I could write about all those things many people have rightfully critizised in DA2 like how Kirkwall is static etc, but I let the game (or rather its cutscenes) speak for itself.
Lets compare the "Now the story gets really started" cinematics from DA:O and DA2
DA:O
DA2: (Couldn't find a cutscene only video, likely because its so short and rather uninteresting)
This difference continues through the game. How could Bioware even expect fans to approve of this game with such a drop in quality? Even if the story in DA2 would have been good, the lack of immersion ruins it.
PS: There are more people in the DA:O cutscene than in entire Kirkwall.
I disagree. While Ostagar battle cutscene was/is great, and carried some emotion, thats where it ended. DA2 is more story driven and better paced.
Better paced? Because every time something important happens the game fast forwards for 3 years and while nothing happens during that time all build up momentum is lost?
And about the emotions, I can see the growing doubt in the faces of the soldiers at Ostagar. But where are the emotions in the DA2 trailer? No relief to have survived the journey or panic when no one gets to enter the city. And that is not where in ended in DA:O. It continues through the game while in DA2 apart from the end from act 2 and a few companion quests there wasn't really any emotion or immersion at all.
they both have there issuezs but ill be honest, i found AD2 more immersive.
The things that broke my immersion in DAO were things such as.
Silent Protagonist-If the game had no voiced dialogue it wouldnt break my immersion, but since everything but the MC had voiced dialogue it was edxtremely imersion breaking.
Animations/character structures-it was just bad, stiff as a board save for eyebrows and voice acting.
Tactical combat-ok, i loved the tactical combat so i haver to explain this one. How is it immersive to float up 30 yards in the air and control everyone with a camera that you control and doesnt follow party members? if its down closer as if you are one char its more immersive unless you have a god complex. So while i enjoyed tactical camera/combat it was not immersive, sorta a catch 22 for me.
For DA2
re-used maps-big issue
unresponsive npc's-the ones that walk thru a fight im having
Now DA2's animations were not perfect by anymeans but compared to DAO they are amazing, combined witha voiced protagonist with more animation it felt much more immersive.
For ideas on games that i find immersive, Deadspace, as for rpgs its a bit harder to get that level, so id settle for a game like morrowind/obloivion/fallout 3, they tried to make it quite immersive, and as for 3rd person, i enjoyed the witcher (got the one that was released later that didnt have all the bugs)
I disagree. While Ostagar battle cutscene was/is great, and carried some emotion, thats where it ended. DA2 is more story driven and better paced.
Better paced? Because every time something important happens the game fast forwards for 3 years and while nothing happens during that time all build up momentum is lost?
And about the emotions, I can see the growing doubt in the faces of the soldiers at Ostagar. But where are the emotions in the DA2 trailer? No relief to have survived the journey or panic when no one gets to enter the city. And that is not where in ended in DA:O. It continues through the game while in DA2 apart from the end from act 2 and a few companion quests there wasn't really any emotion or immersion at all.
Alright, it's just a matter of opinion. I'm currently replaying DA:O after finishing DA2 three times and I still think DA2 is more immersive. And btw, I lose no "momentum" after I complete a chapter in DA2.
The cutscenes in DA:O were much better, I'll agree with that.
And, everything else was better in DAO too.....
Not really. DA:O's combat was snooze-worthy, the graphics were horribly outdated, character models and animations were down-right primitive, and the pacing was very slow. I was the only person I know who enjoyed the Deep Roads.
The story, choices, and subsequent consequences were better than DA2.
There was an immersion in DA2? Damn good job Bioware in hidding it pretty well ... guess it would be too much for game to make sense and not to poorly implement things seen elsewhere ...
Actually there was way too much combat in DA:O already, I have no clue why they added more in DA2 ... not to mention there wasnt single puzzle, riddle or dialog complex quest in DA2
Not really. DA:O's combat was snooze-worthy, the graphics were horribly outdated, character models and animations were down-right primitive, and the pacing was very slow. I was the only person I know who enjoyed the Deep Roads.
Very good example of differing opinions. For me the new combat style candy coated with exploding body parts was enough to hit strg/Alt/del to get instant desktop rapture. Seeing that, ruined the hope for any kind of immersion single handedly.
Very good example of differing opinions. For me the new combat style candy coated with exploding body parts was enough to hit strg/Alt/del to get instant desktop rapture. Seeing that, ruined the hope for any kind of immersion single handedly.
And rose-tinted glasses. It's like the people who claim vanilla WoW was superior to its current incarnation. WoW is awful, but Cataclysm isn't even on the same spectrum of awful as vanilla was. People have very short memories indeed.
DA:O was a flawed game filled with a lot of game-breaking bugs, that were exacerbated when the expansion came about. DA2 is a flawed game with a lot of game-breaking bugs, I'm still holding out hope that the patch will fix it all. Having just finished playing through DA:O and Awakening again, I was absolutely flabbergasted to find bugs that had been there since day one still effing there. Mind-boggling!
And rose-tinted glasses. It's like the people who claim vanilla WoW was superior to its current incarnation. WoW is awful, but Cataclysm isn't even on the same spectrum of awful as vanilla was. People have very short memories indeed.
No, I'm aware of the flaws. But in my opinionated opinion, I don't want to be Roger Rabbit doing Ninjitsu when playing a fantasy game. Other than with DAO I don't even want to identify with that kind of character.
I could write about all those things many people have rightfully critizised in DA2 like how Kirkwall is static etc, but I let the game (or rather its cutscenes) speak for itself.
Lets compare the "Now the story gets really started" cinematics from DA:O and DA2
DA:O
DA2: (Couldn't find a cutscene only video, likely because its so short and rather uninteresting)
This difference continues through the game. How could Bioware even expect fans to approve of this game with such a drop in quality? Even if the story in DA2 would have been good, the lack of immersion ruins it.
PS: There are more people in the DA:O cutscene than in entire Kirkwall.
Wrong!
With DA2, "Now the story gets really started" starts at the very begining. That is one difference between DA:O and DA2. DA2 puts you right in the action from the very beginning of the game. And I love it! I find it incredibly immersive.
There is no slow start up in DA2. The very first combat where you are making darkspawn pop all over the place and have no control of Bethany/Carver and you have a bunch of abilities to play with and Varric is BSing about your exploits to the Seeker lady, that is your training session, your getting started.
DA:O has a more traditional, slower start up.
DA2 is an action game with a really good cinematic story. Everything evolves in action. The personalities evolve in action. The story unfolds through action. You have to pay attention as story elements come quickly surrounded by action.
This is what the DA:O loving DA2 hating crowd does not get. Dragon Age is not DA:O. DA2 is not DA:O. DA:O and DA2 are different and separate games in the Dragon Age Series of games.
It's a shame that people get paid to review games but can't grasp this simple fact. It's an injustice.
DA2 is an action game with a really good cinematic story. Everything evolves in action. The personalities evolve in action. The story unfolds through action. You have to pay attention as story elements come quickly surrounded by action.
Indeed so we got action rpg, with crappy story. Instead of proper rpg where everything doesn't revolve around action like DA:O.
Look I don't know about you, but I expected DA2 to be proper rpg, not action rpg that it turned out to be.
It is not wrong to assume that sequel tries to stay loyal to its predecessor. I didn't expect plot to have any relevance to origins, but I did expected an rpg with more in it than action.
DA2 is an action game with a really good cinematic story. Everything evolves in action. The personalities evolve in action. The story unfolds through action. You have to pay attention as story elements come quickly surrounded by action.
Indeed so we got action rpg, with crappy story. Instead of proper rpg where everything doesn't revolve around action like DA:O.
Look I don't know about you, but I expected DA2 to be proper rpg, not action rpg that it turned out to be.
It is not wrong to assume that sequel tries to stay loyal to its predecessor. I didn't expect plot to have any relevance to origins, but I did expected an rpg with more in it than action.
actually the only time its not wrong to assume is when youve been told the outcome.
I could write about all those things many people have rightfully critizised in DA2 like how Kirkwall is static etc, but I let the game (or rather its cutscenes) speak for itself.
Lets compare the "Now the story gets really started" cinematics from DA:O and DA2
DA:O
DA2: (Couldn't find a cutscene only video, likely because its so short and rather uninteresting)
This difference continues through the game. How could Bioware even expect fans to approve of this game with such a drop in quality? Even if the story in DA2 would have been good, the lack of immersion ruins it.
PS: There are more people in the DA:O cutscene than in entire Kirkwall.
I agree with you, Kirkwall is blant and lacks a lot of atmosphere. It feels cheap and made without love. No, im not a DA2 hater, but he is right.
actually the only time its not wrong to assume is when youve been told the outcome.
That makes zero sense. If you slap onto something that it's a "sequel" then it is not only right for someone to "assume" that it will bear something of the original in it, that's actually the entire point of making it a sequel. You're basically saying that if they made a racing game like Gran Torismo and called it "Dragon Age 2" and marketed it as the seuqel to DA:O, that we shouldn't be utterly mystified and upset when it turns out to be a racing game. "Hurrr durrr, your fault for assuming!"
No, the fault lies with the company for slapping the "sequel" tag onto a game that bears nothing in common with its predecessor, excpet for tangentially being related through setting.
Retour en haut
