I like both.
But to be honest, I tried to play Origins again as a human mage to see what Leandra and others say about him. I couldn't get past Lothering. I'll try again in a few months or so.
Origins Vs Dragon age 2
Débuté par
icefox88
, avril 12 2011 04:37
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:40
haroldhardluck
-
- Members
- 493 messages
icefox88 wrote...
(I play on a laptop with windows 7 and I have the "prt sc" on my keyboard if that helps)
I play on a desktop PC and the Print Screen button works perfectly for me. I suspect this is a configuration problem specific to your system rather than a DA2 problem. The PC tech support forum might be a good place to ask for help.
Harold
#28
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 05:04
txgoldrush
-
- Members
- 4 249 messages
TJSolo wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
I find Origins extremly overrated, especially compared to games released two years ago, such as The Witcher and Neverwinter Nights 2;Mask of the Betrayer.
Origins does nothing new, does not advance the genre in any way and tells an extremely cliched story, as well as being unfocused as hell. Inthe mage tower, I forgot I was fighting the Blight, not a good sign.
DAII may be flawed, but it tries NEW things, such as locking in character personality, the call on companion feature, and the plot itself.
The Witcher released in 2007 was pretty bad overall but it had good ideas. The 2008 EE version fixed almost every problem the first release had. I find the term "overrated" to be overused.
Origins does not need to do new things nor advance a genre any farther than said genre is. Origins did things well. I am not sure how you can say the story is unfocused when it started with the express goal of gathering allies to stop the blight and each of the main quests involved gathering allies to stop the blight. At the sametime each main quest has a relative importance to each faction which may or may not be about the blight.
The "new" things sound old to me as they just rip from action adventure games since those type of games normally have a more rigid approach to stories and limited ways to alter canon characters.
If the measuring stick the OP uses to compare the two games is which does more RPG things better, the winner will be Origins.
Origins didn't do things well. It had a very poor villian, a very predicable and cliched plotline, an unfocused plot (yes, it is, the gathering alliances plotline is VERY sloppy), the one or two dimensional characters (except Leliana), etc.
RPG things are not always good...look at Alpha Protocol. RPG things brought the game down, especially its combat.
#29
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 06:18
Aleque
-
- Members
- 176 messages
Why I think DA:O is better:
1) Interesting characters with credible emotions and problems. In DA2 they are rather boring and shallow.
2) Fun conversations with them at the camp. In DA2 you can't even engage conversation with them when you want.
3) The soundtrack is epic and emotion-driven. Several scenes made me cry of because how the music made me feel in correlation with timing of scenes, camera angles, face expressions.
4) The Ultimate Sacrifice ending is all I ever dreamed of as an ending in an RPG. This one is beyond epic. I haven't completed DA2 yet, although I am about half way in Act3. Neither have I played DA:Awakening (though I read about it, and how people complained about your "dead" warden, which sacrificed himself, coming back to life), but if DA:O never had a sequel or expansions or even any DLCs, the Ultimate Sacrifice ending would have been one of the best endings in any RPG with a perfect climax. Because then it's when you know that your death was not in vain.
5) You are not bound to merely one city and design of the areas is really well done. Like the werewolf lair. When you look up, you see a whole art behind it's design with the lighting, the plant, etc. In DA2 I feel like a sarcastic delivery boy in a prison city. Almost claustraphobic.
6) Cool and realistic finishing moves: Decapitations/slices/stabs on humanoids, jump on ogre and stab it in face, Mabari hound falls an enemy and keeps mauling it while it's on the ground. I really hoped that they would add more of this sort of animations in DA2. Especially finishing moves on Ogres. But in DA2 it's just: manga super-fly slash through everything like butter, swinging your sword which doesn't seem to have any weight. And enemies just explode into many bodyparts, making this exaggeration somewhat corny.
7) Overall acting is better. It seems to me that in DA2 they couldn't even be bothered telling to their actors "cut, try with a little more emotion this time". I really don't care who records voice for the characters. If it's a Hollywood celebrity or some young tallented artists with no past references. I'd rather have an unknown voice, which doesn't cost alot to hire, but the upside is; you'll have more time and funds for retakes of that artist, to "hit the spot" of emotional credibility. Even when female characters cry in DA2, it just makes me frown. I force myself to take it seriously, but I just can't. There is no soul in it. And I haven't experienced any male characters yet, that really sound like they lost something or someone, and try to hide their emotions. I don't care how macho they are. Even Sten in DA:O has a soft spot.
8) Lack of voice of your character, makes an open interpretation of how your character's personality is. Although it could be awesome to have every single line voiced in DA:O with 5-10 different voices, it would require either a really advanced sound engine or lots of Gigabytes of prerecorded data. In DA2 my character often says stuff that I haven't even decided should be said, and many times it's said in a rather sarcastic/arrogant manner. Sure if you play a True Neutral rogue/bard, it's ok, but not if you are trying to be a good paragon hero. Even ME2 did a better job, even though it uses the same voice mechanics. Almost every time I answer something in ME2, it's more credible than it is in DA2.
BioWare, please be strong and stand up for yourself and your right to continue making quality games. Don't let EA push your around with their deadlines and bureaucratic crap. We - your loyal fans - trust that you can put love and passion into your future games. What happened to DA2 is like watching The Matrix. It's a sequel, and we can't deny that it exists, though we really try and supress this reality of it's existance, because it kills something of the original.
When greed for income conquers passion for art, this is when you know that an artwork has failed.
1) Interesting characters with credible emotions and problems. In DA2 they are rather boring and shallow.
2) Fun conversations with them at the camp. In DA2 you can't even engage conversation with them when you want.
3) The soundtrack is epic and emotion-driven. Several scenes made me cry of because how the music made me feel in correlation with timing of scenes, camera angles, face expressions.
4) The Ultimate Sacrifice ending is all I ever dreamed of as an ending in an RPG. This one is beyond epic. I haven't completed DA2 yet, although I am about half way in Act3. Neither have I played DA:Awakening (though I read about it, and how people complained about your "dead" warden, which sacrificed himself, coming back to life), but if DA:O never had a sequel or expansions or even any DLCs, the Ultimate Sacrifice ending would have been one of the best endings in any RPG with a perfect climax. Because then it's when you know that your death was not in vain.
5) You are not bound to merely one city and design of the areas is really well done. Like the werewolf lair. When you look up, you see a whole art behind it's design with the lighting, the plant, etc. In DA2 I feel like a sarcastic delivery boy in a prison city. Almost claustraphobic.
6) Cool and realistic finishing moves: Decapitations/slices/stabs on humanoids, jump on ogre and stab it in face, Mabari hound falls an enemy and keeps mauling it while it's on the ground. I really hoped that they would add more of this sort of animations in DA2. Especially finishing moves on Ogres. But in DA2 it's just: manga super-fly slash through everything like butter, swinging your sword which doesn't seem to have any weight. And enemies just explode into many bodyparts, making this exaggeration somewhat corny.
7) Overall acting is better. It seems to me that in DA2 they couldn't even be bothered telling to their actors "cut, try with a little more emotion this time". I really don't care who records voice for the characters. If it's a Hollywood celebrity or some young tallented artists with no past references. I'd rather have an unknown voice, which doesn't cost alot to hire, but the upside is; you'll have more time and funds for retakes of that artist, to "hit the spot" of emotional credibility. Even when female characters cry in DA2, it just makes me frown. I force myself to take it seriously, but I just can't. There is no soul in it. And I haven't experienced any male characters yet, that really sound like they lost something or someone, and try to hide their emotions. I don't care how macho they are. Even Sten in DA:O has a soft spot.
8) Lack of voice of your character, makes an open interpretation of how your character's personality is. Although it could be awesome to have every single line voiced in DA:O with 5-10 different voices, it would require either a really advanced sound engine or lots of Gigabytes of prerecorded data. In DA2 my character often says stuff that I haven't even decided should be said, and many times it's said in a rather sarcastic/arrogant manner. Sure if you play a True Neutral rogue/bard, it's ok, but not if you are trying to be a good paragon hero. Even ME2 did a better job, even though it uses the same voice mechanics. Almost every time I answer something in ME2, it's more credible than it is in DA2.
BioWare, please be strong and stand up for yourself and your right to continue making quality games. Don't let EA push your around with their deadlines and bureaucratic crap. We - your loyal fans - trust that you can put love and passion into your future games. What happened to DA2 is like watching The Matrix. It's a sequel, and we can't deny that it exists, though we really try and supress this reality of it's existance, because it kills something of the original.
When greed for income conquers passion for art, this is when you know that an artwork has failed.
Modifié par Aleque, 13 avril 2011 - 08:47 .
#30
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 06:09
haroldhardluck
-
- Members
- 493 messages
[quote]Aleque wrote...
Why I think DA:O is better:
1) Interesting characters with credible emotions and problems. In DA2 they are rather boring and shallow.[/quote]
I found the opposite to be true. In DAO the characters were mainly stereotypes with stereotypical redeeming qualities. In DA2 they were real people. Sten was the stereotypical macho man who picked flowers on the sly. OTOH Fenris was a hater through and through. He never picked flowers. He was far more realistic as people like Fenris exist in real life. Just check the news on all the massacres happening in the world.
[quote]
2) Fun conversations with them at the camp. In DA2 you can't even engage conversation with them when you want.[/quote]
This was a bad feature of DAO conversation. You could talk all you want but if it was not time for a meaningful conversation, all you got back was a stock answer. In DA2 you were told through quests when it was time to have a meangful conversation which saved a lot of monotonous repetition. If you try to talk to a character in DA2 outside of when it was meaningful, you got the same stock reply as in DAO except that once in a while you would something unique like Merrill commenting on how it was stupid of her ancestors to bury people on top of a mountain. Overall the conversations were handled much better in DA2 in my opinion.
[quote]
5) You are not bound to merely one city and design of the areas is really well done. Like the werewolf lair. When you look up, you see a whole art behind it's design with the lighting, the plant, etc. In DA2 I feel like a sarcastic delivery boy in a prison city. Almost claustraphobic.[/quote]
You are not bound to Kirkwall either. There was Sundermount, Wounded Coast, etc. And unlike Denerim where you were restricted to a few small areas, you had a vast city to explore and was constantly finding alleyways and hidden places throughout the game as with a real large city.
7) Overall acting is better[/quote]
It is basically the same voice actors in both games and they did an equally good job in both games. Or are you implying that the people in DAO were so unprofessional that they phoned in their work in DA2?
[quote]8) Lack of voice of your character, makes an open interpretation of how your character's personality is.
[/quote]
This is subjective opinion. I found the lack of a voice annoying in DAO. While I would like to have chosen a voice for Hawke, I found the ones they used to be fine.
Harold
Why I think DA:O is better:
1) Interesting characters with credible emotions and problems. In DA2 they are rather boring and shallow.[/quote]
I found the opposite to be true. In DAO the characters were mainly stereotypes with stereotypical redeeming qualities. In DA2 they were real people. Sten was the stereotypical macho man who picked flowers on the sly. OTOH Fenris was a hater through and through. He never picked flowers. He was far more realistic as people like Fenris exist in real life. Just check the news on all the massacres happening in the world.
[quote]
2) Fun conversations with them at the camp. In DA2 you can't even engage conversation with them when you want.[/quote]
This was a bad feature of DAO conversation. You could talk all you want but if it was not time for a meaningful conversation, all you got back was a stock answer. In DA2 you were told through quests when it was time to have a meangful conversation which saved a lot of monotonous repetition. If you try to talk to a character in DA2 outside of when it was meaningful, you got the same stock reply as in DAO except that once in a while you would something unique like Merrill commenting on how it was stupid of her ancestors to bury people on top of a mountain. Overall the conversations were handled much better in DA2 in my opinion.
[quote]
5) You are not bound to merely one city and design of the areas is really well done. Like the werewolf lair. When you look up, you see a whole art behind it's design with the lighting, the plant, etc. In DA2 I feel like a sarcastic delivery boy in a prison city. Almost claustraphobic.[/quote]
You are not bound to Kirkwall either. There was Sundermount, Wounded Coast, etc. And unlike Denerim where you were restricted to a few small areas, you had a vast city to explore and was constantly finding alleyways and hidden places throughout the game as with a real large city.
7) Overall acting is better[/quote]
It is basically the same voice actors in both games and they did an equally good job in both games. Or are you implying that the people in DAO were so unprofessional that they phoned in their work in DA2?
[quote]8) Lack of voice of your character, makes an open interpretation of how your character's personality is.
[/quote]
This is subjective opinion. I found the lack of a voice annoying in DAO. While I would like to have chosen a voice for Hawke, I found the ones they used to be fine.
Harold
#31
Posté 15 avril 2011 - 07:37
icefox88
-
- Members
- 28 messages
Well this is just an update. I got the screenshot issue fixed and I'm currently in the middle of my mage playthroughs. (And I already have a a lot to post about as far as the differences go, especially playing as a mage.) I've decided to play origins on hard and normal for Dragon age 2 to balance out the difficulty. I'm taking pictures as I go along that I hope I can post to the actual form and not have to go through album to have people see them.
#32
Posté 15 avril 2011 - 07:47
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
It's hard to compare the games. I think Origins is better than DA2 but they're very different games. It's like comparing Halo: Reach to Mass Effect 2, there's similarities but the two are very different.
It feels like Origins was inspired by the RPGs of old and DA2 was inspired by Fable 2 and Alpha Protocol (but only with the framed narrative and click-able Protagonist dialogue around the house).
But I really can't compare the two games, despite them being a part of the same series. There's too much disconnect between them, in my mind.
I preferred Origins but DA2 is hardly a completed game. It's a rushed mess of bugs and glitches, where entire characters can be destroyed (Seb and Isabela's friendship bugs) and entire missions unplayable. So preferring the completed game is an easy choice.
It feels like Origins was inspired by the RPGs of old and DA2 was inspired by Fable 2 and Alpha Protocol (but only with the framed narrative and click-able Protagonist dialogue around the house).
But I really can't compare the two games, despite them being a part of the same series. There's too much disconnect between them, in my mind.
I preferred Origins but DA2 is hardly a completed game. It's a rushed mess of bugs and glitches, where entire characters can be destroyed (Seb and Isabela's friendship bugs) and entire missions unplayable. So preferring the completed game is an easy choice.
#33
Posté 15 avril 2011 - 08:03
NaclynE
-
- Members
- 1 083 messages
Well....Graphically 2 was better than one. i felt Isabella was better looking in 2 that origions. Things overall for 2 seemed ok but I do feel the maps were recycled to many times. Combat wise and a few other combat things went to 2 but my complaint is variety. I missed blizzard, the close range fire and I hated how they treed the bomb spell in 2 and changed or got rid of a few other random stuff. I felt 1 was a bit more friendly for mages but 2 was alot more friendly for the rouges and warriors. Engine wise 2 was a bit better and had me less confused. I thought the maps were more friendly in 2 than Oriions/Awakening. Subquests were a bit less problematic than Origions/Awakening. Characters I felt Origions/awakening was better. I felt the variety of main characters and playability was bettering in Origions/Awakening were your a elf/human/dwarf X (background) and Y (class). 2 Your stuck as male or female Hawke with the basic 'I am a survior of Lothering' story and that's it as a mage, warrior or rouge.
Overall 2 was fine but the thing that keeps me glued to Origions/Awakening is the variety and I feel like I am not playing the same game twice but am playing it almost infinitely. 2 I feel very limited since I'm Hawke and playing with 3 classes to me doesn't count as story variety.
Overall 2 was fine but the thing that keeps me glued to Origions/Awakening is the variety and I feel like I am not playing the same game twice but am playing it almost infinitely. 2 I feel very limited since I'm Hawke and playing with 3 classes to me doesn't count as story variety.
