254 réponses à ce sujet

[HeliusOD]

I like Me2 infact im playing it now, however I would say that Da2 is based off the same core design as ME2. Yes ME2 has its flaws but id take a completed game with a few flaws over a game that that was designed by someone with A.D.D. DA2 seems like nothing was completely thought out or finished.

[Sabriana]

If a port is well done, the origin of said port should not matter. I have friends who love their DA:O on the console, while I love it on PC. But then, I'm a mod addict, and consoles don't lend themselves to mods.

I liked ME very much. I am primarily an RPG fan, but I can take some shooting and/or action stuff. ME 2 never appealed to me, so I never purchased it. I'm not ready for it yet in any way, so I don't even want it for free.

It's simply a matter of personal taste, like I said, I can only take so much shooting/action/hybrids.That is not to say that I won't ever buy it. It depends a lot on ME 3. I'm keeping an eye on it, and if they are going back to the RPG aspects, I'll be definitely interested.

I love DA:O to pieces. It's been installed on my computer ever since I purchased it, and I'm still playing it. Yes, it definitely has its flaws, but many have been taken care of by the modding community. It's full of choices that make a difference. The end was never in question, Duncan was talking about the coming blight even in the prologue. But how my Warden got there, that was exciting and immersive.

DA 2 is not the worst game I've ever played. It's average. Nothing more. It's not worth the price I paid for it, not by a long shot. Is it the worst game ever? No, it's not. Is it the worst bioware game I, personally, and imo, played. Yes. Yes it is.

[Reinveil]

Sabriana wrote...
I liked ME very much. I am primarily an RPG fan, but I can take some shooting and/or action stuff. ME 2 never appealed to me, so I never purchased it. I'm not ready for it yet in any way, so I don't even want it for free.

Honestly, the game isn't quite as "shooter-centric" as some claim.  It still plays a lot like the first game, just stripped of some of the more time-consuming elements that didn't really work (the Mako, samey side-quests, etc).  That it's "mission-based" is honestly debatable - yes there are pre- and proceding screens that frame each quest and give them the illusion of being compartmentalized, but they play out as they would in ME1.

You'd really be missing out not to at least give it a chance.  I'm not a huge shooter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but ME2 was far and away the best game of 2010 for me and one my favorite Bioware games.  Tons of "water cooler moments".  Even the DLC (particularly Lair of the Shadow Broker) was fantastic.

Modifié par Reinveil, 22 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[blueruin]

ME2 was a lot of fun -- I've played through it twice on the PC, and I'll probably play through one more time before I get ME3. At first, I was disappointed that I couldn't customize gear to the extent I could in ME1, but I got over that pretty quickly since the rest of the game was so polished and the new loot/inventory system did make sense (such as selecting your weapons before each mission rather than carrying around 100 different rifles around with you wherever you go). Combat was a lot of fun, cutscenes were cinematic quality, and dialogue was well written -- nothing felt repetitive or like useless filler.

I played through Dragon Age 2 one time, then I returned it to Amazon for a full price refund. The repetitive re-use of areas irritated me even more than the side missions in the first Mass Effect. Combat was incredibly boring -- Laidlaw's suggestion was to play it on hard, but it felt so tedious to me that halfway through the game I switched it to casual just so I could finish the story. When enemies die, it looks like they're disintegrating into cranberry juice and mannequin parts. I actually laughed the first time I saw it, but it didn't stay funny for very long. Even though there was a good dose of humor, much of the dialogue and characterization felt hollow, and without the depth I was accustomed to seeing in Bioware games. The cameos felt forced and almost cringe-worthy. The inventory system feels half-developed. Rings and amulets with no unique names, tons of pointless trash loot with no apparent use or value, tons of armor you can't use and can't pass on to your companions. With a couple of exceptions (Qunari), I also find the art direction of DA2 horribly inferior to that of the first game. The hurlock redesign baffles me. So much else, from low-res ghost people with no collision detection to pointless filler item retrieval quests you never knew you had (the Chanter's Board etc. quests from DA:O were significantly more varied and well thought out)...

If Laidlaw is really intent on making Dragon Age into a series of action games, then fine -- but make a good one. DA2 didn't have anywhere close to the polish ME2 had, and didn't look or play well enough for me to overlook all of the ridiculous flaws.

ME2 is a really strong cover shooter with great RPG elements. DA2 feels like a poorly conceptualized and half-developed game rushed out the door with an identity crisis. It felt indefensible on so many levels. Either the people who love it have expectations that are just too low when it comes to video games they spend $60 on, or my expectations are simply too high.

I guess in the end, I should have known better than to get excited about DA2. All the warning signs were there, from the short development cycle to the absolutely ridiculous and over-the-top marketing campaign that felt like it was overcompensating for something.

[Sabriana]

Reinveil wrote...

Sabriana wrote...
I liked ME very much. I am primarily an RPG fan, but I can take some shooting and/or action stuff. ME 2 never appealed to me, so I never purchased it. I'm not ready for it yet in any way, so I don't even want it for free.

Honestly, the game isn't quite as "shooter-centric" as some claim.  It still plays a lot like the first game, just stripped of some of the more time-consuming elements that didn't really work (the Mako, samey side-quests, etc).  That it's "mission-based" is honestly debatable - yes there are pre- and proceding screens that frame each quest and give them the illusion of being compartmentalized, but they play out as they would in ME1.

You'd really be missing out not to at least give it a chance.  I'm not a huge shooter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but ME2 was far away the best game of 2010 for me and one my favorite Bioware games.  Tons of "water cooler moments".  Even the DLC (particularly Lair of the Shadow Broker) was fantastic.

Oh I am definitely not counting it out, and I admit, I've only watched a play-through on YouTube and one that a friend did. It looked very "shooterish", but that might simply be because I was watching for it. Old (RPGer) habits die hard, I guess.

Right now I'm watching the development and talk centering on ME 3. If it's really bad (RPG-wise), I'll pass for now. But I will eventually try it. I'll also try ME 2 pretty soon, specially now that ME 2 has gone down in price. Yes, I know it's offered for free, but I will not allow the EADM on my machine. I'm rather shell-shocked when it comes to DRM at the moment.

And I agree on the Mako. Boy, that thing annoyed me to no end.

[1varangian]

ME2 is a great solid shooter/rpg. Enjoyed every moment of it.

DA2 is a horrible wannabe action game.

ME2 is also more mature and the game world more believable than the juvenile cartoon world of DA2.

[Addai]

I enjoyed DA2 about as much as ME2, but that in itself is a disappointment since I care a lot more about the DA world. Both ME2 and DA2 were fun but don't have much roleplay or replay value, and I find the protagonist forgettable. ME2 is a much more polished, quality game, however. DA2 is always going to suffer by being compared to it.

[JaegerBane]

blueruin wrote...
ME2 is a really strong cover shooter with great RPG elements. DA2 feels like a poorly conceptualized and half-developed game rushed out the door with an identity crisis. It felt indefensible on so many levels. Either the people who love it have expectations that are just too low when it comes to video games they spend $60 on, or my expectations are simply too high.

Summed up perfectly. For everything that ME2 did wrong, it did another 20 things right. It's a testament to what can happen when a great developer starts with a strong idea and uses the sum total of its talent to make it. DA2 was so much less on so many levels, as if the developers didn't have a clear idea of who they were aiming the game at or what they were trying to create.

[poofighter77]

I was disappointed by both DAII and ME2.  Very disappointed.  Part of it is that ME and DA were fresh when they came out-- and there was a lot of lore and background and universe to explore.  The sequels didn't much expand on that, and it was very transparent that the games were designed around time sinks of missions instead of advancing the story.

[JaegerBane]

poofighter77 wrote...

I was disappointed by both DAII and ME2.  Very disappointed.  Part of it is that ME and DA were fresh when they came out-- and there was a lot of lore and background and universe to explore.  The sequels didn't much expand on that, and it was very transparent that the games were designed around time sinks of missions instead of advancing the story.

You can accuse ME2 of many things, but I'm not sure it's valid to claim that ME2 didn't expand the initial lore that much. We learned an enormous amount about the ME world though ME2. In comparison, DA2 barely dealt with any material that wasn't done to death in the first game.

[Statulos]

JaegerBane wrote...

poofighter77 wrote...

I was disappointed by both DAII and ME2.  Very disappointed.  Part of it is that ME and DA were fresh when they came out-- and there was a lot of lore and background and universe to explore.  The sequels didn't much expand on that, and it was very transparent that the games were designed around time sinks of missions instead of advancing the story.

You can accuse ME2 of many things, but I'm not sure it's valid to claim that ME2 didn't expand the initial lore that much. We learned an enormous amount about the ME world though ME2. In comparison, DA2 barely dealt with any material that wasn't done to death in the first game.

Let´s compare for a second both games so you can prove your point better:

In Mass Effect 2 we get extra lore about:
-The Geth-Quarian relationship.
-The Reapers.
-Cerberus.
-Historical events such as the Skyllian Blitz.
-Krogan and the genophage.
-Events on Earth.

In DA2 we get expanded lore about:
-Kirkwall.
-The Qunari.
-Organizations and institutions (The Seekers, Felicisima Armada...)
-Dwarf pre-history.

The problem in DA2, especially with my last two remarks is that said lore is very, very poorly fleshed out. I´m not saying Bioware didn´t have that lore prepared, simply they do not present it in an appropriate way.

[JaegerBane]

Statulos wrote...
In DA2 we get expanded lore about:
-Kirkwall.
-The Qunari.
-Organizations and institutions (The Seekers, Felicisima Armada...)
-Dwarf pre-history.

The problem in DA2, especially with my last two remarks is that said lore is very, very poorly fleshed out. I´m not saying Bioware didn´t have that lore prepared, simply they do not present it in an appropriate way.

I'm not so sure. We do get an awful lot of info about Kirkwall but it's largely generic - a former tevinter city that fell to slave rebellion during the retreat of tevinter back to their centre. It's not really radically different to much of the kind of lore seen in DA2. We get very little real lore about the Qunari beyond what we heard in DA:O - at the end of the day we don't learn much more than what we're told in DA:O. Most of the extra stuff is simply seeing lore in action, such as how they treat their mages and induct new members into the Qun.... but it's stuff we'd heard before.

Even the main storyline primarily concerns itself with a subject that was done to death in DA:O.

[Reinveil]

JaegerBane wrote...

Even the main storyline primarily concerns itself with a subject that was done to death in DA:O.

The Lord of the Rings: Man These People are Racist

[Kilshrek]

Reinveil wrote...

The Lord of the Rings: Man These People are Racist

That one went right over my head, mind lowering the bar so I can understand what you just said?

[MassEffect762]

Lets see...

ME2, did not really enjoy, would give 7.8/10.  Poor story.  Poor "RPG" elements.(imo ofcourse)


The way I see it these are the things that have suffered across the board since EA entered the scene.

-Story development/execution/presentation and mood.

-"RPG" elements. Cut corners to save money, I don't buy the whole "streamlined" improvement line. It's EA taking care of buisness imo.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 23 avril 2011 - 02:12 .

[Tommy6860]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Lets see...

ME2, did not really enjoy, would give 7.8/10.  Poor story.  Poor "RPG" elements.(imo ofcourse)


The way I see it these are the things that have suffered across the board since EA entered the scene.

-Story development/execution/presentation and mood.

-"RPG" elements. Cut corners to save money, I don't buy the whole "streamlined" improvement line. It's EA taking care of buisness imo.

Well said, and succinctly at that. You can experience the huge difference between ME and ME2 in gameplay and style, especially concerning RPG elements, as ME (as was Origins was well into its deevelopment stage) was before the EA acquisition of Bioware. The rest of the games after the fact is obvious to the style that isn't the Bioware I grew to love before ME2. having said that, I really did enjoy ME2 though since it at least followed the premise of ME. I cannot say that regarding Origins to DA2.

[PretentiousCat]

Turnip Root wrote...

Did you like Mass Effect 2?

Reason I'm asking is because Mass Effect 2 is widely seen as a console centric game and that's fine.  Mass Effect has it's origins on consoles anyhow.
Dragon Age:Origins however was originally developed as a PC title and then ported over to consoles so I can understand why some PC fans of Dragon Age:Origins may have been slightly upset with the changes.

So I want to know if your dislike of Dragon Age II has more to do with the actual quality of the game, or your disappointment over the game not catering to the platform you enjoy the most.

I played ME2 from the freebie deal. I didn't like it that much. It was okay as a shooter but nothing mind blowing.

My disappointment was that, well, when I start really getting into a game I like I get goosebumps. DA:O really did it for me.

DA2, left me wanting. Wanting a lot in fact. Some new dungeons would have been nice.

[taine]

ME2 and DA2 are not in any way analogous. ME2 knew what it wanted to be, and set out and executed its design about as well as it possibly could have. DA2 is stuck halfway between an action RPG and a classic RPG, not going far enough in either direction to be a great entry into either genre, borrowing piecemeal aspects from both. 

Modifié par taine, 23 avril 2011 - 05:46 .

[Harcken]

I liked Mass Effect 2 because it was what I expected of it. It was an epic space opera with deep companion quests, lots of political conflicts and a general feeling of awesomeness and scope.

I expect Dragon Age games in general to be my CRPG fix, and to be like Dragon Age: Origins. I guess Bioware disagrees :/.

[Hulk Hsieh]

I have no trouble with the design direction of DA2. The problem is lacking production value.
ME2, while a shorter game, has more production value than DAO.

[snfonseka]

We can't forget about poor story in DA2.

[DraCZeQQ]

I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 ... but that doesn't mean i wanna Dragon Effect :F

[randName]

DA:O and ME2 are two of my favourite titles from BioWare were as only NWN OC is worse in my opinion than DA2 (Outside Sonic and MDK2 that I never played).

I also enjoyed Jade Empire for example, and have no problems with console titles.

And my biggest gripe with DA2 are not the mechanical changes of the game, but the story (Well outside pacing everything up to the end of act 2 was fine, it's mostly the horrible end that I really dislike), the retcons, the lack of immersion, things like that Kirkwall is supposed to be bustling and crowded, and you are supposed to live there for 7 years, yet it's not crowded at all, and nothing changes.

It got more linear than ever, and nothing you do ever matters, and what you was able to do in DA:O is not diminished as they nullified your acts of DA:O.

And it's simply a subpar game as for quality (save the voice acting and most of the dialogue, something I did like with DA2).

Modifié par randName, 23 avril 2011 - 11:53 .

[CitizenSnips]

I love Mass Effect 2.

I'm not thrilled about Dragon Age 2.

I'm also gonna add that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are two of my favorite games. This is just to show that I feel that a great game can come in many shapes or sizes. Dragon Age 2 fails all on its own in many ways, but not because it may have been designed more for consoles.

[nightscrawl]

Persephone wrote...

zeejay21 wrote...

Not game quality but rather game structure. It's very complex whereas ME and DA:O was simple:-

Save the universe from hungry, angry alien forces - ME series

Save a nation from an evil invasion - DA:O

Rise to power with tragedy, complex relationships and controversial events - DA2


People like simplicity, not complexity. DA2 isn't for most people.

Ouch, ouch!

I dunno if I would reduce it all down to something as simple as that. Each game has its merits and its flaws.

I don't know... I've always gotten the impression that Hawke was just dragged along for the ride in most cases. There is no "saving the universe," or "saving a nation," in DA2. You have to choose between two morally ambiguous options, neither of which "save" anything. In each scenario there is mass destruction, loss of life, and society as a whole in several nations is changed forever.

Perhaps that is what some people can't deal with.