Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Age 2 was not 'ambitious'.


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
191 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Yrkoon

Yrkoon
  • Members
  • 4 764 messages

Bryy_Miller wrote...

But as far as the actual topic is actually concerned, I think DA2 was ambitious, because ambition is not subjective.

 Nonsense.  Of course Ambition is subjective.  And not only is it subjective, but it's contextually subjective.  (it strictly depends on who's undertaking the project)

For example,  Teaching  your   teenage son physics, would be considered  an "ambitious"  undertaking in many circles....  Unless you happen to be a physicist and a teacher, in which case, teaching your son Physics wouldn't be  that ambitious  at all.

It's the same thing here.  Are we supposed to see DA2 as  ambitious, in any way,  when everything from it's scope, to its size, to its plot, to it's *looks* are nothing  even remotely unusual for Bioware or any other major game producer?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 mai 2011 - 11:03 .


#127
AngryFrozenWater

AngryFrozenWater
  • Members
  • 9 147 messages

Mezinger wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Look... Read my original post. I am using man years to illustrate my point.

[snip]

Is that clearer?

No. Did I mention ambition? No. Do I want to derail this thread any longer? No.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 mai 2011 - 12:37 .


#128
Marionetten

Marionetten
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages
It's hard to say without knowing the exact budget and the exact number of people who worked on the project. But no, it didn't strike me as particularly ambitious for a BioWare project. Sure, it had some decent ideas but most of them didn't pan out all that well.

#129
Byth

Byth
  • Members
  • 167 messages
As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.

#130
erynnar

erynnar
  • Members
  • 3 010 messages

Byth wrote...

As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.


Okay, I am not trying to be thick or troll but how is DA2 less linear than DAO? You have to take a job in Kirwall for a year. You have to get gold to go on a certain trip with Varric , even if you spend it all (which I did) you get the money from a certain <spoiler>. You have to give the idol to Varric's brother. You have to lose both siblings in some way. You have no choice with what happens to your mum. You have to fight the Qunari in the city. You get to talk to your companions, but only when the game lets you. You have to pick a side at the end, but you have to fight everyone anyways. And all of these things takes place in limited enviornments in limited time frames along the linear path. My goodness, if it was anymore linear, I could have played with a ruler instead of a mouse.

In DAO I may have had to fight the Archdemon and end the Blight, but I didn't have to have Behlen crowned king. I didn't have to side with the the elves, or get Zathrian to admit he should die. I didn't have to save Zev, or kill him. I didn't have to save the mage tower. I didn't have to save Eamon. I didn't have to save Connor. I didnt' have to do many things. Whether I did or not was an illusion of choice  in the linear game of DAO. And I could do any of these things in any order I wished except the Archdemon.

DAO may have been linear, but a game that is linear with a set in stone narrative...? There wasn't much sandbox unless you count the sand on the Wounded Coast which I saw far too many times to count for sanity's sake.

#131
TheTranzor

TheTranzor
  • Members
  • 185 messages

erynnar wrote...

Byth wrote...

As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.


Okay, I am not trying to be thick or troll but how is DA2 less linear than DAO? You have to take a job in Kirwall for a year. You have to get gold to go on a certain trip with Varric , even if you spend it all (which I did) you get the money from a certain <spoiler>. You have to give the idol to Varric's brother. You have to lose both siblings in some way. You have no choice with what happens to your mum. You have to fight the Qunari in the city. You get to talk to your companions, but only when the game lets you. You have to pick a side at the end, but you have to fight everyone anyways. And all of these things takes place in limited enviornments in limited time frames along the linear path. My goodness, if it was anymore linear, I could have played with a ruler instead of a mouse.

In DAO I may have had to fight the Archdemon and end the Blight, but I didn't have to have Behlen crowned king. I didn't have to side with the the elves, or get Zathrian to admit he should die. I didn't have to save Zev, or kill him. I didn't have to save the mage tower. I didn't have to save Eamon. I didn't have to save Connor. I didnt' have to do many things. Whether I did or not was an illusion of choice  in the linear game of DAO. And I could do any of these things in any order I wished except the Archdemon.

DAO may have been linear, but a game that is linear with a set in stone narrative...? There wasn't much sandbox unless you count the sand on the Wounded Coast which I saw far too many times to count for sanity's sake.



Absolutely!  I enjoyed how many different epilogues I could get in DA:O... I didn't have to marry Anora, have Anora marry Alistair, have Anora imprisoned/killed, Alistair made king, Loghain killed, Loghain saved, Alistair betrayed, Alistair killed, etc.  I am one of those who enjoyed DA2 enough (idiot consoler that I am!), but it was VERY linear.  It was more linear than DA:O... I thought it was a little strange that there were so few areas to explore, and I had more of a feeling of being on a line that couldn't be deviated from.  Having played ME, ME2, and DA:O, I did expect some linear play (if I want sandbox, I just pop in a Bethesda title), but I felt DA2 was the most linear of the Bioware titles I've played.

#132
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

erynnar wrote...

Byth wrote...

As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.


Okay, I am not trying to be thick or troll but how is DA2 less linear than DAO? You have to take a job in Kirwall for a year. You have to get gold to go on a certain trip with Varric , even if you spend it all (which I did) you get the money from a certain <spoiler>. You have to give the idol to Varric's brother. You have to lose both siblings in some way. You have no choice with what happens to your mum. You have to fight the Qunari in the city. You get to talk to your companions, but only when the game lets you. You have to pick a side at the end, but you have to fight everyone anyways. And all of these things takes place in limited enviornments in limited time frames along the linear path. My goodness, if it was anymore linear, I could have played with a ruler instead of a mouse.

In DAO I may have had to fight the Archdemon and end the Blight, but I didn't have to have Behlen crowned king. I didn't have to side with the the elves, or get Zathrian to admit he should die. I didn't have to save Zev, or kill him. I didn't have to save the mage tower. I didn't have to save Eamon. I didn't have to save Connor. I didnt' have to do many things. Whether I did or not was an illusion of choice  in the linear game of DAO. And I could do any of these things in any order I wished except the Archdemon.

DAO may have been linear, but a game that is linear with a set in stone narrative...? There wasn't much sandbox unless you count the sand on the Wounded Coast which I saw far too many times to count for sanity's sake.



I am confused by what Byth really means by linear. If he means by actual moving around in the various maps, yes DA:O was a little more linear, but he has to define what he means as 'overall linear' or just on one aspect, otherwise I agree with you. However, you are wrong on one point. You do have to save Eamon, that is part of the main quest and the reason you have to do the Urn of the Sacred Ashes quest. Besides, without him, there's no landsmeet . Now, unless you mean the Arl's wife (Isolde), that's a different story.

:D

Modifié par Tommy6860, 15 mai 2011 - 07:08 .


#133
erynnar

erynnar
  • Members
  • 3 010 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Byth wrote...

As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.


Okay, I am not trying to be thick or troll but how is DA2 less linear than DAO? You have to take a job in Kirwall for a year. You have to get gold to go on a certain trip with Varric , even if you spend it all (which I did) you get the money from a certain <spoiler>. You have to give the idol to Varric's brother. You have to lose both siblings in some way. You have no choice with what happens to your mum. You have to fight the Qunari in the city. You get to talk to your companions, but only when the game lets you. You have to pick a side at the end, but you have to fight everyone anyways. And all of these things takes place in limited enviornments in limited time frames along the linear path. My goodness, if it was anymore linear, I could have played with a ruler instead of a mouse.

In DAO I may have had to fight the Archdemon and end the Blight, but I didn't have to have Behlen crowned king. I didn't have to side with the the elves, or get Zathrian to admit he should die. I didn't have to save Zev, or kill him. I didn't have to save the mage tower. I didn't have to save Eamon. I didn't have to save Connor. I didnt' have to do many things. Whether I did or not was an illusion of choice  in the linear game of DAO. And I could do any of these things in any order I wished except the Archdemon.

DAO may have been linear, but a game that is linear with a set in stone narrative...? There wasn't much sandbox unless you count the sand on the Wounded Coast which I saw far too many times to count for sanity's sake.



I am confused by what Byth really means by linear. If he means by actual moving around in the various maps, yes DA:O was a little more linear, but he has to define what he means as 'overall linear' or just on one aspect, otherwise I agree with you. However, you are wrong on one point. You do have to save Eamon, that is part of the main quest and the reason you have to do the Urn of the Sacred Ashes quest. Besides, without him, there's no landsmeet . Now, unless you mean the Arl's wife (Isolde), that's a different story.

:D



@ Tranzor, well you know this PC elitist loves you just as you are, you idiot consle player! :wub::kissing:

Yeah Tommy, that's why I was asking and giving examples of what I thought linear meant. I hope I don't scare him off, or hurt his feelings. My idea of linear may be something different then Bryth meant. And language differences definitely play a part on this forum as well. ^_^

And yes, my bad, Isolde is who I meant. Not Eamon...I blame the mead.  Why is the mead always gone? *burp* OH, yes, that's why!:lol:

#134
TheTranzor

TheTranzor
  • Members
  • 185 messages

erynnar wrote...

I blame the mead.  Why is the mead always gone? *burp* OH, yes, that's why!:lol:


Sky River... from my home state no less.  Image IPB

Even though I actually prefer Chaucer's.  Image IPB

#135
Nathan Redgrave

Nathan Redgrave
  • Members
  • 2 062 messages
It was too ambitious for its deadline and budget, if anything. A textbook example of a Peter Molyneux scenario, with what was advertised versus what was delivered.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 15 mai 2011 - 07:29 .


#136
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

erynnar wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Byth wrote...

As a Dragon Age game I'd say DA2 was very ambitious(Improve the combat, more personal and less epic story, trade the linear mission style of DA:O for a more semi sandbox style all in a 18 month time frame). For a bioware game I'd say it was fairly ambitious(Personality choices and Icons for the dialogue wheel, family skin changes).

So yeah, I'd say it's an ambitious game. Whether it payed off ehhh, depends on how you feel about DA2.


Okay, I am not trying to be thick or troll but how is DA2 less linear than DAO? You have to take a job in Kirwall for a year. You have to get gold to go on a certain trip with Varric , even if you spend it all (which I did) you get the money from a certain <spoiler>. You have to give the idol to Varric's brother. You have to lose both siblings in some way. You have no choice with what happens to your mum. You have to fight the Qunari in the city. You get to talk to your companions, but only when the game lets you. You have to pick a side at the end, but you have to fight everyone anyways. And all of these things takes place in limited enviornments in limited time frames along the linear path. My goodness, if it was anymore linear, I could have played with a ruler instead of a mouse.

In DAO I may have had to fight the Archdemon and end the Blight, but I didn't have to have Behlen crowned king. I didn't have to side with the the elves, or get Zathrian to admit he should die. I didn't have to save Zev, or kill him. I didn't have to save the mage tower. I didn't have to save Eamon. I didn't have to save Connor. I didnt' have to do many things. Whether I did or not was an illusion of choice  in the linear game of DAO. And I could do any of these things in any order I wished except the Archdemon.

DAO may have been linear, but a game that is linear with a set in stone narrative...? There wasn't much sandbox unless you count the sand on the Wounded Coast which I saw far too many times to count for sanity's sake.



I am confused by what Byth really means by linear. If he means by actual moving around in the various maps, yes DA:O was a little more linear, but he has to define what he means as 'overall linear' or just on one aspect, otherwise I agree with you. However, you are wrong on one point. You do have to save Eamon, that is part of the main quest and the reason you have to do the Urn of the Sacred Ashes quest. Besides, without him, there's no landsmeet . Now, unless you mean the Arl's wife (Isolde), that's a different story.

:D



@ Tranzor, well you know this PC elitist loves you just as you are, you idiot consle player! :wub::kissing:

Yeah Tommy, that's why I was asking and giving examples of what I thought linear meant. I hope I don't scare him off, or hurt his feelings. My idea of linear may be something different then Bryth meant. And language differences definitely play a part on this forum as well. ^_^

And yes, my bad, Isolde is who I meant. Not Eamon...I blame the mead.  Why is the mead always gone? *burp* OH, yes, that's why!:lol:


I can honestly say I have never had mead, though not a popular drink in the States. In fact, I have had all but about 5 beers in the past 4 years, and that was in one sitting at a friend's party. Oh well, lay off the mead, otherwsie, we are going to need the mods to make different characters to keep the main quest alive in Origins.
:devil::P

#137
erynnar

erynnar
  • Members
  • 3 010 messages

TheTranzor wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I blame the mead.  Why is the mead always gone? *burp* OH, yes, that's why!:lol:


Sky River... from my home state no less.  Image IPB

Even though I actually prefer Chaucer's.  Image IPB


Chaucer's is what I am imbibing good sir! Ahhhh.

And while Chaucer's mead is ambitious, ambitiously tasty, DA2 was not really.

#138
Byth

Byth
  • Members
  • 167 messages

erynnar wrote...

snip


First, let me apologize if I'm a little late in responding(well, a lot late XD)

You mean how much choice your offered at the end of each main story mission in DA:O. Because either way the missions play out very similarly(You still have to hunt the werewolf, you still have to do similar missions no matter witch side you choose in the thaig(sorry, can't spell it), you still have to do the pre-landsmeet missions that all end similarly, you still have to rid the circle of the demons), but anyway that's not what I mean. I meant as in mission stucture.
DA2 is more hub based to DA:O's linear place to place model(stealing Yatzee's words :whistle:).

If we're talking about choices, DA2 seems to suffer from ME2 syndrome(More choices in companion quest, less in story) so yeah, I'd say DA:O has more story choices than DA2.

#139
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

Byth wrote...

erynnar wrote...

snip


First, let me apologize if I'm a little late in responding(well, a lot late XD)

You mean how much choice your offered at the end of each main story mission in DA:O. Because either way the missions play out very similarly(You still have to hunt the werewolf, you still have to do similar missions no matter witch side you choose in the thaig(sorry, can't spell it), you still have to do the pre-landsmeet missions that all end similarly, you still have to rid the circle of the demons), but anyway that's not what I mean. I meant as in mission stucture.


They do not play out similarly at all. The chocies you make in Origins make very real changes in the plot states of the game, even as it progresses. There are essentially none in DA2, no choice you make, changes anything as you do quests. For example, the pre-landsmeet quests ending similarly is not true, unless you only played it one time. I can give you ten examples where choices you make pre-landsmeet, have effects on the plot states of the ensuing quests. Nothing you do, for example to get to the Deep Roads expedition in DA2 in Act 1, change that fact, nor does it really change anything with your companions or with the state of Kirkwall as you get to that final quest of Act 1.

DA2 is more hub based to DA:O's linear place to place model(stealing Yatzee's words :whistle:).


Hub based makes sense by description, but that doesn't make it less linear if going by the usage of that term in gaming the way you use it here, in fact, it is more linear. Example, there's a mission that starts in Lowtown, that shovels you down through the sewers, then to the Wouldned Coast where you only have paths to taverse, all linear, no other paths. All of the questing takes that type of route and you have little to no choice in how to go about it. In Origins, you have a choice on which way to go. Just to be clear, all quest start at point "A" and end at point "B", but in Origins, what path you choose between the points can be made.

If we're talking about choices, DA2 seems to suffer from ME2 syndrome(More choices in companion quest, less in story) so yeah, I'd say DA:O has more story choices than DA2.


That's the point, you actually have choices in regard to the story plots, you have very little in DA2. Actually, in ME2, you actually can make choices in the companion quests that actually have an effect with your companions, many life or death, that's barely touched in this sense in DA2.

#140
CaptainVanguard

CaptainVanguard
  • Members
  • 37 messages
I will admit that given their time constraints what they were trying to do was ambitious as a concept. We didnt get to see all 10 years of Hawkes life, which is a shame, but I still enjoyed the 7 years we did get to be involved in (no spoilers of what happened within them).

It tried, it didnt do worse than it could have, believe me, there are disasterous rpgs that make DA2 look soft. I will admit that it overstepped its mark in what it said it would achieve but I think the action RPG feel they went for while maintaining that "Dark Fantasy" atmosphere was perfect for what they had created.

#141
Byth

Byth
  • Members
  • 167 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...
For example, the pre-landsmeet quests ending similarly is not true, unless you only played it one time. I can give you ten examples where choices you make pre-landsmeet, have effects on the plot states of the ensuing quests. Nothing you do, for example to get to the Deep Roads expedition in DA2 in Act 1, change that fact, nor does it really change anything with your companions or with the state of Kirkwall as you get to that final quest of Act 1.


I played through the pre-landsmeet quests about 3 times, the pre landsmeet levels seem pretty much unchanging. Like how at the end of the Alienage level, no matter how you deal there's no significant impact on the quest. You still get the item and it's pretty much useless in the landsmeet debate anyway.

Hub based makes sense by description, but that doesn't make it less linear if going by the usage of that term in gaming the way you use it here, in fact, it is more linear. Example, there's a mission that starts in Lowtown, that shovels you down through the sewers, then to the Wouldned Coast where you only have paths to taverse, all linear, no other paths. All of the questing takes that type of route and you have little to no choice in how to go about it. In Origins, you have a choice on which way to go. Just to be clear, all quest start at point "A" and end at point "B", but in Origins, what path you choose between the points can be made.


Hmm, now that I think about it, they're isn't much difference in mission stucture. Act 1's Main Quest's pretty much like "Here are you're missions, do them in any order you like" but Act 2 forward it becomes more linear. I don't know, maybe it's the way it's presented. The combination of Main Quests, Secondary Quest and Side Quest did make me feel like I have more control on which missions I went on then DA:O(Not to hate on DA:O, it's still one of my favorite games). 

That's the point, you actually have choices in regard to the story plots, you have very little in DA2. Actually, in ME2, you actually can make choices in the companion quests that actually have an effect with your companions, many life or death, that's barely touched in this sense in DA2.


Actually, I'd go as far as saying DA2 had a bit more choice room then ME2, especially in Act 2(leaving companion missions out). I know when choices are doing there jobs when points come up when I say "Wow, I didn't know I could do that".

Modifié par Byth, 15 mai 2011 - 11:43 .


#142
Wyndham711

Wyndham711
  • Members
  • 467 messages
It should have been a game that could seriously compete with the likes of Skyrim and Witcher 2. Other developers and franchises are readying themselves for a grand leap ahead in both quality and ambition, whereas Dragon Age 2 felt like a pitiful misfire.

#143
Tommy6860

Tommy6860
  • Members
  • 2 488 messages

Byth wrote...

Hmm, now that I think about it, they're isn't much difference in mission stucture. Act 1's Main Quest's pretty much like "Here are you're missions, do them in any order you like" but Act 2 forward it becomes more linear. I don't know, maybe it's the way it's presented. The combination of Main Quests, Secondary Quest and Side Quest did make me feel like I have more control on which missions I went on then DA:O(Not to hate on DA:O, it's still one of my favorite games). 


You can do side, companions and main quests in Origins in any order as well. In fact, you can do side quest at any time during the 6 mains quests in Origins, whereas you can only do the side, companions and secondary quests in DA2 in their respective acts. This is actually forcing more linearity in the respect in which you are aplying the term, since you have to do them within the frame of where they are within the certain acts.. Once the act is complete, the other quests are no longer available. Having quests go all over the place with them having no effect on the game, even though you can choose different quest, is not the same thing in comparison to having effect on the plot states.. Again, you have no control over the plots of the story in DA2, it is what it is, unlike Origins.


Actually, I'd go as far as saying DA2 had a bit more choice room then ME2, especially in Act 2(leaving companion missions out). I know when choices are doing there jobs when points come up when I say "Wow, I didn't know I could do that".


I think you're confusing how many quests there are against how the PC can effect the quests, companions and the story; that is my point. ME2 was a shorter game, but the fact that DA2 shovels a ton a quest your way doesn't translate into the PC having an effect on the story by completing or making decisions during those quests, they simply are what they are. ME2 far surpasses DA2 in this respect. The "Alienage" quest you reference is straigthtforward, and not a good analogy. But, even within the frame of the Alienage quest, you can make a few choices that determine the outcome of that quest concerning the characters involved, whereas you cannot in DA2. Again, pre-landsmeet, I can name ten choices (though there are more) I can make that have changing effects on the story plots and on my companions. Only a few are in DA2 and they are in Act 2 and Act 3.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 15 mai 2011 - 01:14 .


#144
Corto81

Corto81
  • Members
  • 726 messages

Tommy6860 wrote...



I think you're confusing how many quests there are against how the PC can effect the quests, companions and the story; that is my point. ME2 was a shorter game, but the fact that DA2 shovels a ton a quest your way doesn't translate into the PC having an effect on the story by completing or making decisions during those quests, they simply are what they are.


I'll try to use an MMO analogy, people who've played both will get it (I hope).

DA:O had Everquest-type quests (mostly). Long, rewarding, meaningful. (well, the major quest with sub-quests)

DAII has WoW-type quests. No longer than 15 minutes, teleport to a place, kill some mobs, very little role-playing value, really rather meaningless quests that serve you to get levels.

Similarly, world in DA:O feels real and you're there and adventuring etc.
DAII world feels like it was built for you to quest and level in.

#145
Guest_simfamUP_*

Guest_simfamUP_*
  • Guests
Ambition is hard to achieve in eighteen months.

#146
JabbaDaHutt30

JabbaDaHutt30
  • Members
  • 1 008 messages

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

It was too ambitious for its deadline and budget, if anything. A textbook example of a Peter Molyneux scenario, with what was advertised versus what was delivered.


So you're saying the Dragon Age franchise was... molynated?

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 15 mai 2011 - 06:31 .


#147
Cody211282

Cody211282
  • Members
  • 2 541 messages

Wyndham711 wrote...

It should have been a game that could seriously compete with the likes of Skyrim and Witcher 2. Other developers and franchises are readying themselves for a grand leap ahead in both quality and ambition, whereas Dragon Age 2 felt like a pitiful misfire.


For me it felt less like a misfire and more like the casings siding was weak and blow out the sid of the firearm, sure weapon can be repaired but I'm not going to blindly trust it anymore.

#148
AtreiyaN7

AtreiyaN7
  • Members
  • 8 398 messages
You want to know what wasn't ambitious? The original post.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 15 mai 2011 - 07:22 .


#149
JabbaDaHutt30

JabbaDaHutt30
  • Members
  • 1 008 messages

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

You want to know what wasn't ambitious? The original post.


No one said it was...

#150
erynnar

erynnar
  • Members
  • 3 010 messages

Byth wrote...

erynnar wrote...

snip


First, let me apologize if I'm a little late in responding(well, a lot late XD)

You mean how much choice your offered at the end of each main story mission in DA:O. Because either way the missions play out very similarly(You still have to hunt the werewolf, you still have to do similar missions no matter witch side you choose in the thaig(sorry, can't spell it), you still have to do the pre-landsmeet missions that all end similarly, you still have to rid the circle of the demons), but anyway that's not what I mean. I meant as in mission stucture.
DA2 is more hub based to DA:O's linear place to place model(stealing Yatzee's words :whistle:).

If we're talking about choices, DA2 seems to suffer from ME2 syndrome(More choices in companion quest, less in story) so yeah, I'd say DA:O has more story choices than DA2.


No worries Byth! I just wanted to be clear and see what you were really saying and not what I thought you might be saying. Thanks for coming back and having a lively debate with Tommy, I am enjoying the back and forth. Still reading.:wub: