But what about everythign else? If the Game was only about that Arch Deamon they could have skipped that whole game and just make the End fight..

I can tell you what happend in YOUR DA2 game if you tell me what class you did play
The Qunari are gone. Your Hawke is Rich and dissapeared in the end after lots of Mages and Templers died no matter what side your Hawke prefers.

[Fishy]

Mincs and Boo enter Bestbuy and see Dragon age 2 .. What happens?



Mincs - GO FOR THE EYES BOO GO FOR THE EYES!
Boo - SQUEE SQUEE

He basicly nailed a bunch of point that made DA2 not an immersive roleplaying experience.

Modifié par Suprez30, 27 mars 2011 - 06:19 .

[Mantaal]

Suprez30 wrote...

Mincs and Boo enter Bestbuy and see Dragon age 2 .. What happens?

Mincs - GO FOR THE EYES BOO GO FOR THE EYES!
Boo - SQUEE SQUEE

He basicly nailed a bunch of point that made DA2 not an immersive roleplaying experience.

Minsc is a Visonary! Or did Boo tell him? 

[Mike2640]

Yeah, I honestly cant find a part of this review that I disagree with. Hopefully the bad PR will be noticed by the Bio devs and taken into consideration for the next game. But I doubt it. Mr. Laidlaw seems pretty happy with mediocrity if it sells well, so I doubt we'll see much positive change in the future.

[Baelyn]

Mantaal wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

No Difference? 
So please tell me did i fight the Last Battle with Alistair or Loghain, with Dwarves or Golems, with Elves or Werewolves? Did i Die in the End or life? Who is King of Ferelden? 
Sure the Archdeamon died in the end. But what about everythign else? If the Game was only about that Arch Deamon they could have skipped that whole game and just make the End fight..

I can tell you what happend in YOUR DA2 game if you tell me what class you did play
The Qunari are gone. Your Hawke is Rich and dissapeared in the end after lots of Mages and Templers died no matter what side your Hawke prefers.

Oh yea?

Spoilers....

Tell me then. What happened to Carver in my playthrough? Did he die in the Deep Roads, become a warden, or join the templars? Did he end up helping me in the end? Is the Arishok dead? Did Isabela come back? What did I do with Feynriel? Did I kill the entire Dalish clan or are they still alive? Is Anders dead? Was I a mercenary or a smuggler? Whose side am I on now? Mages? Templars? 

You can hardly tell me how my DA2 game went.

Modifié par Baelyn, 27 mars 2011 - 11:19 .

[Ixalmaris]

Baelyn wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

No Difference? 
So please tell me did i fight the Last Battle with Alistair or Loghain, with Dwarves or Golems, with Elves or Werewolves? Did i Die in the End or life? Who is King of Ferelden? 
Sure the Archdeamon died in the end. But what about everythign else? If the Game was only about that Arch Deamon they could have skipped that whole game and just make the End fight..

I can tell you what happend in YOUR DA2 game if you tell me what class you did play
The Qunari are gone. Your Hawke is Rich and dissapeared in the end after lots of Mages and Templers died no matter what side your Hawke prefers.

Oh yea?

Spoilers....

Tell me then. What happened to Carver in my playthrough? Did he die in the Deep Roads, become a warden, or join the templars? Did he end up helping me in the end? Is the Arishok dead? Did Isabela come back? What did I do with Feynriel? Did I kill the entire Dalish clan or are they still alive? Is Anders dead? Was I a mercenary or a smuggler? Whose side am I on now? Mages? Templars? 

You can hardly tell me how my DA2 game went.

Except that the impact of pretty much all of those choices is next to 0.

But why bother, fanboys will say anything to defend DA2...

Modifié par Ixalmaris, 27 mars 2011 - 11:22 .

[Baelyn]

Ixalmaris wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

No Difference? 
So please tell me did i fight the Last Battle with Alistair or Loghain, with Dwarves or Golems, with Elves or Werewolves? Did i Die in the End or life? Who is King of Ferelden? 
Sure the Archdeamon died in the end. But what about everythign else? If the Game was only about that Arch Deamon they could have skipped that whole game and just make the End fight..

I can tell you what happend in YOUR DA2 game if you tell me what class you did play
The Qunari are gone. Your Hawke is Rich and dissapeared in the end after lots of Mages and Templers died no matter what side your Hawke prefers.

Oh yea?

Spoilers....

Tell me then. What happened to Carver in my playthrough? Did he die in the Deep Roads, become a warden, or join the templars? Did he end up helping me in the end? Is the Arishok dead? Did Isabela come back? What did I do with Feynriel? Did I kill the entire Dalish clan or are they still alive? Is Anders dead? Was I a mercenary or a smuggler? Whose side am I on now? Mages? Templars? 

You can hardly tell me how my DA2 game went.

Except that the impact of pretty much all of those choices is next to 0.

But why bother, fanboys will say anything to defend DA2...

And the impact of the above given choices in DA:O is so much greater right?

Way to go with the name calling by the way. It really improves your credibility.

[Mantaal]

Baelyn wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

"All the so called huge decisions in DAO made no difference in the end except for a few lines of dialogue and Epilogue slides in the end. (MS Dos like Slides, no less) I never FELT the supposed consequences in DAO's cloaked "decisions". Oh, so it's templar models fighting for me instead of mages. The Archdemon dies one way or another (With a cheap ritual cop out in place or not) and that is it, except for a few dialogue differences and badly bugged epilogue slides that did not influence game play whatsoever. You can ****** off spirits in DA2, you can kill one party member, alienate another into leaving and have one or more abandon your side in the end in DA2. "

Pfft, players left you in DAO as well. But show me one decision in DA2 that actually changed gameplay. In DAO after you tried to save Anora, you had a choice, kill those preventing your escape or surrender. If you chose the latter, the game took you in a totally different direction content wise, you ended up in jail, you also lost Anoras support during the lands meet.

There is simply not a single decision in this game that changes gameplay and branches out to some new content, there are no consequences and it all plays out in the same order.

No Difference? 
So please tell me did i fight the Last Battle with Alistair or Loghain, with Dwarves or Golems, with Elves or Werewolves? Did i Die in the End or life? Who is King of Ferelden? 
Sure the Archdeamon died in the end. But what about everythign else? If the Game was only about that Arch Deamon they could have skipped that whole game and just make the End fight..

I can tell you what happend in YOUR DA2 game if you tell me what class you did play
The Qunari are gone. Your Hawke is Rich and dissapeared in the end after lots of Mages and Templers died no matter what side your Hawke prefers.

Oh yea?

Spoilers....

Tell me then. What happened to Carver in my playthrough? Did he die in the Deep Roads, become a warden, or join the templars? Did he end up helping me in the end? Is the Arishok dead? Did Isabela come back? What did I do with Feynriel? Did I kill the entire Dalish clan or are they still alive? Is Anders dead? Was I a mercenary or a smuggler? Whose side am I on now? Mages? Templars? 

You can hardly tell me how my DA2 game went.

Does it matter? He is Gone. End of story. Carver is gone no matter what you do. You really think you have freedom of choice here? Id doesnt matter what you do the results are the same. 
The results in DA:O are not the same. And thats the problem for most players here.

[Baelyn]

Mantaal wrote...

Does it matter? He is Gone. End of story. Carver is gone no matter what you do. You really think you have freedom of choice here? Id doesnt matter what you do the results are the same. 
The results in DA:O are not the same. And thats the problem for most players here.

Yes it matters. The Archdemon is dead. See, it works both ways.

What freedom of choice do you have to change whether the Archdemon dies or not? You don't. You only have the choice of how you get there. Same with DA2.

Carver is hardly gone. He can either be alive as a warden, alive as a templar, or dead. Pretty big difference there,

[Mantaal]

Baelyn wrote...

Mantaal wrote...

Does it matter? He is Gone. End of story. Carver is gone no matter what you do. You really think you have freedom of choice here? Id doesnt matter what you do the results are the same. 
The results in DA:O are not the same. And thats the problem for most players here.

Yes it matters. The Archdemon is dead. See, it works both ways.

What freedom of choice do you have to change whether the Archdemon dies or not? You don't. You only have the choice of how you get there. Same with DA2.

Carver is hardly gone. He can either be alive as a warden, alive as a templar, or dead. Pretty big difference there,

Yes the Archdemon is dead. And? Thats it? Thats all you have to respond?  It dont works in two ways. Is like you say "the Grass is Green no matter what you do" Just because the end is the same it does not mean the whole story is the same. Well in DA2 its that way but not in DA:O. in DA2 its just another Reward for finishing something but it has no effect to the story. It just gives you the reward of another Textline. And not even that sometimes. Most times in DA2 it happens the same thing if you reload and choose the opposite way.

Ok lets see.
DA2
Carver is gone = result: always the same. (Yes he could... but you dont know it has Zero impact to the story)
Arishok is gone = result: always the same.

DA:O 
You made a peaceful way to cure the Werewolves = Result: You get Elves in the Battle in Denerim.
You did Destroy the Anvil in deep Roads = Result: You have Dwarves to Fight with you in the final Battle.
You made Alistair the King of Ferelden = Result you will se him talking to the Army, you even meet him in DA2.

Modifié par Mantaal, 27 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Jaduggar]

Mantaal wrote...

Does it matter? He is Gone. End of story. Carver is gone no matter what you do. You really think you have freedom of choice here? Id doesnt matter what you do the results are the same. 
The results in DA:O are not the same. And thats the problem for most players here.

Wait, what?

He had the choice of carver meeting three different fates. And you even see the effect of these later on in the game. Same with Feynriel. And why didn't you respond to the fate of Anders or the clan? Those are all decisions that come to affect you or the people you know--and they aren't the same for everybody.

If there's a misunderstanding here, I would like for us to clear it up.

Mantaal wrote...

Ok lets see.
DA2
Carver is gone = result: always the same. (Yes he could... but you dont know it has Zero impact to the story)

DA:O 
You made a peaceful way to cure the Werewolves = Result: You get Elves in the Battle in Denerim.
You did Destroy the Anvil in deep Roads = Result: You have Dwarves to Fight with you in the final Battle.
You made Alistair the King of Ferelden = Result you will se him talking to the Army, you even meet him in DA2.

I'm getting a conflicting argument here, because a certain somebody, depending on their fate will also help you in the final battle of DA2.

Even so, I find them both to be shallow arguments. So the only choices that matter are once that are going to affect the future gameplay? So the fate of your Warden doesn't matter at all?

Also, if Carver's fate is pointless, so is the Warden's.
You now have to attack this argument from both sides.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 28 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[myztikrice]

You choose to side with the Templars = Result: You get Templars helping you fight in the final battle
You save Carver = Result: You get him as help in the fight against Meredith

[Hyunsai]

Timon44 wrote...

If you expected an action RPG you will love DA2.

Hum, no. I expected an Action RPG but the game is just bad in his mechanisms, without much to make up for this.

[Impmacaque]

Oh yea?

Spoilers....

Tell me then. What happened to Carver in my playthrough? Did he die in the Deep Roads, become a warden, or join the templars? Did he end up helping me in the end? Is the Arishok dead? Did Isabela come back? What did I do with Feynriel? Did I kill the entire Dalish clan or are they still alive? Is Anders dead? Was I a mercenary or a smuggler? Whose side am I on now? Mages? Templars? 

You can hardly tell me how my DA2 game went.

The choices presented in DA2 are written poorly and offer, at best, weak consequences. They're all entirely forced just to make you feel like you have some kind of control over the game world, when in reality, you have none.

*Carver is such an uninspired, bland, poorly written character that I hardly cared what happened to him. The way the game makes him catch the blight in the deep roads is almost laughable. The RPGcodex review points out how forced and stupid this entire scene is; "the fact is that when you play the game and slaughter hordes of the darkspawn nobody ever gets poisoned. So when someone does, it doesn’t create the desired dramatic effect. It creates the very opposite, a “oh what the ****, you’ve gotta be kidding me” effect." Since he's such a poorly developed character as is, it hardly matters whether he comes back to help you or not.

*The Arishok/Isabella plot is likewise asinine. The whole relic tie-in between Isabella and the Arishok is so tenuous it's nearly not believable. So you're telling me despite how amazingly powerful and influential I am, I couldn't have gone out to find the relic myself? Why wasn't that an option? Oh, wait, development time means cutting out branched-paths in favor of copout endings like "durr kill the arishok or let him go and never hear from him again!" The choice has no impact on the game world. Even if you let him go, the NPCs in Act 3 seemingly don't give a damn. Nobody cares. Nothing changes.

*Feynriel is another perfect example of choice without consequence. Kill him, make him powerful, make him tranquil. What does it change? Absolutely nothing. It's literally massively dissappointing that regardless of what you do to him, the Clan Keeper responds in the exact same way and the game changes absolutely nothing. Not like you even ever see feynriel after you send him off to the circle/elves anyway. His character should've been developed into something important given the focus of Act 3. It wasn't.

*Don't get me started on Merc vs. Smuggler. I spent an entire twenty minutes weighing out the pros and cons of each side, foolishly thinking that my decision would have some long-term benefits (as it would  in a game like DA:O). What happens? You have slightly different quest text and the game literally skips the entire year's worth of content you spend working as either or. This was an astonishing display of lazyness for the sake of moving the plot forward. I cringed after Act 1 was finished.

SPOILERS  BELOW=========================================================================






*Mages vs Templar - Doesn't matter, the game goes to **** anyway. Choose Mages, and Orsino inexplicably still becomes a Blood Mage despite being surrounded by the most powerful, elite warriors in Kirkwall. It feels as if Bioware desperately wanted another boss fight in the game and just threw in Orsino without ANY logic or rationale behind his resorting to blood magic. I mean, seriously?? The most powerful mage in Kirkwall just witnesses my team demolish two or three dozen templars effortlessly, and makes himself into an abomination knowing it's going to **** me over?

Choose Templars, and Meredith is always "turned insane" by the stupid Idol which is one of the most poorly concieved plot devices in any game ever. It's almost as if the writers couldn't think of a legitimate way to portray Meredith as crazy enough to purge the templars on her own (hint; it would've been in-line with her character to do so without needing Act 1's ****ty MacGuffin). Act 3 is largely a failure on many, many levels. The conflict is forced foward by plot devices and irrational, out-of-character NPC behavior. As Hawke, regardless of what side you choose, the conflict pans out in the exact same way everytime.

> In short, there are no meaningful choices to be had in DA2. They boil down to "kill this party member or send him off somewhere" and "kill this NPC or send them off somewhere". There is NOTHING along the lines of siding with the Werewolves, defiling Andraste's ashes, recruiting Loghain, etc. etc. The list goes on. The choices in DA:O were far, far deeper and produced tangible effects on the game-world. Those in DA2 are neither.

Modifié par Impmacaque, 28 mars 2011 - 01:07 .

[takfar]

This is probably the best (most honest, well-thought, thoroughly explained and illustrated and based on extensive knowledge of the genre) review of DA2 I've read. It's truly a must-read for everyone. Bioware especially. It does include some unmarked spoilers, which is the one failure I've found in it.