157 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...
 If he really cared about his family, then why not get the **** out of Kirkwall and back into Ferelden?

Why didn't  he invite his uncle to come live with him, at least after the death of Leandra?
Now taht he's rich, he can ignore his uncle who gave them shelter for a year and act like a spoiled brat?

Because the uncle has some pride and doesn't want to be supported by his nephew/niece?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Herr Uhl wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...
 If he really cared about his family, then why not get the **** out of Kirkwall and back into Ferelden?

Why didn't  he invite his uncle to come live with him, at least after the death of Leandra?
Now taht he's rich, he can ignore his uncle who gave them shelter for a year and act like a spoiled brat?

Because the uncle has some pride and doesn't want to be supported by his nephew/niece?

Then they should have given us a convo where Hawke is trying to convince Gamlen and he says no. Not make it look like Hawke didn't even try.

[Morroian]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why didn't  he invite his uncle to come live with him, at least after the death of Leandra?
Now taht he's rich, he can ignore his uncle who gave them shelter for a year and act like a spoiled brat?

How do you know he didn't? I would have thought he did especially when Leandra was alive we just didn't see it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morroian wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why didn't  he invite his uncle to come live with him, at least after the death of Leandra?
Now taht he's rich, he can ignore his uncle who gave them shelter for a year and act like a spoiled brat?

How do you know he didn't? I would have thought he did especially when Leandra was alive we just didn't see it.

If the game is trying to make family relations its main thing, then they should show us.

[Morroian]

Melca36 wrote...

Where do people get the idea that Hawke was supposed to be "normal"? 

I said more normal not entirely normal. 

Brockololly wrote...

Normal in the sense that you're not somebody thats been inducted into a secret/ancient/long forgotten/elite group of warriors/jedi/special ops people that are tasked with saving the world.

Well yes.

Modifié par Morroian, 08 mai 2011 - 11:11 .

[Foolsfolly]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Instead of criticizing all the time (despite how therapeutic it is), I just thought of something that might have made the game better.

I could find the premise of Hawke's story not being about a rise to power, but of trying to guide a family in troubling times, to be interesting. While DA2 was for the most part better than Origins when it came to family (imo at least), I still did not feel it was strong enough to compensate for the general weakness of the plot.

One thing I think would have made it better is not have one of the siblings arbitrarily die, and have both. But both end up having completely opposite views, with Carver joining the Templars and Bethany joining the Circle. And relations fall apart and Hawke would be right in the thick of it, trying to mend family relations. Thing get even worse when Leandra dies and the family is falling apart, despite of Hawke's best efforts, or indeed because of them (think of it like Michael Corleone from Godfather. Is it fair to compare the two? Lol nope, but I am trying to convey a point).

That imo, would have made it much more interesting. To have Hawke trying his best to keep his family together, and it's not working out due to external circumstances.That's excellent tragedy material.

Agreed, KoP. Agreed.

[Aradace]

*watches quietly and laughs to himself*

[stobie]

I felt that my Warden was absolutely great, through Ostagar, & early in Origins. She was unique, people reacted to her based on her race, history, role, etc. By the end, she was 'the warden,' with almost no recognition of her as an individual. Hawke has an evolving personality based on my dialogue choices, which grows & continues throughout the game.

I prefer the Origins set up, the beginning, the variations, yes, but Hawke's story seems a lot richer, & I tend to think of Hawke as an actual character, rather than just a 'my view' character. I also find the relationships in DA2 much more believable, despite what I see people saying here.

As for game play, the fighting is far better here. The recycled settings are painful, true, and I hope they do more in the next installment.

[bstrothe]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
One thing I think would have made it better is not have one of the siblings arbitrarily die, and have both. But both end up having completely opposite views, with Carver joining the Templars and Bethany joining the Circle. And relations fall apart and Hawke would be right in the thick of it, trying to mend family relations. Thing get even worse when Leandra dies and the family is falling apart, despite of Hawke's best efforts, or indeed because of them (think of it like Michael Corleone from Godfather. Is it fair to compare the two? Lol nope, but I am trying to convey a point).

That imo, would have made it much more interesting. To have Hawke trying his best to keep his family together, and it's not working out due to external circumstances.That's excellent tragedy material.

Now that would have been a tough choice for the player to make, and it's a shame Bioware missed that chance.

[1483749283]

I think there are two types of people. Those who think that the mute Warden makes for more immersive play, and those who think voiced Hawke/Shepard is more immersive. I was happy with the former but after having a voiced PC, would not want to go back to the mute Warden. I can't tell you the number of times I wished my warden would just REACT verbally to some outrage.

[TerraMantis]

The largest drawback of Dragon Age II, for me, was the battle scenarios. Not so much the combat mechanics, but the actual battles. I really liked the new combat system of cross-class effects like; Brittle, Stagger, and Disorient. They made your skill-tree abilities feel paramount and encouraged "cross teammate skill interactions". Which enhanced the combat experience.

On the other hand, the lamest horse was the one that goes hand-in-hand with combat, Battle Scenarios. The battle situations felt regurgitated. The battles seemed unchanging throughout the entire game. I never felt intellectually challenged throughout. The fights seemed to always fit a "formula" and contained many archers and melee pawns. Enemies would "pop-out" of nowhere making fights seem tactically childish. Team placement was meaningless. Between the "formula" and the "pop-outs" battle's situations seemed as though their mechanics were extremely oversimplified. It felt like no one actually sat down and really thought of unique and interesting combat scenarios. In combination with the reuse of maps it also made them pathetic. This is because you began to know every nook and cranny of each map from going there repeatedly and you know exactly where each and every "ambush" will take place. The pitiful "ambush" is used so often in the game that it is not an ambush...and ambush is only an ambush if it doesn't happen 95% of every enemy encounter. The game seemed to have basically one single battle mechanic which was throwing additional enemies at you, "adds". More than often, adds would be thrown at you which was a sorry excuse for a mechanic in every situation. Really the only boss in the game that had a interesting battle mechanic was the stone giant in the Deep Roads. His mechanic involved two different forms with different fighting styles and his "power blast" required you to position your team behind pillars to protect you from the power blast. Although, even this fight had "adds" that would come out during certain health percentage intervals. What was the Arishok surrounded by? What happened when you fought Meredith and the Mature High Dragon that gave you your "Champion armor chest" piece? Oh that's right, adds came during health percentage intervals. I almost forgot, what was that never before used battle mechanic in DA2 when you fought first enchanter Orsino? Where are the fights that take some trial and error...or intellect? With these combat mechanics you could easily run a boss around in circles to bide time and slowdown your aggro. I want an actual challenge...intellectually. Not "Dynasty Warriors" with skill trees.

The battle scenarios need to be stimulating even for "non-boss" pulls (trash pulls). Sure it doesn't need to be much different than it was for normal, but the other difficulties should have introduced unique battle mechanics. The difference between Normal, Hard, and Nightmare shouldn't just be the weak implementation of...you guessed it, more adds with more HP. On hard there will be more adds than normal and on nightmare there will be MORE ADDS than HARD MUAAAA HAHAHAHAHA. Great brainstorming. What i am getting at is, even these trash pulls should have intellectual mechanics and thought thrown into their development. The difference between Normal and hard shouldn't be just more guys, it should be a special battle mechanic. Maybe a single new special enemy among the group. That if not killed first and if you kill the other peons first the special enemy will actually absorb their souls and enrage it making it next-to-impossible to kill. Perhaps vice-versa that situation. Wherein, you need to kill the special enemy last or when he dies he explodes and hits the remaining enemies with his blood which enhances their strengths. A real game about tactics and battle situations...not just throwing more adds and trash at the player and slapping a battle mechanics sticker on it.

Before any of you start to say "well DA2 was WAY harder on Nightmare than DA:O" you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

The way Dragon Age II's battle scenarios where made the game feel like it was nothing more than a childish Dynasty Warrior's game with deeper RPG elements. Should have said "no brain required" on the box.

Lastly i think that the "click on your enemy from far away and close the gap as melee" is a bad addition to the combat. I do really like it aesthetically, but the ability to "close the gap" should be just that, an ability skill. Your travel time to the enemy, as a melee character, is part of mechanic. If you don't want it to take so long to get to your enemy...use a range attack and take distance out of the equation then.

I think BioWare seriously misjudged why the fans loved DA: O so much. They really spent a lot of time on the aesthetics of the game to make it more...prettier...er. It almost feels like a slap in the face that they thought we were so shallow. I want a beautiful challenge through intellect, not a sexy shell that is only skin deep.

Modifié par TerraMantis, 09 mai 2011 - 06:21 .

[1483749283]

TerraMantis, wouldn't you agree though that by comparison there was 0 challenge whatsoever in the DAO fights? I mean I agree with your critique and all, but I at least found the adds quite the added challenge... and no matter how often they happened, they kept on surprising me and catching me off guard.

By comparison, all DAO encounters were a complete joke... I think despite its shortcomings the add system offers a tactical challenge improvement over DAO.

Now let us not delve into the world of BG2. We shall never see ever-spiraling spell protection cold wars like that again (I'm speaking of spell strike/shield etc.)

Modifié par Pausanias, 09 mai 2011 - 06:15 .

[TerraMantis]

@Pausanias

I agree and disagree. DA:O's trash was, yes, not challenging whatsoever once you got your team build the way you wanted it, even on nightmare. BUT, the game had a multitude of different battle situations. I remember going into one of the city ally ways and there were like 6 archers on each side of the opening and melee guys in the front lines. This may sound like exactly what i am saying i hated about DA2, but this almost never happened again in the entire game and was fairly difficult to overcome. Even the "trash" seemed to have situationally unique instances. This is only speaking of "trash" encounters.

The bosses in DA:O had a great difference in mechanics. I seriously can't think of one, besides the broodmother, that the only mechanic was to throw more meat at you to swing at. The electricity dragon was awesome. It would disperse from its main dragon-form to several electric balls that would slowly converge to the middle of the room and you had to try and destroy them all before they reached the middle or there would be a massive energy explosion. Also, the "super" Desire Demon that would grab a random member and hold them up and suck the life force from them and replenish its own HP. The list goes on, fire Golem from awakening, High dragons, Gaxkang, etc. Even adventure games like Zelda have bosses that require you to possibly die a few times because you didn't figure out the correct mechanic by the time your HP had gotten too low. Especially in a game where they're priding themselves on old group-control-style turnbased RPG with BioWare's usual interactive chess-like gameplay it should be of the utmost importance. I beat Castle Crashers the other day and i found my self asking "what exactly do i need to do in this fight?" ten times more often than i ever did in DA2. Demon's Souls...don't even get me started. You have to figure out how to just get to the boss let alone trying to figure out how to kill it when you get there. I want a challenge...throwing more adds at someone is nothing, any rookie gaming company could have come up with that mechanic and if i wanted to button mash and kill many enemies mindlessly i WOULD just play a Dynasty Warriors game.

So, my answer is yes and no. Trash was just as easy and mindless in DA:O (eventually), but the bosses had much greater variety and mechanics to overcome and think through.

Modifié par TerraMantis, 09 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Realmzmaster]

bstrothe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
One thing I think would have made it better is not have one of the siblings arbitrarily die, and have both. But both end up having completely opposite views, with Carver joining the Templars and Bethany joining the Circle. And relations fall apart and Hawke would be right in the thick of it, trying to mend family relations. Thing get even worse when Leandra dies and the family is falling apart, despite of Hawke's best efforts, or indeed because of them (think of it like Michael Corleone from Godfather. Is it fair to compare the two? Lol nope, but I am trying to convey a point).

That imo, would have made it much more interesting. To have Hawke trying his best to keep his family together, and it's not working out due to external circumstances.That's excellent tragedy material.

Now that would have been a tough choice for the player to make, and it's a shame Bioware missed that chance.

This assumes you take neither to the Deep Roads otherwise one dies or becomes a Grey Warden. The other point is if both were still alive Carver may never become a templar because he would stay to protect Bethany from the templars. Without Bethany in the picture he can rage at Hawke and become a templar. Or as a templar he may become another Thrask protecting his sister. Or he could be a complete ass and turn his sister in and make her come to the Circle. Which of course would destroy their mother. There are possibilities. But in all likihood he would protect his sister.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
One thing I think would have made it better is not have one of the siblings arbitrarily die, and have both. But both end up having completely opposite views, with Carver joining the Templars and Bethany joining the Circle. And relations fall apart and Hawke would be right in the thick of it, trying to mend family relations. Thing get even worse when Leandra dies and the family is falling apart, despite of Hawke's best efforts, or indeed because of them (think of it like Michael Corleone from Godfather. Is it fair to compare the two? Lol nope, but I am trying to convey a point).

That imo, would have made it much more interesting. To have Hawke trying his best to keep his family together, and it's not working out due to external circumstances.That's excellent tragedy material.

Now that would have been a tough choice for the player to make, and it's a shame Bioware missed that chance.

This assumes you take neither to the Deep Roads otherwise one dies or becomes a Grey Warden. The other point is if both were still alive Carver may never become a templar because he would stay to protect Bethany from the templars. Without Bethany in the picture he can rage at Hawke and become a templar. Or as a templar he may become another Thrask protecting his sister. Or he could be a complete ass and turn his sister in and make her come to the Circle. Which of course would destroy their mother. There are possibilities. But in all likihood he would protect his sister.

Them going to the deep roads could be scrapped, with Carver and Bethany both wanting to stay to protect their mother.

While Hawke is in the deep roads, Templars find Bethany and take her to the circle. Carver, with the intention of looking out for his sister, joins the Templars, but slowly starts to see their vision of things and eventually become a real Templars, totally committed to what he is doing. This might be accelerated by Hawke telling him not to and Carver doing the opposite out of jealousy. Bethany on the otherhand acquires a greater hatred towards the Templars.

Both end up polarized and on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Hawke is left in the middle and can lean to either, or none.

[Night Prowler76]

Melca36 wrote...

Siradix wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

bstrothe wrote...

I was replaying DA:O after DA2, and it is difficult to imagine how the same wonderful and talented people could be working on both projects. DA:O is such a richer game, where as a player I really feel that same feeling as from Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter of being a hero and making the story my own, but DA2 just feels like another console hack and slash.

I found this video about DA:O, particularly Greg Zeschuk at 3:28, ironic since the revivial that he speak of seemed so short-lived. As a sequel, I can say I did enjoy DA2, but not nearly as much as the deep, challenging, and multi-layered old-school RPG feel of DA:O.

I guess I am posting this to share my hope that any future projects in the Dragon Age world are a return to the fantastic level of Origins. There were too many things in the sequel that broke things that did not need fixing. The more you make a streamlined, copy/pasted action game the less you will attract the sort of dedication and excitement that the great legacy of Bioware games are known for.

I put in DA:O after DA2, and couldn't make it past Ostagar.  I totally understand where you are coming from, but please also try to understand that I'm an RPG fan too, and I don't agree with you.  I don't want a return to Origins.  DA2 is far from perfect, but so was DA:O.  If Bioware makes a clone of Origins, how is that any different from the Call of Honor Medal of Duty games? 

And what makes it so hard to get past Ostagar?

I think it all goes down to laziness and people wanting things handed to them. 

+1  People like the idea of an in depth RPG, but when it comes to learning the controls and gameplay they can't handle it, kind of sad.

[Faroth]

Maybe the most enjoyable combat for me in DA2 is the boss fight! They are the REAL challenges and the most difficult bosses that i've ever encountered. Combat with bosses makes me feel chilling but very addicted. If there exist some boss like those in DA:O, imagine how fascinating it is!!! This is the advantage in DA2 in comparison with its precedessor.

Eh? What?
I played Hawke as a 2 handed warrior. I started with 3 basic special attacks and ended the game with 3 basic special attacks. Overhead smash to explode an enemy. Charge to explode through more enemies. And a cleaving sweep that hit multiple enemies and knocked them back. Once stamina drained, I either chugged potions or did endless button mashing. Mostly button mashing...nonstop.

The only boss fights I remember are thus:

Arishok: Gave a few commands to kill casters first. Ignored everything else, button mashed or special exploded the adds while Varric ran away from Arishok. Focused everyone on him at the end. Dead.

Orsino: Kite him while companions whittle him down, kill adds, kite him while companions whittle him down, kill adds. Then for some reason in the last "phase" Orsino focused his attacks on Sebastian, who wasn't in my party and was therefore apparently invincible. I button mashed attack for a good 15 minutes until he died.

Meredith: Button mash button mash button mash, special. Repeat until adds arrive. Kill adds, resume first strategy on Meredith.

Stone Golem in Deep Roads. This one took a bit, but all in all it came down to attack a few times, tell Anders when to heal and kill adds.

None of the combat was anything more than button mashing. I told Anders to stop using his sustained abilities all the time and otherwise never touched the tactics for a single companion. I played Origins on normal and DA2 on normal and DA2 was simplified to the point of mind numbingly ridiculous. Combat was a complete joke.

I much preferred luring enemies into an ambush, drawing them down hallways or through doors. Scouting ahead. Traps actually playing a part of the terrain. Environment adding to the explosion of your fireballs. Sure, Origins was a bit slower on combat and could stand to speed up a little, have some improvements and tweaking, but DA2 is straigh hack and slash, without question it is NOT a spiritual successor to Balder's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.  I can enjoy a good hack and slash, but the total abandoning of strategy just doesn't seem like this is continuing a franchise so much as relaunching it in a totally different direction.

I need to play a rogue in DA2, but the warrior makes me skeptical. My Warden rogue abandoned certain combat abilities because I got so many and later ones were just cooler looking or more effective. In DA2, I finished the game with the same abilities I pretty much started with. :/

I didn't think Normal was a walk in the park on Origins, but far easier on DA2. No though required. Apparently some think anything less than Hard is a joke on both, so perhaps I should be trying it on Hard.

I never used AoE abilities on Normal Origins, though...I thought Normal had friendly fire and I didn't trust my companions to avoid cooking me.

IanPolaris has it right.
Origins was a nod to the old style cRPGs and that's what the market is sorely missing. DA2 is not the same breath of fresh air. It's Final Fantasy story presentation with Kingdom Hearts gameplay (not ragging on either of those, it's just not the same style as BG and NWN)

Or as one article put it, DA2 attempts to draw in an audience that didn't connect with Origins and risks alienating the audience that did.

I would never want Bioware to go back to the Origins system, just as I would never want Square Enix to go back to turn-based battles after Final Fantasy XIII. Some things are better left in the past.

I like 4, 6, and Chrono Trigger better than the new single player MMO-style Final Fantasy games.

Regarding "Hawke's actions lead to a major change in the world"

No they don't.  Hawke is completely irrelevant in anything that affects the world at large.  That credit goes to Anders.  Famour or infamous, he's the one that belongs in the history books as the catalyst for change.  Hawke is a footnote in comparison.

Looking back, I actually have come to realize I wish DA2 had less adventuring plotlines and more political intrigue.  Think of your Warden having to say the right things for the right outcome at the Landsmeet.  Now think of having more of that involved in Hawke's rise to a prominent position and actually affect ongoing situations through the game, another family trying to halt your rise.

And like others said, abandoned plot points.  Anders claiming to try and separate from Justice and then....just abandoned until "no, I was lying" is revealed.  At least follow that plot thread to Anders faking the ritual.

Modifié par Faroth, 09 mai 2011 - 05:49 .

[1483749283]

Faroth wrote...


I didn't think Normal was a walk in the park on Origins, but far easier on DA2. No though required. Apparently some think anything less than Hard is a joke on both, so perhaps I should be trying it on Hard.

DA2 Hard was very hard. I've played all the Bioware games on Hard (not nightmare) and DA2's Hard was way harder than any other Hard mode Bioware has ever made. By contrast, DA2's normal was way easier than DAO normal. There was a missing difficulty step between normal and hard in DA2.

Try the boss fights in DA2 on Hard or Nightmare... anyone who say's they're not the most difficult combat scenarios Bioware has made is lying. (I didn't say creative, I said difficult).

Or as one article put it, DA2 attempts to draw in an audience that didn't connect with Origins and risks alienating the audience that did.

I guess those of us who enjoy both types of game won out, then? I would even hazard a guess that the majority of players fall into that category (enjoyed both DAO and DA2 for different reasons and would not change either one for the other). They're just not as vocal as the dissatisfied parties.

No they don't.  Hawke is completely irrelevant in anything that affects the world at large.  That credit goes to Anders.  Famour or infamous, he's the one that belongs in the history books as the catalyst for change.  Hawke is a footnote in comparison.

Hawke's not irrelevant. The choices presented to the player are largely irrelevant within DA2 (as the ending is the same no matter what), but Kirkwall would be likely be utterly destroyed without him, so he is very relevant within the story (and the choices may play a role later on).

Modifié par Pausanias, 09 mai 2011 - 06:55 .

[Foolsfolly]

@ TerraMantis:

On the other hand, the lamest horse was the one that goes hand-in-hand with combat, Battle Scenarios. The battle situations felt regurgitated. The battles seemed unchanging throughout the entire game. I never felt intellectually challenged throughout. The fights seemed to always fit a "formula" and contained many archers and melee pawns. Enemies would "pop-out" of nowhere making fights seem tactically childish.

The pop-outs aren't exactly anti-tactical, they're completely anti-strategic. Tactics adapt to the battlefield whereas strategy is what you go into a battle planned. That said the pop-in enemies could be done better. If they ran at you from another side and you swung your front-line fighters to intercept them then it's tactical. Having ninjas fall right next to your squishy mages and archers isn't tactical. It's just cheap.

But I do agree. The combat's main problem isn't the speed or any other change they did. It's that the fights are the same, with the same enemies over and over and over again. And because of that once you know the tricks (AoE mages and assassins take priority, then button mash until the waves stop) then the evolution of tactics and any depth are removed completely.

Smarter enemies, enemy group tactics, variety in enemies and their abilities would all have greatly helped add depth to the new system. But since none of that's there people attack the combat system and not the lack of depth in your standard DA2 battle.

Really the only boss in the game that had a interesting battle mechanic was the stone giant in the Deep Roads.

Every fight should have been as good and better than that one. That's the best boss battle in the game. The worst is either the High Dragon and its endless spawns or the Arishok and the endless kiting. I don't know which is worse, both are terrible combat mechanics.

Even adventure games like Zelda have bosses that require you to possibly die a few times because you didn't figure out the correct mechanic by the time your HP had gotten too low.

The Zelda boss fights are fun when you know their tricks. They're super aggravating beforehand. I believe in the Valve method of dying. Should the character die and scream, "That's ****ing cheap!" Then the death is cheap. If the player died with a smile on their face or at least learning something important, then it's a success.

Other than the Rock Wraith I can't think of a time a death in DA2 taught me anything. Most times it was just being overwhelmed by enemies and having those ****ing assassins backstab me to death.

And I certainly never smiled or laughed because of a death.

None of the combat was anything more than button mashing. I told Anders to stop using his sustained abilities all the time and otherwise never touched the tactics for a single companion.

You should. Anders is wonderfully glitched. His Panacea skill line, with Aid Allies and Regroup are supposed to have that terrible sustainable on to be able to use. But if you tactic him to use them he'll use them without the sustainable on. Which means he gets to attack with offensive spells AND have more than 20 mana to cast with.

I hate that sustainable.

It was like the Dev team thought, "Spirit Healer was great. Everyone loved having at least one Spirit Healer with them. So lets give the player one dedicated healer with no choice and then make one of the best Spirit Healer spells a potion (Lifeward) and make the other two worthwhile spells require a completely detrimental sustainable to be active to use!" (Group Heal/Aid Allies and Revival/Regroup).

Sure Mage Hawke can be a Spirit Healer but I'm not going to play Support as a main character, dammit! It's the principle of the thing!

[tsunderes]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...



5. Puzzle solving is all but completely gone. I know the Fade was hugely unpopular but I loved it. Same could be said for the Andraste bridge. But still, to go from that to two puzzles that look like the remedial version of the Hanoi Towers? I could not have been the only one who liked reading about the elven ritual and then acting it out to unlock the door to the burial chamber.

Puzzles are one of my FAVORITE aspects of RPGs. The sacred ashes quest is in my top 3 quests because of all the puzzle and riddle solving. It's one of the reasons I love games like Silent Hill. Solving a puzzle feels much more rewarding and fun to me than winning a duel against the Airoshock.

[Faroth]

Pausanias wrote...

DA2 Hard was very hard. I've played all the Bioware games on Hard (not nightmare) and DA2's Hard was way harder than any other Hard mode Bioware has ever made. By contrast, DA2's normal was way easier than DAO normal. There was a missing difficulty step between normal and hard in DA2.

Try the boss fights in DA2 on Hard or Nightmare... anyone who say's they're not the most difficult combat scenarios Bioware has made is lying. (I didn't say creative, I said difficult).

I've been hearing that a lot, so I've conceded I should give the Hard mode a try next go round.  That said, though, just making a boss kill you faster or hit harder doesn't make a fight interesting, it just makes it hard for the sake of hard.  As you said, if they're hard and not creative, does that make them better?

I guess those of us who enjoy both types of game won out, then? I would even hazard a guess that the majority of players fall into that category (enjoyed both DAO and DA2 for different reasons and would not change either one for the other). They're just not as vocal as the dissatisfied parties.

Those who enjoy both only win out if they acknowledge and agree with never seeing a game like Origins again, in which case they would change DAO for DA2.

I suppose the sales will determine that in the end. DA2 sold faster, but that's expected with a loyal following from Origins looking forward to the sequel as opposed to a new IP starting up.  From what I've read, however, DA2 saw a significant drop in sales as time progressed and it's overall scores have been lower than Origins from professional and user reviews.

By your own suggestion, the majority of players loved Origins and wouldn't change anything about it.  So why drastically change many aspects of the game?  Was there a vocal minority they catered to?  Were they going for a larger audience?  Why change so much that wasn't broken when you're getting 90%+ positive reviews, praise from the players, and a loyal fanbase?

If I wanted a more linear story with side quests that are irrelevant to the overall end-result and a pre-made speaking protagonist who will be who he is rather than who I'd make him, I have a plethora of Final Fantasy games to choose from.

If I wanted a game where combat was more hack n' slash and my main character gets armor upgrades, there's games out there just like that.

If I wanted a game that built on what Origins layed as a foundation, and proved wildly successful in doing so, I.....um, well, the combat is different, the party members don't talk to you outside of their homes (mostly when they want something), the companions don't upgrade armor, there's no crafting, I don't get multiple choices to alter the ending even slightly....it has to be acknowledged it's drastically different.

I suppose my underlying question is: Why drastically change so many things on the most popular RPG of 2009 rather than fine tuning and building on it?  Does Dragon Age 2 seem like the spiritual successor to Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate?

Hawke's not irrelevant. The choices presented to the player are largely irrelevant within DA2 (as the ending is the same no matter what), but Kirkwall would be likely be utterly destroyed without him, so he is very relevant within the story (and the choices may play a role later on).

Beyond the qunari...IS Hawke relevant?

Would Bartrand have abandoned the expedition without Hawke?  Are we to believe Hawke is the only individual that could possibly have the drive for fortune and the ability to come up with the money?
Would Bartrand have never found the red lyrium if the expedition had gone without Hawke?
Would the Arishok have destroyed Kirkwall if Hawke hadn't been there to stop him? (Maybe, I'll agree)
Would the templars have pressed the mages if Hawke wasn't in Kirkwall?
Would the mages have pushed back if Hawke wasn't in Kirkwall?
Would Anders have abandoned his pursuit of the Chantry ultimatum without Hawke? (Hawke is irrelevant anyway here)
Did Hawke affect the Rite of Annulment?
Without Hawke, Meredith's name would have just as easily become a rallying cry of the mages, synonymous with oppression, still leading to the Mage/Templar war.

Hawke's just an unfortunate soul that's pulled into events beyond his control.  It's a story about a hero being powerless to do anything about the freight train of a disaster bearing down on him.

[Corto81]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Because the uncle has some pride and doesn't want to be supported by his nephew/niece?

Same uncle who wanted to cheat his sister out of her house?

[Wulfram]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Why didn't he visit his Templar brother in the Gallows? Or why didn't he break his Mage sister out? 

In both cases, I think the answer is that they wouldn't have wanted it.  Bethany wouldn't have wanted her sibling to take stupid risks on her behalf - just look at how she acts when Cullen comes to take her in - while Carver would just have used any visits from Hawke to pick a fight.

[MrProliferation]

In terms of DAO vs. DA2, I think a lot of it revolves around what class you played. My first run through on DAO was as an archer and my second was as a warrior. Both were slogs, mostly because archers were terrible in DAO and warriors were slow and doing the warden shuffle every five seconds. Especially since my warrior was a 2-hander! (It was fun getting injured every fight for the first ten levels). I think DA2 did a lot to try to make those two builds more playable. I think DAO focused too much imagination on the mage class, rogues were there just to pick locks, and archers couldn't really do anything until Awakenings, which was flawed in a lot of other ways.

It's reasons like that I can't make myself go back and play DAO again, either. As a mage? Sure. Mages are always excited. Warriors and Rogues are just too slow and clumsy.