510 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Zjarcal wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

JBurke wrote...

In fact, The Witcher 2 is what DA2 should have been like.

Playing a set male protagonist? Thank the maker DA2 wasn't like TW2.

*Sarcasm*  Right, because having ONE more choice (gender) makes a world of difference.  *sarcasm off*

<_<

First off all, you can shove your smiley and sarcasm where the sun don't shine. Second, it does make a difference for those who care about it.

Pretty much this, some people like haveing freedom in there PC, Geralt is the big reason why I have not jumped on the Witcher 2 wagon yet, I will probaly buy the Witcher 2 when it goes down in price.

Modifié par Mr.House, 21 mai 2011 - 07:56 .

[tonnactus]

Drachasor wrote...
 The talent system, on a conceptual level at least, is far superior to Origins.

Not only on an conceptional level.

Most specialisations in the first game were only good as attribute boosters for example where specs like reaver and beserker now actually really improve the warrior class.
Origins also encouraged one atrribute builds where a mage put all points in magic and a two handed warrior that put all points in strenght,because hitpoints and stamina increased for free after every level up.
The game even punish players who do it otherwise on hard difficulties,because bosses would just pass mental and physical resistance checks in a balanced build.

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 mai 2011 - 07:59 .

[_Aine_]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

*wonders how The Witcher 2 entered into the discussion*

Someone cast the Yrden.  

WHAT?!  They could have!! 

[Marille]

Hey people, will you *please* stop babbling about The Witcher in every single thread? I have nothing against TW2, but this is getting annoying! ExaltedReign wasn't even asking about it!

In comparison to DA:O, DA2 has shorter quests (but there are many of them), smaller number of areas and faster combat - but if you intend to play as mage, they're not as strong as they were in Origins. So: shorter, smaller, but faster.
It's not that bad, I had fun playing it, though sometimes it feels like the game is still in beta. You better wait for 1.03 patch if you decide to buy DA2.

[naledgeborn]

It's not bad. It's not good either. When I purchase a Bioware game I expect great. That's been their reputation for the last decade. That's what I expect them to deliver.

I hope they learn from their mistakes in DA2 and improve and reintroduce some of the more sleeker qualities that was lost in translation from Dragon Age: Origins

I'm willing to give the DA guys/gals another shot. I hope for the best and I'm prepared for the worst. Don't let me down in DA3 team.

[Chuvvy]

The game's story is sort of interesting, though poorly executed, and you get shoehorned often. The battle system operates at a faster pace than the previous game, but it has quite a few flaws. The gameplay is repetitive, the world in general reuses the same maps, and it lacks the general thrill that it's precursor provided. Additionally, the context between characters hasn't improved much and the graphics leave a lot to be desired. Overall, it's a shame Bioware didn't really put effort into this game, but if you're a die-hard Bioware fan go ahead, though I'd wait for the price to go down.

[Dragoonlordz]

DKJaigen wrote...

but it was better then listening to allistairs whining , morrigans ****ing or leliana's wrecthed story's just to gain approval points.

Clearly you have yet to meet the emo bitter crybaby Fenris, crybaby emo Anders and the rest of the cast of DA2 yet. The only two characters/companions in the entire game who wern't whining and ****ing in DA2 was Varric and Isabella.

DOYOURLABS wrote...

I loved it, the choices actually mattered.

If your talking about DA2 then I must ask... What you been smoking?

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[_Aine_]

ExaltedReign wrote...

I've played the demo for DA2 about seven times. I really like it. 

Should I still get it?

Based on the above, yes I would say get it.  

Despite anyone's opinions, for or against, you are the one playing the game, and what you like is up to you. 
There is a lot to like in DA2.  If you liked the demo, go for it =)   I found the personalization of Hawke through my dialog choices really interesting and a lot of fun!  

[Dragoonlordz]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I second the bolded part.

I get the distinct impression he's confusing dialogue "choices" with actual story choices (ones that effect the plot). Dialogue choices or more precise "tone" are not choices that matter tbh they are just an additional preference.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 08:25 .

[Fireblader70]

Dragon Age II, in its own right, is a great game in my opinion. it has good action, good characters and good writing.

The problem is that it calls itself a direct sequel to Dragon Age: Origins. That game had a story that focused on an epic invasion of an unending horde of dark monsters, forcing you to explore the land of Fereldan and travel to unique locations for the entire playthrough.

Dragon Age II focuses on the political development of Kirkwall, where the story is much more unconventional and subtle at first. There is no impending horde of monsters. No large variety of environments. The story focuses on ethics more than 'Kill Immortal Boss A'.

Some prefer the epic fantasy, some prefer the politics and ethics. Take your pick. One of the only reasons people call Dragon Age II bad is due to the expectations created by its predecessor. Oh and... the recycled environments. God, those recycled environments.

[Dragoonlordz]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Dragon Age II, in its own right, is a great game in my opinion. it has good action, good characters and good writing.

The problem is that it calls itself a direct sequel to Dragon Age: Origins. That game had a story that focused on an epic invasion of an unending horde of dark monsters, forcing you to explore the land of Fereldan and travel to unique locations for the entire playthrough.

Dragon Age II focuses on the political development of Kirkwall, where the story is much more unconventional and subtle at first. There is no impending horde of monsters. No large variety of environments. The story focuses on ethics more than 'Kill Immortal Boss A'.

Some prefer the epic fantasy, some prefer the politics and ethics. Take your pick. One of the only reasons people call Dragon Age II bad is due to the expectations created by its predecessor. Oh and... the recycled environments. God, those recycled environments.

I feel the problem is more than just that as I bought it on the promise of (I can't remember if was Mike or not) claming the game would not only please new people to the series but also kept enough of the old title aka Origins to please those fans too... Well no, it didn't. Then there was the EA crap that promised:

"Discover a whole realm rendered in stunning detail with updated graphics and a new visual style."

There was no whole new realm, there was one city made up of a few places which spend half time switching from night and day in same locations, the repeating maps and the only couple places to go outside (in reality a bland, dull lifeless with exception of the billion bandits and ninjas) city.

Then there was:

"Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land."

Again no I didn't determine anything it was all pre-determined at a blunt face slam level of linearity.

And lastly:

"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

Again no desicions I made made a bean of difference on any of the main storylines from Arishok to Mage/Templars even Deep Roads trip, other than which companion I brought with me each time and how I spoke to people choices were borderline insulting to me as far as impact goes.

And I bought the game on those promises, I have a right to be dissapointed when it never reached the level promised on any of them. I have no problem people praising the game for what it might have done well but when they praise the bad things (stuff that ruin the game for me and many, many others) then that really ticks me off tbh for example the re-uses of entire maps on a vast scale and teleporting ninja waves system...

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 08:40 .

[Mr.House]

I don't let false advertising sour my fun, but that's me.

[abaris]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Dragon Age II, in its own right, is a great game in my opinion. it has good action, good characters and good writing.

In my opinion I wouldn't call it good even if it hadn't screamed at the top of its lungs to be the sequel.

As a standalone I would give it 5/10. The reasons have been repeated at nauseum, but the empty streets and static NPC cardboards really aren't state of the art anymore. Add to this the fact, that you could plant a nuclear bomb in front of a guard without them noticing and I don't have to talk about repetitivness and goofy combat anymore.

They had good ideas, I give them that. But a good idea is dependant on its execution and that is quite poor to put it very mildly.

[Fireblader70]

Dragoonlordz... I missed a lot of stuff out, but in my opinion the high expectations does have an impact on how some people experience the game. It's not the only reason, but generally I feel that is where most of these 'hateful' comments come from.

I forgot about the advertising. You have a point there! Marketing at its finest... *cough*

[Merced652]

Mr.House wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

JBurke wrote...

In fact, The Witcher 2 is what DA2 should have been like.

Playing a set male protagonist? Thank the maker DA2 wasn't like TW2.

*Sarcasm*  Right, because having ONE more choice (gender) makes a world of difference.  *sarcasm off*

<_<

First off all, you can shove your smiley and sarcasm where the sun don't shine. Second, it does make a difference for those who care about it.

Pretty much this, some people like haveing freedom in there PC, Geralt is the big reason why I have not jumped on the Witcher 2 wagon yet, I will probaly buy the Witcher 2 when it goes down in price.

Personally i just find it a tad odd that someone is going to slam a game for having a set protag when their prefered game has a slightly less defined one, and none of the choices the player makes has any impact on the story what-so-ever. 

I mean, i prefer to make my own hero, but why should i ****ing bother when my hero doesn't do **** in the story but spectate? This is fundamentally what has seperated ME2 from DA2 and is probably the very core of why da2 sucks and me2 is so beloved by some. 

[Zjarcal]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
I feel the problem is more than just that as I bought it on the promise of (I can't remember if was Mike or not) claming the game would not only please new people to the series but also kept enough of the old title aka Origins to please those fans too... Well no, it didn't. Then there was the EA crap that promised:

"Discover a whole realm rendered in stunning detail with updated graphics and a new visual style."

There was no whole new realm, there was one city made up of a few places which spend half time switching from night and day in same locations, the repeating maps and the only couple places to go outside (in reality a bland, dull lifeless with exception of the billion bandits and ninjas) city.

Then there was:

"Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land."

Again no I didn't determine anything it was all pre-determined at a blunt face slam level of linearity.

And lastly:

"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

Again no desicions I made made a bean of difference on any of the main storylines from Arishok to Mage/Templars even Deep Roads trip, other than which companion I brought with me each time and how I spoke to people choices were borderline insulting to me as far as impact goes.

And I bought the game on those promises, I have a right to be dissapointed when it never reached the level promised on any of them. I have no problem people praising the game for what it might have done well but when they praise the bad things (stuff that ruin the game for me and many, many others) then that really ticks me off tbh for example the re-uses of entire maps on a vast scale and teleporting ninja waves system...

I can't really disagree with anything that you say here. It is understandable that some people were angry at the marketing promising something and not really delivering it.

Mind you, I don't really pay attention to those claims. My experience with marketing blurbs has always been that they promise a whole lot more than what will actually be in the game, so I have just learned to ignore that. I only pay attention to actualy hands-on previews or that sort of thing.

Merced652 wrote...

Personally i just find it a tad odd that someone is going to slam a game for having a set protag...

Neither House or I "slammed" TW2 for having a set protagonist. We said it doesn't appeal to us, but we didn't "slam" it.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 21 mai 2011 - 08:52 .

[Marionetten]

ExaltedReign wrote...

Why do people seem to think its suppose to be a sequal to Origins? The stories (I think) have nothing to do with eachother. It should be counted as its own game, not a sequal to origins. Just like WoW and Warcraft 3 should be counted as their own games.

I agree with you. It's a shame that BioWare didn't and named it Dragon Age II instead of Dragon Age: Champions or something more suitable. It would have probably been an okayish spin-off but as it was marketed as the sequel to one of the biggest RPGs in ages it fell flat on its face. Therein lies the issue. It just couldn't live up to its predecessor as it refused to build on it out of some misguided desire to change.

Know why The Witcher 2 turned out as such an awesome game? Because CD Projekt RED built it based on the original The Witcher. New engine and all but the fundamentals were still there. Subsequently they improved on just about everything. This transformation didn't occur in Dragon Age II because BioWare felt it necessary to throw out just about everything and replace it all with a mishmash of half cooked components. Bad design all around.

[Mr.House]

Merced652 wrote...

Personally i just find it a tad odd that someone is going to slam a game for having a set protag when their prefered game has a slightly less defined one, and none of the choices the player makes has any impact on the story what-so-ever. 

I mean, i prefer to make my own hero, but why should i ****ing bother when my hero doesn't do **** in the story but spectate? This is fundamentally what has seperated ME2 from DA2 and is probably the very core of why da2 sucks and me2 is so beloved by some. 

How did I slam the Witcher 2? I in fact love the Witcher series, but I don't like Geralt. I also said I will buy it in the future when it's dropped down in the price. So congrats on putting words in my mouth.