178 réponses à ce sujet

[nicethugbert]

stoicsentry2 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I think DA2 is a game that looks good on the surface, but when you take a step back the flaws really start to show.  The story had some very good individual scenes (especially with the Qunari) but when you look at the story as a whole it is a disjointed mess.  Combat is very flashy with little substance.  There were corners cut (such as reused environments) that almost seem disdainful of the player.

If you didn't look to deep into DA2 I can see how people can genually enjoy it. However once you notice its overall flaws you just can't look away though.  It reminds me of that scene in Star Wars where the stormtrooper hits his head.  I must have seen that sceen hundreds of times as a kid growing up and never noticed it.  Now whenever that scene comes up I just can't look away, and despite it being funny as hell it takes me out of that particular scene every single time.  For me DA2 is a game where every second of it has stormtroopers hitting their heads and I just can't look away.   

I see the same in games that people put forth as examples better than DA2.  All these games are shallow.

DA:O and BG2 blow this thing out of the water, pick it up by the neck and throttle it. Then bury it in a shallow grave while still alive.

In other words you just like those two games better for some unknown reason.

I didn't like them better than DA2.  They're both clunky.

And world exploration as typically defined in these games is nothing more than dumpster diving and in the case of The Witcher 2, blatant burglery.

[graavigala85]

 It was good-ish game but horrible and straightforwarded, just like ME2. Not holding my breat for anything that Bioware publishes ever again

[nicethugbert]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...
...DA is too disjointed. Its just too difficult to have a strong central plot for a game series such as this, when the plots have very little to do with each other....

Who says that there has to be a central plot in order for it to be a good story?  Who says the plot has been revealed?  If the plot has not been revealed then how can you say it is not central? 

Dragon Age is the story of an age.  Like history, it takes place in many locations with a variety of people.  The plot is huge to, put it mildly.  Everthing is connected, no matter how unrelated it may seem.  You simply need eyes large enought to see the big picture and sharp enough to see the details.

What you want is a simpler, smaller story, that fits a tea cup as well as a galaxy because what does not fit in the tea cup is simply more window dressing.

Wow, reading comprehension failed you huh?  There doesn't have to be a central plot to the story at all.  I even said that other games, that BW seems to be trying to imitate to a degree in format of story (Elder Scrolls) have very weak central plots.  The games all tell a piece to a larger story (Tamriel), but the central plots for each game are relatively weak.  It has to be or those games would fail in a similar way that DA2 has failed.  By having a weak plot they do not run into the trouble of trying to follow up one like the Grey Warden with Mr. Nanny.  

No moron, I do not need to have my eyes checked.  The story so cliche its ridiculous.  But this does bring up a point.  It IS NOT on my head to make leaps of inference.  A good story will build anticipation, and it will throw some twists that the audience doesn't expect.  But no, you should not have to wander around aimlessly wondering what the hell you are doing and what for.  That is a sign of weak story telling.  It is a sign of a story that has absolutely no engagment with the audience.  Its boring.  If I wanted to go do random acts of business for random boss #47, I'd just go to work.  At least there I make real money.

If they want to tell the story of an age in the world of Thedas fine.  But they cannot follow up such a grand story as the ending of the blight and felling of the archdemon, with the paperboy....

The combat improvements were great.  The game honestly isn't bad.  Its just that Hawke's follow up to the tale of the Grey Warden is incredibly lame.

Settle down Beevis.  I understand that you just don't like DA2 because you wanted more DAO but don't see how it's possible to follow DAO because you don't understand how to save the world when the world has already been saved and that Hawke is just a paper boy to you.  But, it's hard for me to take your POV seriously when it's built on failing to understand what is happening in DA2.

DAO was about saving the world.  DA2 is about the start of it's subsequent unraveling.  For example, Reconstruction following the American Civil War.  Just when Slavery is abolished, Jim Crow and an economic depression show up.  One problem follows another, just like in real life.  It's not all world saving all the time, especialy when customers tell you they are bored with saving the world, then they tell you they don't like not not saving the world..

Incidentally, exactly which cliche is Hawke following?  I've never heard of Champion Paperboys.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 10 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[schalafi]

It's odd how so many people rant about the flaws in DA2, but don't blink an eye over the flaws in Origins.
Yes there really were flaws in Origins too. How about some of the cheesy romance dialogue, or the 50 point gifts that raised your influence with the npc's, or the continual barking of dog at camp, etc.

Actually I liked both games for their strengths, and overlooked the flaws because they both had things that held my interest, and were fun to play.

Modifié par schalafi, 10 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[bduff4545]

schalafi wrote...

It's odd how so many people rant about the flaws in DA2, but don't blink an eye over the flaws in Origins.
Yes there really were flaws in Origins too. How about some of the cheesy romance dialogue, or the 50 point gifts that raised your influence with the npc's, or the continual barking of dog at camp, etc.

Actually I liked both games for their strengths, and overlooked the flaws because they both had things that held my interest, and were fun to play.

Origins had quite a few flaws, especially on consoles, but the story is what seperates the two substantially. In origins you can choose the king of orzammar. In 2 the only HUGE choice you have is choosing who to side with in the end...thats it

[Teddie Sage]

Origins reaction: Omg... The hands! The horrible hands! ... Oh wait, that style of battle is so damn slow, why the hell am I falling to sleep? Ah, what's this? You can kill everyone except Alistair and Morrigan? Dammit. 6_9 WUT? You can't romance Alistair if you're male or Morrigan if you're female? Booooooooring.

DA2 reaction: The hands still look horrible, but I enjoy the battles more. The characters aren't all killable, which makes me said because I love playing evil characters after my first playthroughs. My only real annoyance is that you CAN'T kill Sebastian and he's DLC. Dammit! But yeah, the re-used dungeons were lame. Other than that, I enjoyed DA2 way more than I did with DAO for many reasons, but it's less lively than DAO.

And now, the winner that every troll yells about: ANDERS IS GAY! I WANT HIM TO BE STRAIGHT! *manly tears*

Thank you, thank you.

*bows*

[nicethugbert]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
Who says that there has to be a central plot in order for it to be a good story?  Who says the plot has been revealed?  If the plot has not been revealed then how can you say it is not central?  

I don't understand this.  Could you please clarify what you are trying to say.  The plot does have to be revealed  for it to be a good story, unless you are going for some kind of arthouse film/game where the point is to "contemplate the Universe" or something like that such in Kubrick's 2001, which I'm pretty sure was not the developer's intent.  They clearly wanted to tell a story about some dude (or dudette) named Hawke.

I never said the plot had to be revealed, or that it didn't.  I was just challenging people's assumptions.  Many things are possible.  Either you like something or your don't.  Everybody has their own opinion.

But, you admit circumstances where the plot does not have to be revealed.  What The Devs intended doesn't seem important to me here.  In the end, a product was produced.  Either you like it or you don't.  If you intend to birth a baby human and instead you birth a baby cow, either it is a good as far as baby cows go or bad as far as baby cows go, either you accept it or your don't.

Also, I think you are fixating on Hawke here.  It's not simply a story about Hawke.  It's also a story about Thedas, about disaster following victory.  Hawke is just one focal point.  Focusing on DAO obscures this.

Hatchetman77 wrote...
I'm going to make an assumption and say that you're referring to DA2 basically being three stories instead of a single one (namely Deep Roads, Qunari, and Mage vs. Templar). Please correct me if I'm wrong in making that assumption. 

I wasn't saying that.  And, I don't see The Lyrium Rune, Qunari, and Mage vs. Templar as being unrelated or disconnected.

Hatchetman77 wrote...
The main problem though is that a video game is basically an action flick.  You have several action sequences throughout the game and players are expecting action beats at regular intervals.  The pacing of the story completly conflicts with the pacing of the rest of the game.  That is a huge problem right there.  If this was a pixle hunting Adventure game such as the old Sierra games, then this would have worked fine.  However you now have supercharged combat with the intention building excitement which is completly diffused with huge leaps in the story which basically hist the reset button on any attempts to build suspence or tension.  It's a pacing nightmare.    

Now, the best movie example I can think of that is closest to what BioWare is going for is The Princess Bride.  In this story we don`t have any significant jumps in time for the protagonists`s story after the introduction in the first act.  We also have a single story, with an action movie format (ie. action beats at predictable intervals).  We also have the framed narritive.  However when we leave the story to see what the narrators are doing we are dropped back into where we left off with the protagonist.  We don`t completly take us out of the story twice, once to switch to the narrator and then again to jump further ahead in time in our protagonists story.  Switching to the narrator then back to the story in progress can be a great way to either build tension or add some levity to the situation (like Verric`s tall tale about storming Bianca`s home).  If it is breaking all of the already established tension and story flow then you`re doing it wrong.              

I didn't find the narration disturbing to the flow of the story.  What I found disturbing to the flow of the story was how the quests rolled out, or didn't.  They just pile up.  Then you have a quest management nightmare.  The quests should line up in a queue and you should see only a few at a time.  Or else, you have a lot of people telling your Hawke to hurry up or the sky will fall while you take your time and the sky does not fall and Hawke does not notice this.  It kills any urgency or immediacy in the game and thereby the pace.

Also, the leveling scheme disturbs the flow of the story.  Hawke gains levels in days.  But, working for Athenril or Meeren for a year produces no levels for Hawke and friends.  Similarly with his finances.

I can see him not making 50 sovreigns while working for Athenril/Meeren.  His intial encounter with Varric shows that he doesn't see money making opportunities and that revealng those is part of Varric's function.  It's not as overt as it could be past the intial encounter, but it is there initially.

But, why Hawke fails to make money or gain levels in between acts is not addressed at all.  It's like he hibernates.  That's not very ambitious or Champion like of him.

Those are things I have to keep ignoring in video games in order to play them and see the story they are attempting to tell.

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Dragon Age is the story of an age.  Like history, it takes place in many locations with a variety of people.  The plot is huge to, put it mildly.  Everthing is connected, no matter how unrelated it may seem.  You simply need eyes large enought to see the big picture and sharp enough to see the details.

Ok, you're confusing setting with story and plot.  The setting is where the story is taking place.  The story is what is happening within the setting that the audience is supposed to care about. The plot is a single complication that the protagonist must overcome.  The setting is huge in scope.  A plot and story needs to be focused.  People watching a story need to care about stuff that is happening by identifying with characters and understand what is challenging those characters (ie, understand the plot).  Seeing the big picture is not an entertaining story.  It is a history class.  There is a huge difference between a history channel documentary and a historical movie, namely that a historical movie shows you the world through the eyes of a protagonist.  Actually I`ve noticed that a lot of documentaries are now using small cutscenes to take you through the story through the eyes of people who lived in the time. 

I think you are focused on only one character, Hawke.  The world does not revolve around Hawke.  Hawke is just the player's ride throught the events of DA2.  Flemeth is as important to the story as Hawke is.

There may be a huge difference between a history channel documentary and a historical movie but they are both entertaining stories to me.

I don't agree that seeing the big picture is not an entertaining story.  If that is true then the scenes with Varric and Casandra could not possibly be entertaining and neither can any narration.

Hatchetman77 wrote...

What you want is a simpler, smaller story, that fits a tea cup as well as a galaxy because what does not fit in the tea cup is simply more window dressing.

Actually that's called story focus.  People are usually taken through a world through the eyes of someone, called a protagonist.  A story will make people care about it`s protagonist and that will make people care about the story being told (which are basically the events happening around the protagonist).  Without that, you can still HAVE a story (ie, events can still happen), it`s just it will be a story that people will have a hard time feeling attached to since they don`t know why they should care about it.  The story needs to be focused to give context to the events that are happening within the world it is happening in.   

You can't force people to care about a story.  All you can do is demonstate to them how the story fits their preconcieve ideas about what they care about.  For that, you have to know what they care about.

[nicethugbert]

bduff4545 wrote...

schalafi wrote...

It's odd how so many people rant about the flaws in DA2, but don't blink an eye over the flaws in Origins.
Yes there really were flaws in Origins too. How about some of the cheesy romance dialogue, or the 50 point gifts that raised your influence with the npc's, or the continual barking of dog at camp, etc.

Actually I liked both games for their strengths, and overlooked the flaws because they both had things that held my interest, and were fun to play.

Origins had quite a few flaws, especially on consoles, but the story is what seperates the two substantially. In origins you can choose the king of orzammar. In 2 the only HUGE choice you have is choosing who to side with in the end...thats it

Alright, so you enjoy king maker stories above non-king-maker stories.  In DAO, you can't side with the darkspawn as The Warden.  Some people would love too do so as The Warden.  All sorts of people prefer all sorts of things you can't do in DAO, or someother game.

[Yrkoon]

schalafi wrote...

It's odd how so many people rant about the flaws in DA2, but don't blink an eye over the flaws in Origins.
 

Oh yes,   That's really, really ODD.  lol

Perhaps  this is because in the case of  Dragon Age Origins, the  good Qualities far, FAR overshadow its flaws,  while in DA2, we've got the complete opposite: the flaws are so  numerous, so blindingly apparent and overwhelming, that you actually have to  make a concentrated  effort to dig through all the mediocrity to find  any good qualities.  DA2  presents such an alarming step backwards from the first game that its not funny.  it's  tragically SAD.

Origins is  a completely different class of game than DA2.  It has so many things that DA2 doesn't, that one wonders what the f*ck happened to Bioware. 

A)   Origins has 6 different  Prologues.    DA2 has one immutable  false start, then one prologue  comprized of 4 cutscenes taking place on one straight, featureless, abandoned road.

  DA:O has long and well thought-out  conversations you can have with your companions... at any time.  While DA2 doesn't.  Instead, it uses the 'appointment   system".  Wanna talk to one of your  companions?  No problem,  just travel across the map to their home  then maybe they'll have something to say to you.
 
C) The more natural  romances  in DA:O ( yes, more natural.  In DA:O you actually have to work, over the course of several conversations, to get them. And  when they occur is  NOT set in stone in game time.  Now compare that with DA2, where all you have to do to get a romance  is to flirt with  the companion *once*.  That's it:  ONE TIME, in ONE conversation.  Then you just have to wait until Act 2, when the companion you flirted with ONCE decides to stop by your mansion to basically say:  hey Hawke, since you flirted with me ONCE, lets F*ck, then after the lazy, unimaginative  fade to black cut scene,  I'll change my clothes and everyone will start talking about us as a couple.  The end.)
 
D) Then there's the sheer richness  of the game.   In DA:O, The Urn of Sacred Ashes  ruins look different than the  Bracilian forest Ruins.  The Kocari wilds look different than the Bracialian forest.  Denerim looks different than Redcliffe.  Lothering looks different than Ostagar.  The Circle Tower looks different than  The Tower of Ishal.  Arl  Howe's estate looks different than Fort Drakon.  There are more  map areas and more sheer detail in   Just Orzammar and its deep roads than there is in ALL of DA2.  Lelianna sings to everyone at camp.   Then there's Hespith's poem, and the Hilarious and brilliantly written  "RESCUE!" quests involving your companions.

E)  Leagues more  customization choices in Origins.  You can be a Dwarf,  or Human, or you can take your pick of 2 different kinds of elves.  Your warrior can dualwield or be an archer,   Your rogue can use a sword and shield; or two handed weapons; or dualwield a mace and a long sword; or 2 long swords; or 2 axes; or a dagger and an axe; or 2 daggers; or a longsword and a mace; or 2 maces. etc.  And the same applies to your warrior or mage if they want to dualwield.  And mages can wield daggers.  or longswords, or swords and shields. etc, etc, etc.      Your character can use traps, and  create several different types of poisons, and bombs, and poultices.  Survival is an actual skill with 4 ranks to be had.  There are more spells in DA:O.  You can fully outfit your companions.  You can turn Alistair into an Archer.  Morrigan into an Arcane warrior, Wynne into a Blood mage etc.   You  can steal in  Origins.  You can be a Ranger in Origins.

F) even generic  Loot has item descriptions in Origins

G) - Darkspawn  look like menacing  monsters in Origins, not comic relief clowns, like in DA2

H) - There are magical arrows in DA:O.  And  Crossbows.  And magical bolts for those crossbows.

I) -Dog is a full companion in DA:O, complete  with  stats and talents and a tactics screen  you can build up, from scratch.

J) There are weather effects in Origins  (it rains in Ostagar)

K) Finishing moves.  DA:O has them, DA2 doesn't.

L) Choice.  Or should I say, more meaningful  illusions of choice.  If you side with the Mages in DA:O, they won't, for example, suddenly decide to go bat-sh*t crazy on you 10 minutes before the end of the game and become your enemy per the pre-determined script, thus rendering your choice completely  pointless..

M)  The Ending.    DA:O actually had one.  Imagine that. A fully interactive epilogue where you can have final conversations with your companions,  the king/queen, your siblings/clanmates etc.  Then, after that, there's actually a slideshow explaining what effect your in-game choices had in the DA world.

N):  NPCs in the world  are actually aware of you and what you are.  If you're an Elf,  people will notice  and  dialogue will reflect it.  if you're a Mage, they'll notice that too.  Again, Imagine that!

O)  Dare I say it....  Enemy placement is logical in DA:O.    What you see is what there is.  As it should be.  You don't have to sit there in utter disbelief as fully armored enemies suddenly materalize out of thin air, or parachute down from a flat and solid CEILING.  Mages don't teleport to the opposite end of the room like in some silly arcade game made for 10 year olds.

P) Tactical Camera.  DA:O has one.  DA2?  we don't need no  confusing tactical camera!  Herp - Derp

Q)  In DA:O You can marry the Queen.  You can install a king.    You can  kill or befriend a General, you can slaughter an Arl.   In DA2 you can... um.... get a mansion in Hightown and a noble title?

R) In DA:O you are a Grey Warden who rises in power to ultimately be the commander of an entire country's armed forces.  And in fact, the end of the game sees you saving the country from  complete annihalation.  In DA2, you can um... become a champion, and in between fed-ex quests involving  stuff likde saving an elf boy from fade demons, clearing out a mine,  and rescuing a templar from blood mages, you can.... FAIL to save the city you're the champion of.  Oh how SATISFYING.... not.

S)  Inventory  items.  They're actually colorful and distinguishable in DA:O.  They  look like what they are.   By contrast,   In DA2,   Varric's tethras signet ring looks like a quest arrow.... and oh yeah, so does Isabela ship in a bottle, and Merril's Halla painting.  Developer laziness.

T)  Story.  Origins has one main plot, fully realized, fully explored, fully elaborated on.  And takes place in one giant act.  DA2  has... 3 stories, disjointed, not fully exlored, not fully realized (what the hell  do the Qunari have to do with the deep roads, or the mage vs. templar conflict?)

U)   Combat Stat screens.  DA:O has one.  It lists your combat accomplishments, like Most powerful foe vanquished;   most damage done; number of injuries sustained; number of demons killed,   number of total foes killed number of codexes discovered etc.    DA2?  Bah... stats are  bad, m'kay? 

V) Graphics.  Yes, I'm gonna call BS here on what is a seemingly universal opinion that the Graphics in DA2 are better than they are in Origins.  They're NOT.  DA2's graphics are cartoonish, DA:O's graphics are more photo-like.  Even if you download the DX11 texture pack for DA2,   the graphics  STILL lack the details that DA:O's  has.  NPC faces are baby smooth, they lack lines and wrinkles.  Trees look painted, not organic.  Mountains look drawn, not rugged.

W)  Exploration.    DA2 has... 1)Kirkwall,   2)Deep Roads, 3)Sundermount, 4)Wounded Coast, 5)Bone Pit   and a couple of other  small un-named areas.  And that's all.     DA:O has....  1)Ostagar, 2)Kocari wilds, 3)Lothering, 4)Redcliffe  (and its castle), 5)Denerim,  6)Orsamar, 7)Frostback Mountains, 8)Bracilian camp, 9)Bracilian forest, 10)The Circle (which is in its own seperate area),  11)Urn of Sacred Ashes ruins (and the village that surrounds it).  12)Honnleath, and a few other un-named but UNIQUE areas you can stumble upon while you're traveling.

X) Quests  designed for role playing.   This is something not many people bother to mention, and I have no idea why.  They add *so* much flavor to a game.   In DA:O,  Slim Couldry offers  rogue-related quests for anyone who has stealing skills.  This element is completely absent in DA2, who's quests are completely cookie-cutter and one-size-fits-all.

Y)  DA:O is  a longer, bigger game.  A lot bigger..  And  while one can argue that  boigger/longer doesn't equal better, in this case it absolutely does, since the vast majority of DA2's content is mind-numbingly tedius filler.  In fact, I'd argue that the entire fist ACT is 99%  un-needed filler content.  Utterly irrelevant to the story, especially since you don't even need to  raise a single copper to go on the deep roads expedition.

Z)  Ornate ring, superior plate, enchanted staff x10000.  Are you kidding me?  What happened to the flavor and the labor of love  put into even the  *vender trash* in the first game?

I can go on and on and on.  But the Alphabet only has 26 letters, and I've used them all up.  DA2 doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as DA:O.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 juillet 2011 - 05:51 .

[Ronin2006]

Yrkoon wrote...

I can go on and on and on.  But the Alphabet only has 26 letters, and I've used them all up.  DA2 doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as DA:O.

I was really enjoying reading your post and disappointed to see you end it at the end of the alphabet!

Don't some South East Asian alphabets contain over 70 letters?  You should've used them!

[Chromie]

Well damn! Good list Yrkoon. Though i disagree about the graphics but after playing the Witcher 2 and seeing what a proper engine when optimized can do there is no excuse for the performance hit when I play on DX11 at max settings. Also Bioware needs a new engine.

[kingjezza]

Yrkoon that is one of the best posts I've read on here, great work.

I know you ran out of letters but DA2's horrendous UI should really get a mention, look at the care and effort that went into creating Origin's UI, one that fits with the setting of the game, now compare that to the piece of crap UI in DA2, a UI that looks like it has been whipped up by the work experience kid on his lunch break and would fit better in ME than it would the Dragon Age Universe.

Don't even get me started on the cartoonish combat in DA2 compared to the more grounded combat of Origins, now we have Rogues flipping about on screen like ninjas, spin kicking flasks at enemies, mages twirling there staffs around like batons and general all round sillyness, it's like a focus group of ten year olds was asked to think up what there coolest most awesome combat would be and Bioware went right ahead and implemented it.

Now I get it is in the end it comes down to personal choice, if you like DA2 more than Origins, think it's better than Origins etc then fair enough, each to their own, after all there are people in the World who think Glee is a better show than the Sopranos, however absurd I might think that is.

[Elhanan]

I believe that DA2 is a good game; just not a great game like DAO. And while I enjoyed the visual style of DAA, I prefer the overall DA2 game design.

[Raycer X]

Well, after modding the crap out of my recently purchased PC version. I can say that it plays a bit better for me now.

[Cutlasskiwi]

bduff4545 wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

bduff4545 wrote...

This guy actually made me realize that I've been telling myself it was BETTER than Origins listen to this guuy's review I found today: 

Is that guy serious? When I saw the title "Angry Review" I started to wonder if it would be a serious review but I started to listen nonetheless. Then stopped when he started talking about the characters being emo, whiny, ****ty and from Final Fantasy. And the game being a sausage fest.

Sure he had some valid points and complaints before that but I just can't take it seriously.

Yeah some parts I caught myself laughing because of ridiculousness, but he is right about the sausagefest, I mean really.....making all LI's bi. In DA:O only 2/4 LI's were bi. It either means that bioware just wanted to please the gay audience too much or they needed to rush the game.

Please the gay audience to much?

I see no problem with offering romance option to more of the players, but different strokes and all that. They also made it possible to romance followers on either the friendship or rivalry track so I don't think they did that to rush out the game. But yeah, making them all bi is cheaper than creating limited content and I thought it was a good solution. Looking at forums it would seem that people care very much about romances. It's a way to connect to the characters in the game even more and I'm glad BioWare took this route with DA2.

[Rokky94]

I agree with OP. I went crazy on the first two weeks, I was like, "OMG THIS ROCKS!".

Then I thought about it more once I finished. I then went for another playthrough and I thought, omg this sucks.

[bduff4545]

Yrkoon wrote...

schalafi wrote...

It's odd how so many people rant about the flaws in DA2, but don't blink an eye over the flaws in Origins.
 

Oh yes,   That's really, really ODD.  lol

Perhaps  this is because in the case of  Dragon Age Origins, the  good Qualities far, FAR overshadow its flaws,  while in DA2, we've got the complete opposite: the flaws are so  numerous, so blindingly apparent and overwhelming, that you actually have to  make a concentrated  effort to dig through all the mediocrity to find  any good qualities.  DA2  presents such an alarming step backwards from the first game that its not funny.  it's  tragically SAD.

Origins is  a completely different class of game than DA2.  It has so many things that DA2 doesn't, that one wonders what the f*ck happened to Bioware. 

A)   Origins has 6 different  Prologues.    DA2 has one immutable  false start, then one prologue  comprized of 4 cutscenes taking place on one straight, featureless, abandoned road.

  DA:O has long and well thought-out  conversations you can have with your companions... at any time.  While DA2 doesn't.  Instead, it uses the 'appointment   system".  Wanna talk to one of your  companions?  No problem,  just travel across the map to their home  then maybe they'll have something to say to you.
 
C) The more natural  romances  in DA:O ( yes, more natural.  In DA:O you actually have to work, over the course of several conversations, to get them. And  when they occur is  NOT set in stone in game time.  Now compare that with DA2, where all you have to do to get a romance  is to flirt with  the companion *once*.  That's it:  ONE TIME, in ONE conversation.  Then you just have to wait until Act 2, when the companion you flirted with ONCE decides to stop by your mansion to basically say:  hey Hawke, since you flirted with me ONCE, lets F*ck, then after the lazy, unimaginative  fade to black cut scene,  I'll change my clothes and everyone will start talking about us as a couple.  The end.)
 
D) Then there's the sheer richness  of the game.   In DA:O, The Urn of Sacred Ashes  ruins look different than the  Bracilian forest Ruins.  The Kocari wilds look different than the Bracialian forest.  Denerim looks different than Redcliffe.  Lothering looks different than Ostagar.  The Circle Tower looks different than  The Tower of Ishal.  Arl  Howe's estate looks different than Fort Drakon.  There are more  map areas and more sheer detail in   Just Orzammar and its deep roads than there is in ALL of DA2.  Lelianna sings to everyone at camp.   Then there's Hespith's poem, and the Hilarious and brilliantly written  "RESCUE!" quests involving your companions.

E)  Leagues more  customization choices in Origins.  You can be a Dwarf,  or Human, or you can take your pick of 2 different kinds of elves.  Your warrior can dualwield or be an archer,   Your rogue can use a sword and shield; or two handed weapons; or dualwield a mace and a long sword; or 2 long swords; or 2 axes; or a dagger and an axe; or 2 daggers; or a longsword and a mace; or 2 maces. etc.  And the same applies to your warrior or mage if they want to dualwield.  And mages can wield daggers.  or longswords, or swords and shields. etc, etc, etc.      Your character can use traps, and  create several different types of poisons, and bombs, and poultices.  Survival is an actual skill with 4 ranks to be had.  There are more spells in DA:O.  You can fully outfit your companions.  You can turn Alistair into an Archer.  Morrigan into an Arcane warrior, Wynne into a Blood mage etc.   You  can steal in  Origins.  You can be a Ranger in Origins.

F) even generic  Loot has item descriptions in Origins

G) - Darkspawn  look like menacing  monsters in Origins, not comic relief clowns, like in DA2

H) - There are magical arrows in DA:O.  And  Crossbows.  And magical bolts for those crossbows.

I) -Dog is a full companion in DA:O, complete  with  stats and talents and a tactics screen  you can build up, from scratch.

J) There are weather effects in Origins  (it rains in Ostagar)

K) Finishing moves.  DA:O has them, DA2 doesn't.

L) Choice.  Or should I say, more meaningful  illusions of choice.  If you side with the Mages in DA:O, they won't, for example, suddenly decide to go bat-sh*t crazy on you 10 minutes before the end of the game and become your enemy per the pre-determined script, thus rendering your choice completely  pointless..

M)  The Ending.    DA:O actually had one.  Imagine that. A fully interactive epilogue where you can have final conversations with your companions,  the king/queen, your siblings/clanmates etc.  Then, after that, there's actually a slideshow explaining what effect your in-game choices had in the DA world.

N):  NPCs in the world  are actually aware of you and what you are.  If you're an Elf,  people will notice  and  dialogue will reflect it.  if you're a Mage, they'll notice that too.  Again, Imagine that!

O)  Dare I say it....  Enemy placement is logical in DA:O.    What you see is what there is.  As it should be.  You don't have to sit there in utter disbelief as fully armored enemies suddenly materalize out of thin air, or parachute down from a flat and solid CEILING.  Mages don't teleport to the opposite end of the room like in some silly arcade game made for 10 year olds.

P) Tactical Camera.  DA:O has one.  DA2?  we don't need no  confusing tactical camera!  Herp - Derp

Q)  In DA:O You can marry the Queen.  You can install a king.    You can  kill or befriend a General, you can slaughter an Arl.   In DA2 you can... um.... get a mansion in Hightown and a noble title?

R) In DA:O you are a Grey Warden who rises in power to ultimately be the commander of an entire country's armed forces.  And in fact, the end of the game sees you saving the country from  complete annihalation.  In DA2, you can um... become a champion, and in between fed-ex quests involving  stuff likde saving an elf boy from fade demons, clearing out a mine,  and rescuing a templar from blood mages, you can.... FAIL to save the city you're the champion of.  Oh how SATISFYING.... not.

S)  Inventory  items.  They're actually colorful and distinguishable in DA:O.  They  look like what they are.   By contrast,   In DA2,   Varric's tethras signet ring looks like a quest arrow.... and oh yeah, so does Isabela ship in a bottle, and Merril's Halla painting.  Developer laziness.

T)  Story.  Origins has one main plot, fully realized, fully explored, fully elaborated on.  And takes place in one giant act.  DA2  has... 3 stories, disjointed, not fully exlored, not fully realized (what the hell  do the Qunari have to do with the deep roads, or the mage vs. templar conflict?)

U)   Combat Stat screens.  DA:O has one.  It lists your combat accomplishments, like Most powerful foe vanquished;   most damage done; number of injuries sustained; number of demons killed,   number of total foes killed number of codexes discovered etc.    DA2?  Bah... stats are  bad, m'kay? 

V) Graphics.  Yes, I'm gonna call BS here on what is a seemingly universal opinion that the Graphics in DA2 are better than they are in Origins.  They're NOT.  DA2's graphics are cartoonish, DA:O's graphics are more photo-like.  Even if you download the DX11 texture pack for DA2,   the graphics  STILL lack the details that DA:O's  has.  NPC faces are baby smooth, they lack lines and wrinkles.  Trees look painted, not organic.  Mountains look drawn, not rugged.

W)  Exploration.    DA2 has... 1)Kirkwall,   2)Deep Roads, 3)Sundermount, 4)Wounded Coast, 5)Bone Pit   and a couple of other  small un-named areas.  And that's all.     DA:O has....  1)Ostagar, 2)Kocari wilds, 3)Lothering, 4)Redcliffe  (and its castle), 5)Denerim,  6)Orsamar, 7)Frostback Mountains, 8)Bracilian camp, 9)Bracilian forest, 10)The Circle (which is in its own seperate area),  11)Urn of Sacred Ashes ruins (and the village that surrounds it).  12)Honnleath, and a few other un-named but UNIQUE areas you can stumble upon while you're traveling.

X) Quests  designed for role playing.   This is something not many people bother to mention, and I have no idea why.  They add *so* much flavor to a game.   In DA:O,  Slim Couldry offers  rogue-related quests for anyone who has stealing skills.  This element is completely absent in DA2, who's quests are completely cookie-cutter and one-size-fits-all.

Y)  DA:O is  a longer, bigger game.  A lot bigger..  And  while one can argue that  boigger/longer doesn't equal better, in this case it absolutely does, since the vast majority of DA2's content is mind-numbingly tedius filler.  In fact, I'd argue that the entire fist ACT is 99%  un-needed filler content.  Utterly irrelevant to the story, especially since you don't even need to  raise a single copper to go on the deep roads expedition.

Z)  Ornate ring, superior plate, enchanted staff x10000.  Are you kidding me?  What happened to the flavor and the labor of love  put into even the  *vender trash* in the first game?

I can go on and on and on.  But the Alphabet only has 26 letters, and I've used them all up.  DA2 doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as DA:O.

Dude.....your amazing. I never thought of that many problems that DA:2 had.

[Tirfan]

^ And he didn't even mention all of them, I can come up with a couple of more if you want?

[jds1bio]

While I like definitive resolutions in game stores, in no way is the slideshow a positive - especially after playing the ME2 loyalty quests, and TW2.

Quests designed for role playing - I've had it with the "collect x amount of y" quests, and the "deliver message to x people" quests. Aside from DA2's "return old artifact" quests, DA2 and TW2 proved that sidequests could be more interesting and fill in some backstory at the same time.

Lazy, unimaginative romance scenes - so the many movies over the years that depict romance the same way DA2 does are also lazy and unimaginative?

In DA2 you can play matchmaker, or not care about romance at all. You can send people back to lives of hardship, clear their consciences, or just off them yourself. So you do have some options here.

DA:O's graphics are stylized, but the people are not photo-like in any way. They are more KOTOR-like than anything else.

DA:O and DA2 have similarities, but in some ways are different types of games for different types of gamers. Some people can play and enjoy both. Some can't. No one is under any obligation to make a game just the way you like it or just the way I like it.

I'm sorry you can't be an elf or a dwarf in DA2. But think about whether you ever properly been able to role-play elf or a dwarf in any cRPG, other than having some particular stat modifiers and skills. Have you had to really confront age and height issues, racial bias, cultural practices, language, personality and viewpoint? While DA:O's origins are a commendable effort, becoming a Warden flattens out a lot of these aspects.

[Sutekh]

@Yrkoon:

You raise some very good points, but some I find very biased and essentially YMMV, so not "Good / bad" material.

[quote]C) The more natural  romances  in DA:O ( yes, more natural.  In DA:O you actually have to work, over the course of several conversations, to get them. And  when they occur is  NOT set in stone in game time.  Now compare that with DA2, where all you have to do to get a romance  is to flirt with  the companion *once*.  That's it:  ONE TIME, in ONE conversation.  Then you just have to wait until Act 2, when the companion you flirted with ONCE decides to stop by your mansion to basically say:  hey Hawke, since you flirted with me ONCE, lets F*ck, then after the lazy, unimaginative  fade to black cut scene,  I'll change my clothes and everyone will start talking about us as a couple.  The end.)[/quote]This is not true.

Romances in DA2 will only conclude after you've flirted several times, and completed the potential LI's personal quest in Act II. Romance in DAO would be initiated, like in DA2, by a single line of dialog which would turn the status to "interested" if approval is high enough. You then only have to raise approval and talk some more. With enough gifts, you can bed anyone in no time. No such thing in DA2.

As for the sex scenes... let's not go there. I prefer a fade to black to DAO's sex in underpants (when unmodded. When modded, it's a whole different story).


[quote]E)  [...] Your rogue can use a sword and shield; or two handed weapons;[/quote]
But they won't have access to the corresponding talents, so pretty much useless. The strength required for shield and 2H is pretty high too. Not something you'd want to invest on a rogue. The "choice" is there, but is pointless.

[quote] You can turn Alistair into an Archer.  Morrigan into an Arcane warrior, Wynne into a Blood mage etc.[/quote]Which shouldn't be possible. That's incredibly OOC of her.

[quote]G) - Darkspawn  look like menacing  monsters in Origins, not comic relief clowns, like in DA2[/quote]I agree, but it's a matter of taste and interpretation.

[quote]N):  NPCs in the world  are actually aware of you and what you are.  If you're an Elf,  people will notice  and  dialogue will reflect it.  if you're a Mage, they'll notice that too.  Again, Imagine that![/quote]Well, since you can only play a human in DA2, no point in noticing your race, right? NPCs will notice you're Fereldan, though. This said, totally agreed on the Mage thing.

[quote]Q)  In DA:O You can marry the Queen.  You can install a king.    You can  kill or befriend a General, you can slaughter an Arl.   In DA2 you can... um.... get a mansion in Hightown and a noble title?[/quote]And become the Champion of Kirkwall, and Viscount / Symbol of the Mage rebellion.

[quote]R) In DA:O you are a Grey Warden who rises in power to ultimately be the commander of an entire country's armed forces.  And in fact, the end of the game sees you saving the country from  complete annihalation.  In DA2, you can um... become a champion, and in between fed-ex quests involving  stuff likde saving an elf boy from fade demons, clearing out a mine,  and rescuing a templar from blood mages, you can.... FAIL to save the city you're the champion of.  Oh how SATISFYING.... not.[/quote]Again, matter of taste. Not everyone like Saving the World from an Ancient Evil. Besides, the quests you mentioned are hardly fedex. DA2 has some damn good quests, IMO. And DAO has its share of Fedex quests too. Even straight from inventory ones.

[quote]T)  Story.  Origins has one main plot, fully realized, fully explored, fully elaborated on.  And takes place in one giant act.  DA2  has... 3 stories, disjointed, not fully exlored, not fully realized (what the hell  do the Qunari have to do with the deep roads, or the mage vs. templar conflict?)[/quote]Different structure doesn't make something better or worse. Taste again, not fact. Honestly, if Act III wasn't such a failure, the whole story could have been quite good.

[quote]U)  Combat Stat screens.  DA:O has one.  It lists your combat accomplishments, like Most powerful foe vanquished;   most damage done; number of injuries sustained; number of demons killed,   number of total foes killed number of codexes discovered etc.    DA2?  Bah... stats are  bad, m'kay?[/quote]I, for one, don't give a damn about game stats (which, anyway, are bugged once you enter Awakening). 

[quote]V) Graphics.  Yes, I'm gonna call BS here on what is a seemingly universal opinion that the Graphics in DA2 are better than they are in Origins.  They're NOT.  DA2's graphics are cartoonish, DA:O's graphics are more photo-like.  Even if you download the DX11 texture pack for DA2,   the graphics  STILL lack the details that DA:O's  has.  NPC faces are baby smooth, they lack lines and wrinkles.  Trees look painted, not organic.  Mountains look drawn, not rugged.[/quote]I find them better, you don't. DAO has many qualities. Outstanding graphics isn't one of them.

[quote]Y)  DA:O is  a longer, bigger game.  A lot bigger..  And  while one can argue that  boigger/longer doesn't equal better, in this case it absolutely does, since the vast majority of DA2's content is mind-numbingly tedius filler.  In fact, I'd argue that the entire fist ACT is 99%  un-needed filler content.  Utterly irrelevant to the story, especially since you don't even need to  raise a single copper to go on the deep roads expedition.[/quote]That, again, is not true. Many quests are tied either to the main plot(s), to Hawke's personal story or to companions'.

And... that's all. I do prefer DAO to DA2 by far, but you'd make a better case if you separated opinion from facts and were more accurate on some of your points

[Tirfan]

^a small correction, you actually need to flirt in DA2 only once, you just need enough friendship/rivalry after their personal quest has been completed.

So, romancing is very easy in both games, I hope for the day when we could have that older male character with graying hair that would be actually hard to romance (and exclusive to only female characters, sorry).

[Sutekh]

Tirfan wrote...

^a small correction, you actually need to flirt in DA2 only once, you just need enough friendship/rivalry after their personal quest has been completed.

I stand corrected. I really was under the impression you had to work a little. But you still have to do their quest and wait till Act II. They don't magically appear at your place with no apparent reason. And with no silly gifts system, frienship/rivalry is harder to raise. So there. 

[Tirfan]

Weell, not really, you can quite easily figure out what the characters like.. Merril is an bloodmage-elf, so be generally nice, be nice to mages and bloodmages and elves and a lot of friendship is gained. For rivalry, be a dick, don't be nice to elves and mages and bloodmages.

Of course, if you are in-character with Hawke and are playing a nice to mages - racist ****** - doesn't like bloodmagic - generally nice. She can pretty much stay in the middle if you don't metagame.. But then again, if you are in character with the Warden you wouldn't shower people you don't like with gifts, even if you keep the person around, perhaps just because they are useful.

The gift system in origins was kind of silly because it was too easy to abuse.

[Elhanan]

Sutekh wrote...

E)  [...] Your rogue can use a sword and shield; or two handed weapons;

But they won't have access to the corresponding talents, so pretty much useless. The strength required for shield and 2H is pretty high too. Not something you'd want to invest on a rogue. The "choice" is there, but is pointless.

While I disagree with some of the aforementioned points, this one is spot on correct. All but one of my Rogues were able to weild shields and wear heavy armor in DAO, and the build worked quite well. And while I did not explore 2H for the Rogue, many others did. Check the DAO forums for verification.

[Yrkoon]

Sutekh wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

^a small correction, you actually need to flirt in DA2 only once, you just need enough friendship/rivalry after their personal quest has been completed.

I stand corrected. I really was under the impression you had to work a little. But you still have to do their quest and wait till Act II. They don't magically appear at your place with no apparent reason. And with no silly gifts system, frienship/rivalry is harder to raise. So there. 

I'll correct you again.  Or rather, point out something Pointless.  While yes, you have to do their act One quest, that's not even worth mentioning, since you have to do it  ANYWAY   in order for them to become a party member in the first place.

Elhanan wrote...


While I disagree with some of the aforementioned points, this one is spot on correct. All but one of my Rogues were able to weild shields and wear heavy armor in DAO, and the build worked quite well. And while I did not explore 2H for the Rogue, many others did. Check the DAO forums for verification.

Yep.  Rogues are nothing like warriors in DA:O.  They're   neither  confined to a single stat that defines their effectiveness,  nor do they  need to fill out any weapon trees to be complete destroyers on the battle field.  The Rogue tree talents,   Stealth,  poison use, and their innate, at will,  backstabbing skills are more than enough.

And you haven't experienced True Awesome until you've Backstabbed someone with the Dragon Bone Cleaver.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:31 .