152 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

neppakyo wrote...
Its been awhile since I played Awakenings, can't you kill or get rid of anders in awakening?  I wish I had that option in DA2.

He can allegedly die in the battle for Vigil's Keep.

He lived in mine even though I left him there somehow the little bugger escaped alive... Sneaky lilttle git he is. 

[ValentineMSmith]

In DA:O, I pre-ordered, played all the Origins at least as far as Lothering, and finshed three complete playthroughs. I've got over 200 hours into the game...and I'd likely have more if I weren't married with a family and two(-ish) jobs. AND yes, I bought the game, but I've switched forum accounts.

In DA:A, I bought it as soon as I could and was somewhat disappointed. The scenery and some of the characters were good (I liked Oghren much better in DA:A than in Origins) and the writing was interesting, but the overall story didn't grab me the way that Origins did. Among other things, dealing with serious bugs that are STILL not fixed (my imported DW Warrior Warden absorbed her non-importable armor into her skin, so she had ridiculous defense when naked, and then lost her Awakening armor in the Silverite Mines) and the changes to companion conversations and lack of romances all had a real impact. But still, Origins was so good that I pre-ordered DA2.

Now I'm in DA2. I started playing on release day...and I can't be arsed to finish Act II in my first playthrough. I care more at this point about Mama Cousland than about Mama Hawke, and I'm just...meh.
Is Awakening better than DA2? Well, at this point I'm more likely to spend time playing Awakening than DA2. At the same time, Awakening has huge flaws itself...at least DA2 is likely to still get patches and supplementary DLC. Of course, I won't be paying for any DA2 DLC until it's gotten some reviews in which I have some trust...

Modifié par ValentineMSmith, 30 mars 2011 - 03:25 .

[Juug]

You all seem to forget the basic concept of DA2. DA2 did not focus on some greater evil that you had to defeat to save the land because you were the only one that could. No. DA2 was focused on you in one city and what your actions in said city led to. It was about Hawke building himself up. It was also about personal choice. The reason it didn't feel as epic was because you didn't venture too far outside of Kirkwall. Instead you were dealing WITH Kirkwall. There was no Blight to deal with so you had to deal with internal affairs. And the Qunari.

[Cutlass Jack]

Awakening was terrible. The worst of the series by far. So I'm having a hard time determining if your serious or not, OP. If you are...ugh. To each their own I suppose.

Awakening featured some of the most uninspired companions ever. They varied between terrible and tolerable. Anders was the best of the lot. Justice was a great concept that, ironically, they didn't do justice to. It went downhill from there. Velanna actually made Oghren look smart in comparison. Nathaniel should have been one of those characters you love to hate. Instead he was just dull. Took all the fun out of my Cousland finding a Howe in his dungeon, let me tell you.

And I'm not sure what 'varied environments' you mentioned were. I think I visited that same Awakening farm more than any map repeated in DA2.

[randallman]

Juug wrote...

You all seem to forget the basic concept of DA2. DA2 did not focus on some greater evil that you had to defeat to save the land because you were the only one that could. No. DA2 was focused on you in one city and what your actions in said city led to. It was about Hawke building himself up. It was also about personal choice. The reason it didn't feel as epic was because you didn't venture too far outside of Kirkwall. Instead you were dealing WITH Kirkwall. There was no Blight to deal with so you had to deal with internal affairs. And the Qunari.

I would likely have been OK with the storyline if the gameplay mechanics and attention to detail weren't so off from what my expectations were.  It's not the type of 'save the world' thing common to 98% of all games which I suppose is refreshing.  They just missed EVERYTHING ELSE with the combat speedups/animations, area reuse, the missing and conflicting lore, the lack of interesting item names/descriptions, the advancement, magic 'I found your stuff that you never told me was missing' quests, and various other "streamlinings" and omissions.

Awakening was great because it was more story on top of the mechanics that I already came to like and appreciate in a world/setting that was compelling to experience...  Sure the storyline may have been a bit thin with the enlightened darkspawn and all, but the expansion met my expectations.

[Dragoonlordz]

Juug wrote...

You all seem to forget the basic concept of DA2. DA2 did not focus on some greater evil that you had to defeat to save the land because you were the only one that could. No. DA2 was focused on you in one city and what your actions in said city led to. It was about Hawke building himself up. It was also about personal choice. The reason it didn't feel as epic was because you didn't venture too far outside of Kirkwall. Instead you were dealing WITH Kirkwall. There was no Blight to deal with so you had to deal with internal affairs. And the Qunari.

Your spot on when say didn't feel as epic and why, but with regard to...

DA2 was focused on you in one city.

True, it is exactly how it is.

and what your actions in said city led to.

But not this because you have no actual control over what happens in the city because of the 'framed narrative' the only thing you have control over is to a degree which companions you have with you at the end tbh because your going to get the title and house even if you ate babies in front of the templars while wiping their faces on your butt crack while doing a doodoo (not that they give you any choice) or if you was the patron saint of all things great, good and jolly. 

The 'framed narrative' is the big thing they wanted to try out more than anything else, some like it but a lot of us don't. We aren't stupid we know why the game feels less epic to us but that doesn't change the reality of it doing so. I can understand they wished to try it, but understanding why doesn't mean I want to see it again in DA3 or ME3. 

For my £40 or $60 I want to feel epic and grand and a hero of the story by my own actions which all previous Bioware titles have managed to do. This one failed to do so for me.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 mars 2011 - 03:49 .

[vocalemuse]

Yeah, I definitely disagree here.

I bought Awakening, I played it through once and then never played it again because it was just horrible. Now /that/ game was a huge disappointment. I did not like it at all, still don't. DA2 -- I'm on my third playthrough of and it is still fun for me.

Modifié par vocalemuse, 30 mars 2011 - 04:27 .

[Juug]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Juug wrote...

You all seem to forget the basic concept of DA2. DA2 did not focus on some greater evil that you had to defeat to save the land because you were the only one that could. No. DA2 was focused on you in one city and what your actions in said city led to. It was about Hawke building himself up. It was also about personal choice. The reason it didn't feel as epic was because you didn't venture too far outside of Kirkwall. Instead you were dealing WITH Kirkwall. There was no Blight to deal with so you had to deal with internal affairs. And the Qunari.

Your spot on when say didn't feel as epic and why, but with regard to...

DA2 was focused on you in one city.

True, it is exactly how it is.

and what your actions in said city led to.

But not this because you have no actual control over what happens in the city because of the 'framed narrative' the only thing you have control over is to a degree which companions you have with you at the end tbh because your going to get the title and house even if you ate babies in front of the templars while wiping their faces on your butt crack while doing a doodoo (not that they give you any choice) or if you was the patron saint of all things great, good and jolly. 

The 'framed narrative' is the big thing they wanted to try out more than anything else, some like it but a lot of us don't. We aren't stupid we know why the game feels less epic to us but that doesn't change the reality of it doing so. I can understand they wished to try it, but understanding why doesn't mean I want to see it again in DA3 or ME3. 

For my £40 or $60 I want to feel epic and grand and a hero of the story by my own actions which all previous Bioware titles have managed to do. This one failed to do so for me.

No no you misunderstood.  Your "actions" are defined as what Hawke did that was defined.  Hawke went into the Deep Roads and made a fortune.  Hawke fought and killed the Qunari leader.  Hawke fought and killed the First Enchanter and the Knight-Commander.  Hawke's actions sparked the rebellion of Mages and Templars.  The speech and action choices you make in the game do little more than effect how people feel about you.  The choices you make only effect the people around you, not the world as a whole like you did with the Warden.  Which makes sense in the setting that Hawke was in.

[KLUME777]

HawXV2 wrote...

No. DA2 >> Origins >>>> Awakening

No. DAO >>> Awakening >>>>>>>>DA2

[Johnsen1972]

DOA (9.2/10) > Awakening (6/10) = DOA (6/10)

So for me quite the same. Bioware released an addon for a full price

[Xezcente]

Agreed with OP. I want adventure, exploration, and feel the world of Thedas.

[Maverick827]

KLUME777 wrote...

HawXV2 wrote...

No. DA2 >> Origins >>>> Awakening

No. DAO >>> Awakening >>>>>>>>DA2

No.  Awakening >>>> DA2 >>>>>>>>>>>> DAO

What, are we not simply listing all possible permutations of these objects separated by varrying numbers of carets?

[Cybermortis]

I wonder about this 'framed-narrative' they keep harping on about. What exactly do they mean? If they mean that the protagonist has to end up doing things in a particular order then every game with a quest line has one. DAO has a 'framed narrative', regardless of what origin story you play you still have to do Ostagar, the circle tower, Redcliffe, Ozzimar, Brecillian Forest, the Ashes quests, Denerim, Landsmeet and the final battles. While you have the freedom to do the quests between Ostagar and Denerim in the order you'd like, and to resolve the quests in slightly different directions. You are still limited to following the same overall story/quest line.

Even Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas has a 'framed narrative', since if you follow the main quest lines you have to do so in a particular order (although if you know what you are doing you can bypass some of the quests).

In DA2 the 'FN' seems to be a term used to hide the fact that not only do you have to do the main quests in a particular order, but you often have no option of seeking your own solutions to the quests - and even if you do you'll end up having the same ending to that quest sooner or later.

I'm wondering if this was done not as something 'revolutionary', but because it makes writing a story for DA3 easier. Consider that there are a considerable number of small details in DAO/A that had to be factored into the plot of the next game - from who lived and died, through to who is King of the Dwarfs and who joined your army - even if there is a Chantry in Ozammar.
All of these *should* have an effect on the next game to a greater or lesser extent as they will make noticeable changes to the world.
To me, however, it seems that the 'framed' story in DA2 was both a response to the short development cycle, and a way to be able to write a story for DA3 without having to take quite as much into account. By forcing the game to end in the exact same way DA2's plot became in effect part of DA3's plot/story - the way DA2 plays out your decisions don't effect the world, and therefore what happened in DA2 can become little more than a line or two in DA3.

As to if this was done because they intended to make a DA3 on another short development cycle (Which would finish the series, and quite possibly Bioware itself, off for good), or so they could effectively start development of DA3 in some form while working on DA2 is unknown. But clearly the FN would make it a lot easier to write DA3. (Compare to ME3, which - we are told - has to accommodate every decision made in the first two games, which runs to over 1000 different variables, and you can sort of understand the logic. My best guess is that ME3 has been a headache in this regards, which would explain why they took the decision to make DA2 the way it is story-wise both because of its limited development time and because it would be easier to make DA3 off the back of it. If they were intending to make DA a franchise of multiple games...well if two ME games give you over 1000 things you have to shoe-horn into the third game. What would things be like if there had been four games?)

[Maverick827]

A framed narrative is a style of narration in which the "primary" story is told within another "secondary" story (the frame story). In this case, there is the story of Varric being questioned by Cassandra who is then telling the story of Hawke.

It has nothing to do with making writing "easier." Perhaps it might seem so for a video game, but it can actually complicate things for an author who is used to more "traditional" storytelling techniques.

Modifié par Maverick827, 30 mars 2011 - 01:34 .

[Visanideth]

XX55XX wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Under what rules of enjoying games is there a stipulation that for a game to be enjoyed, it must be an epic adventure? Why can't a game be good without being a schlepic epic? Epics can be just as dull and boring as non-epics. Non-epics can be just as fun and entertaining as epics.

DA2 tried not to be an epic.

And it didn't quite succeed. Epic narratives are BioWare's forte, so they should stick to those instead.

I disagree on that. Character interaction is Bioware's forte, and DA2 delivers in spade. I don't think I can name an actually "epic" tale in a Bioware game since BG times (and they had much to borrow from there). If DA:O was trying to be epic (I'd argue it was trying to be gritty, actually), it failed miserably.

[Visanideth]

Persephone wrote...


The whole dumbed down idea is SO cute though. It's been said about NWN. About DAO. About ME2. Actually, compared to Planescape Torment, all Bioware games are dumbed down action/fluff "RPGS" if you want to go that way. And if I were to go back even further to the M&M Series (Totally different animal of an RPG series....) Bioware never made so called RPGs to begin with. Definitions of RPGs vary so bloody much. DAII certainly was an RPG. BG was a different kind of RPG. M&M IV was an RPG too, though it had nothing in common with DAO or BG. And *gasp* I love them all.

Chiming in on the PST praise... I find it somewhat sickening. It's a great game, but people seem to fail to realize the geniality of the huge amount of material they had to draw from and... didn't live up to.

PST is great, but with THAT source material, making something good isn't hard. Not only the game failed to capture the magic of DiTerlizzi's artwork, they also didn't capture the complexity of the settings. They turned it into a freakshow, and it worked, but it was still somewhat disappointing.

[Finiffa]

vocalemuse wrote...

Yeah, I definitely disagree here.

I bought Awakening, I played it through once and then never played it again because it was just horrible. Now /that/ game was a huge disappointment. I did not like it at all, still don't. DA2 -- I'm on my third playthrough of and it is still fun for me.

This is how I feel too. Awakening is by far the worst for me, I had to MAKE myself finish it just once. 

[Galad22]

Visanideth wrote...

Chiming in on the PST praise... I find it somewhat sickening. It's a great game, but people seem to fail to realize the geniality of the huge amount of material they had to draw from and... didn't live up to.

PST is great, but with THAT source material, making something good isn't hard. Not only the game failed to capture the magic of DiTerlizzi's artwork, they also didn't capture the complexity of the settings. They turned it into a freakshow, and it worked, but it was still somewhat disappointing.

Ah, but many people me included, still think it is best rpg there is, after more than ten years, so yes it did live up to the source material. So why shouldn't we praise it.

In my opinion only 3 rpg has gotten anywhere near the quality of PST, and those are Deus Ex, Fallout 2 and Vampire the Masquarade.

[Lee T]

I do find the very concept of the Architect way more interesting and worth of storytelling than anything in DA2.

Volourn wrote...

" Let's face the reality of ~200+ hrs of gameplay on Origins"

WUT? More like 50-60 hours tops. And, DA2 was 50-60 hours tops.

Every players explore the game universe at a different pace. DAO took me 90h+ on my first playthrough and I do have 200h+ spent on 3 play through + one play through of each DLCs. I played DA2 in 50h and I won't play it again before the auto-attack is patched.

Modifié par Lee T, 30 mars 2011 - 03:42 .

[Dubya75]

DA2 is better than Awakening. By a mile!

[ErichHartmann]

Oghren is one of the worst companions I have ever experienced in an RPG.

[FuseBlues]

Dubya75 wrote...

DA2 is better than Awakening. By a mile!

Agreed. DA:O is probably the daddy for me, but I really liked DA2 (I rather preferred the story to DA:O) and couldn't find much to love about Awakening.

[Wyndham711]

In Awakening I could actually roleplay, and that is an enormous merit in and of itself. Both games had unsatisfying endings, though Awakening at least had the decency to include those epilogue messages. Gameplaywise Awakening didn't scale very well since the characters were so high level, thus it became incredibly easy. Then again: at least it retained the isometric camera and much more freedom in terms of creating different specs and outfitting characters.

Awakening also had much, much more variety in terms of different environments, and much better antagonists than DA2. In addition, it actually gave me important choices throughout the game that had tangible effects in terms of the outcome of the plot. I also felt that Amaranthine was a much more cohesive and atmospheric city/town than Kirkwall.

So yes, in my opinion Awakening was clearly the superior experience.

[Marionetten]

Awakening had Sigrun, the Architect, the Mother, menacing darkspawn and a way better ending. Do keep in mind that this was just an expansion. Imagine if BioWare had treated Awakening like an actual sequel. It could have been amazing.

So yes, I'm going to have to side with Awakening. It would have made a far better Dragon Age II than Dragon Age II.

[Lord_Saulot]

Yes, I found Awakening better than DA2. Combat (while easy) was more enjoyable, the inventory was interesting, more customization was present, etc. I think I may have enjoyed DA2's story and concept more, but Awakening was a more fun game to play. Awakening also had the elements of upgrading the keep and playing politics.