178 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

Yrkoon wrote...
I'll correct you again.  Or rather, point out something Pointless.  You only have to do their act One quest.  Which is not even worth mentioning, since you have to do it  ANYWAY   in order for them to become a party member in the first place.

So what you're saying is:

Act I: You do their quest (mandatory to recruit them), flirt with them ONCE.

Act II: You raise their Friendship/Rivalry high enough then bam! they magically appear in your home and it's sexy time.

OK. I can only quote the wiki here, because checking it in-game would take hours:

In Act 2, choosing certain dialogue options during Anders' personal quest will result in a later conversation that initiates the first real romance scene with him, in Questioning Beliefs. This dialogue changes depending on the Friendship or Rivalry score. If a friend, Anders will be laying out milk for the cats. If a rival, he will be writing a manifesto to convince Hawke to side with him. If Hawke continues to flirt here, he will kiss him/her, then telling Hawke that he will come to the Hawke Estate at night.

Romance with Merrill is initiated once her companion quests, Mirror Image, Back From Sundermount, and her Questioning Beliefs, have been done. Merrill then visits the estate, followed by a heart-to-heart talk with Hawke.

In order for the romance to actually begin, Hawke must take Fenris around the region outside of Kirkwall during Act 2 [...] This will lead to a fight in which Tevinter slavers attempt to recapture him. [...] This gives the quest A Bitter Pill. To romance Fenris successfully, you must have completed his Questioning Beliefs quest (Act II) prior to completing A Bitter Pill. [...] He will need to be alone after this, and will leave the party temporarily once A Bitter Pill has been completed.

When next the player goes to Hawke's mansion, Fenris will be there waiting.

The only one who behaves like you said (Flirt during Act I, raise Frendship/Rivalry and wait for Act II) is (not very surprisingly) Isabela. One out of four.

Modifié par Sutekh, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:30 .

[Yrkoon]

Sutekh wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
I'll correct you again.  Or rather, point out something Pointless.  You only have to do their act One quest.  Which is not even worth mentioning, since you have to do it  ANYWAY   in order for them to become a party member in the first place.

So what you're saying is:

Act I: You do their quest (mandatory to recruit them), flirt with them ONCE.

Act II: You raise their Friendship/Rivalry high enough then bam! they magically appear in your home and it's sexy time.

Yeah, pretty much.   All wiki does is mention specific game details that happen anyway during the course of the game, regardless of whether there's a romance or not.    But I digress.   I under-stated the first one:    The game flat out WILL NOT ADVANCE to  Act 2 until you do each and every  act 1  companion quest.  So you don't even have a choice in the matter.  So to even bring it up as a requirement  for the romance is silly.  Why not just say:  You must  play DA2 in order to get  a companion romance.  lol

And I have no idea why  you think it's hard/harder to gain friendship/rivalry points with your companions in DA2.  Again, it only takes  ONE conversation in act one with Anders  (for example) in order to gain 25 friendship points  Which I'm fairly certain is more than enough to get the romance.  And  on the off chance  that its not,   simply talk to him one more time in act 2 for another 15 friendship points.

Isabela, as you mention,  is no different.   In my first playthrough,  I got her romance by accident.  I wasn't even paying attention to  her friendship/rivalry meter.    And  I have no idea what I did, beyond just flirting with her one time at the very beginning of act 2.  But it happened.  about 2 minutes later,  I go to my mansion and there she is.

And you're missing the point.  Is it natural for there to be set-in-stone, appointed times for romances?  Ask yourself why you can't  consumate a romance with anyone in act one.  Ask yourself why it takes 3 years.  Or better yet, Ask yourself why a single  flirt in a single conversation   (and with nothing more)  can ever manage to lead to a romance 3 years later.

Then when you're done, lets focus on how that contrasts with DA:O, and its widely varying  methods:  You can sleep with morrigan after talking to her for  less than 10 minutes, before even setting foot in Lothering.  On the other hand, it takes a hell of a long time to get Lelianna to sleep with you.  And trying to speed things up with gifts won't even work, since  it won't happen anyway until  1) a specific ambush and 2) a specific personal quest.

Then there's Zevran.  Not particulary difficult, but it still takes tons of conversation... but that of course assumes you didn't kill him when you first meet.  Which is a choice you have...    What a concept:  choice.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:42 .

[alex90c]

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.

I LOVE YOU <3

Too bad you couldn't include how everything in DA2 is spiky and feathery too. I mean say, DA:O's massive armour actually looked like it would protect you, but say, the DA2 champion armour just looks so unbelievably impractical that someone could just cleave you in two if you wore that in real life.

I thought the DA2 combat too actually sucked so hard that for that reason right now I actually refuse to play as anything but a mage. The retarded hyperactive rogue combat I just find repulsive (have you seen the first rogue attack animation? it doesn't even touch who you're trying to attack, and yet pre-patch it would cause them to just explode in a giant gore fest!), the sword & shield animations are retarded as well (you'd probably dislocate your wrist trying to hit someone with moves like that if they were wearing armour since it would just glance off it violently) and then there's the whole swinging a 6ft long sword like a freaking toothpick. What the hell were Bioware thinking when making those animations? Did they think it would look "cool"? Itj ust looks moronic, and the attacks just have no weight. In DA:O you knew with a 2H you were going to do a great swing and then you would just hit like a truck, especially once you got stunning blows where your attacks hit so hard that they actually had a chance to stun. Then you get the prologue of DA2 where you're thwacking the putty patrol with your giant toothpick and doing like, 1-5 damage.

Now I hate the little staff twirling act, but since mages are "supernatural" in comparison to real life and far more interesting than the watching paint dry Origins mages, it's the only class i'm willing to suspend disbelief for. It's quite funny really, the DA2 non-mage combat was so horrifically bad that it might actually get me to finish my very first mage Dragon Age playthrough. Now I just need to muster the willingness to actually get beyond Act 1.

[schalafi]

You didn't have to write a book to tell me you preferred Origins, and yes, you  should try mage, I found it much better than in Origins.

Modifié par schalafi, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:13 .

[Ryuu814]

To be fair...I feel that while DA2 isn't up to Bioware Standard that I have become accustomed to and the numerous flaws. I liked DA2.

the Essay above I agree with some of the things said. Other things are just being picky to be fair XDD.
I think we as people just focus way to much on the negatives in general and not enough about the positives of a game and then base out opinion out of the amount of negatives we find.
It's like that everywhere you see. My XBL profile is leaning more to avoidance than prefered. Because people will go out of there way to "hate" on something than they will to "like" something.

Just my 2 cents. I liked DA2 for my own reasons. While no-one has to agree with me and my opinion, it's just that. My own personal opinion

[Tirfan]

^ The thing is, the positive things in DA2 are.. good looking loading screens. The new talent-trees were kind of nice could have been better than DA:Os.. if there weren't those arbitrary restrictions and the UI wasn't horrible. The Friendship/Rivalry was kind of nice, could have been better if it had somehow made any sense.

This isn't much. compare it to the list of flaws.

Edit; and I initially wrote it like I was only comparing it to origins. its a thing I do with sequels.

Modifié par Tirfan, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:58 .

[Sutekh]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

So what you're saying is:

Act I: You do their quest (mandatory to recruit them), flirt with them ONCE.

Act II: You raise their Friendship/Rivalry high enough then bam! they magically appear in your home and it's sexy time.

Yeah, pretty much.  In fact,  I understated the first one:    The game flat out WILL NOT ADVANCE to  Act 2 until you do each and every  act 1  companion quest.  So you don't even have a choice in the matter.  So to even bring it up as a requirement  for the romance is silly.  Why not just say:  You must  play DA2 in order to get  a companion romance.  lol

All the quests mentioned above as mandatory to initiate romance with Anders, Merrill or Fenris by the Wiki (and in my experience) are Act II personal quests. Not Act I. Which means you need more than accidental flirting then Friendship/Rivalry. That was my one and only point:

Romances in DA2 will only conclude after you've flirted several times, and completed the potential LI's personal quest in Act II. 

As for the game not advancing to Act II until you do each personal quests? I doubt it, seeing there are people who have reached Act II or finished the game without recruiting, or even meeting Isabela or Fenris (according to the Wiki, and, for instance, this thread: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/7697921). Merrill and Anders are, yes, mandatory.

Without a toolset to actually check the flags, I can't give you more proofs than that. The Wiki, my personal experience in all four romances, and other people's too.

And I have no idea why  you think it's hard/harder to gain friendship/rivalry points with your companions in DA2.  Again, it only takes  ONE conversation in act one with Anders  (for example) in order to gain 25 friendship points  Which I'm fairly certain is more than enough to get the romance.  And  on the off chance  that its not,   simply talk to him one more time in act 2 for another 15 friendship points.

Because of the gift system, which allows you to artificially boost approval. You can abuse it and raise approval high very fast. The gifts DLC makes things much, much worse. You can also hit dialogs until you get your way. It is meta-gaming, but so is doing or saying the exact right thing in the exact right quest in DA2.

And no, 25 friendship points isn't always enough. For Fenris and Anders, for instance, the romance requires Questioning Beliefs in Act II which needs 50. Not that difficult to get, but still more than what gifts give you in DAO, especially considering you can only do this in Act II, so small window of opportunity here. Which, btw, I don't think is a good thing at all. And there's also the Rivalry problem which is very easy to obtain too (or the reverse if you're pursuing a rivalmance), and pulls you back toward the center of the scale.

Isabela, as you mention,  is no different.   In my first playthrough,  I got her romance by accident.  I wasn't even paying attention to  her friendship/rivalry meter.    And  I have no idea what I did, beyond just flirting with her one time at the very beginning of act 2.  But it happened.  about 2 minutes later,  I go to my mansion and there she is.

As I said, Isabela is the one who will jump you quite easily. This said, I remember not having that flirting line for three of my playthroughs, so it doesn't happen all the time.

And you're missing the point.  Is it natural for there to be set-in-stone, appointed times for romances?  Ask yourself why you can't  consumate a romance with anyone in act one.  Ask yourself why it takes 3 years.  Or better yet, Ask yourself why a single  flirt in a single conversation   (and with nothing more)  can ever manage to lead to a romance 3 years later.

Part of your point was that romance in DA2 is ridiculously easy and requires nothing more than one flirt in Act I and enough F/R. It isn't true, and that's what I addressed. As for 3 years later, and no romance in Act I, I happen to agree with you, but that wasn't the point.

Btw, the fact that they're set in stone is something I have myself complained about enough.

Then when you're done, lets focus on how that contrasts with DA:O, and its widely varying  methods:  You can sleep with morrigan after talking to her for  less than 10 minutes, before even setting foot in Lothering.  On the other hand, it takes a hell of a long time to get Lelianna to sleep with you.  And trying to speed things up with gifts won't even work, since  it won't happen anyway until  1) a specific ambush and 2) a specific personal quest.

Yes Leliana needed her personal quest to be fulfilled. So did Alistair, IIRC. But said quests can happen quite quickly based (again) on approval and dialogs. And she ninjamanced my Wardens often enough past that, to the point I had some of them simply not talk to her anymore to avoid the problem.

Then there's Zevran.  Not particulary difficult, but it still takes tons of conversation...

Yep, what I said: raise approval and talk with them.

but that of course assumes you didn't kill him when you first meet.  Which is a choice you have...    What a concept:  choice.

Yeah, I know. The concept of choice, however, wasn't what I was discussing. And you also have the choice not to recruit Isabela or Fenris.

Edit, because I forgot, and it was bugging me:

All wiki does is mention specific game details that happen anyway during the course of the game, regardless of whether there's a romance or not.

Nope. All the quests mentioned are optional secondary quests: i.e. companion quests, just like DAO. You can skip them and continue merrily with the main plot.

Modifié par Sutekh, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:39 .

[Graspiloot]

You make some valid points but I think in other you are pretty biased.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Well I agree that the prologue in DA2 was poor.  However I can understand that all characters have to be human, because it's hard for the game to deal with things like racism (which in DAO is avoided because they are grey wardens) and it would have to change pretty large parts of the game because of the family ties. 

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
  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.
[/quote]

I think it makes sense to not be able to have long conversations with your companions all the time. What you do in DA2 is (how I percieved it) to be in between  your normal life, so when you are on the quests to the deep roads it would be awkward to start having a long conversation with your party members. Which could happen in Origins: in the middle of a fight I can start to have a lengthy conversation with my party members about nothing. There is a time and a place for conversation.

[quote]Yrkoon wrote... 
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 mostly the Isabela romance, and I agree there. I also agree it's probably a bit too easy to have romances (more selective romances, not on bases of gender but on bases of choices would have been nice, no fenris-blood mages romance for example). However in DAO you could be complete opposites with someone, insult them at every turn and just gift the hell out of them and romance them. So natural, it just feels weak to me as well.

[quote]Yrkoon wrote... 
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.
[/quote]
I agree. The Leliana song was pretty awkward and didn't really fit in though. They should have put in a lot more work for Kirkwall, one city can be very varied and interesting, but it needs to be more dynamic and a lot more detailed. The problem with the places you mentioned Ill adress later.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.
[/quote]I agree that there was more customisation possible for classes in DAO. However if they added another Arcane Warrior possibility in it would have been very weak because of the way it was unlocked in DAO. On the other hand in DAO you could mostly focus on one stat (magic for mages, str for dps warriors, dex for tanks and archers and cunning for 1h rogues). That's not a lot of customisation either. 
Wynne being blood mages is incredible and feels very weak to me. There is no way Wynne would become a blood mage. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
F) even generic  Loot has item descriptions in Origins
[/quote]
Agree
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
G) - Darkspawn  look like menacing  monsters in Origins, not comic relief clowns, like in DA2
[/quote]
Agree
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
H) - There are magical arrows in DA:O.  And  Crossbows.  And magical bolts for those crossbows.
[/quote]
Crossbows are fairly useless in DAO and magical bolts I just used for selling. The added value seemed little and you'd only use it for bosses or it would be a waste. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
I) -Dog is a full companion in DA:O, complete  with  stats and talents and a tactics screen  you can build up, from scratch.
[/quote]
People then complained about that they thought dog should have been a summonable pet. As a party member dog didn't add enough for me personally. I always had more interesting characters to take his spot. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
J) There are weather effects in Origins  (it rains in Ostagar)
[/quote]
Fairly limited weather effects, but true. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
K) Finishing moves.  DA:O has them, DA2 doesn't.
[/quote]
Agree
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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..
[/quote]
I agree about the mages choice in DA2. However in DAO the choices mattered fairly little in game as well. Just who would fight beside you on the tower, the golems being the only one that is added and not replaced. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.
[/quote]
The epilogue was complete BS. Ok so the game is over, so instead of Bioware showing us the consequences of our actions they just give us a spreadsheet to tell us what happened. You are satisfied with that but not with DA2? DA2 is a cliffhanger for sure, but it can be the lead to a beautiful story (I hope so much that it will involve annihilating the chantry...). Epilogue slides would have been completely out of place as it would spoil for the next game, and forcing them to already write some parts of the story leaving less room for changes when producing/writing. The ending was mostly dissatisfying because it was the same whether you choose mages or templars. It would probably have been better to play a little more after the narration ends, so you can see the consequences of your actions. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
They notice you to be an elf and it has no difference because you are a grey warden. That is a lot easier than what would have been done for DA2. If they notice you are a mage there the templars should have been called and most of the game would consist of running from the templars (although in act I and II the desperation of being an apostate should have been more clear). 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.[/quote]
Agree

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
P) Tactical Camera.  DA:O has one.  DA2?  we don't need no  confusing tactical camera!  Herp - Derp
[/quote]
Agree
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
You become Champion and possibly viscount? Also it just means that Hawke isn't a WMD after the game ends. Most people don't, you know.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
I for one am done with ancient evil rises to devour the world and you are the one hero that can stop them - stories. DA2 was for Bioware standards original. It does something different and gives you a character that doesn't change the world with every fart. Sometimes even when you try your best the inevitable happens. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.[/quote]
I agree, but its fairly minor.

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
Pff thats just biased. Origins one story? Okay, then how does the Bhelen vs Harrowmont struggle fit into that one story? Or the elves vs the werewolves, or your scavenger hunt for a lost relic (yes we have pleeeeeenty of time). Or just saving a mage towers. Origins has 4 massive substories which compose for most of the game. When you go to the landsmeet the story from there is pretty weak. 

Also the story is full of plot holes. Why does the Archdemon not go to Denerim inmediatly after Ostagar? Why am I going on a relic hunt to waste months when I have no garantuee it even exists? Why do I help the elves or the werewolves? After the diseases taking so many elves they can't hunt some werewolves themselves and afer killing so many werewolves I have nothing to suggest that either of the 2 are any useful allies. Neither are the mages. When I rescue the tower I maybe save 10 mages. Why would I bother? I don't have the time. How can my scouts have missed that the Archdemon is not actually marching for Redcliffe but for Denerim?

But Bioware just shows a video showing masses of elves and mages to tell us that there are more soldiers. I didn't buy it. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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 never watched the stats in DAO. Could have not been there and I wouldn't have cared one bit. But I guess thats personal.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
The graphics are better, they still could be improved on a lot with a new engine for example. But they are a vast improvement of Origins. Those are not photo-like. 
But you could say that the style is a matter of opinion not actual fact.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.
[/quote]
True about the exploration. Had they made Kirkwall more interesting though, then it could have been good, as most of the cities for example in DAO are fairly limited to explore. 
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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.
[/quote]
This is true. I guess the time-factor comes into play here. When they only have 1,5 years they don't want to develop quests that will only be played by a relatively small amount of players (most players play only once I think).
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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]
It is relevant as it introduces you to your friends and gets you to collect enough gold to go on the expedition. However, the way out was pretty lame... I guess it was made for players who try this game and then get stuck because of something minor. It should have only shown up if you actually have less than 50g though with all the quests done (or except maybe quests harder to find) so that people who actually have the 50g don't get bothered by this.
[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
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?
[/quote]
This is completely true. 
[quote]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.[/quote]
Tisk, you could have used a different alphabet! Switch to greek, hiragana, arabic or cyrillic.. plenty of choices

I have tried to give my opinion on your single points. I hope its appreciated. 

[Avilia]

To me, DA2 isn't a bad game, it just isn't a very good one either. I'm not a Bioware or 'Origins is perfect' fangirl. There was a lot I didn't care for in Origins but it kept me replaying over and over for the best part of a year.

After three complete playthroughs and few false starts DA2 lost my interest. I suppose in the long run that doesn't matter to anyone - the game is only purchased once. How many times I played it after that is moot to the distributor.

It does mean I won't bother preording DA3, it can wait until its on sale on Steam. Which oddly is the same way I bought Origins.

[jds1bio]

Avilia wrote...

To me, DA2 isn't a bad game, it just isn't a very good one either. I'm not a Bioware or 'Origins is perfect' fangirl. There was a lot I didn't care for in Origins but it kept me replaying over and over for the best part of a year.

After three complete playthroughs and few false starts DA2 lost my interest. I suppose in the long run that doesn't matter to anyone - the game is only purchased once. How many times I played it after that is moot to the distributor.

It does mean I won't bother preording DA3, it can wait until its on sale on Steam. Which oddly is the same way I bought Origins.

If there's a punch to the gut that BioWare/EA will receive after the polarized reception of DA2, it will be in this form.

[MonkeyKaboom]

jds1bio wrote...

Avilia wrote...

To me, DA2 isn't a bad game, it just isn't a very good one either. I'm not a Bioware or 'Origins is perfect' fangirl. There was a lot I didn't care for in Origins but it kept me replaying over and over for the best part of a year.

After three complete playthroughs and few false starts DA2 lost my interest. I suppose in the long run that doesn't matter to anyone - the game is only purchased once. How many times I played it after that is moot to the distributor.

It does mean I won't bother preording DA3, it can wait until its on sale on Steam. Which oddly is the same way I bought Origins.

If there's a punch to the gut that BioWare/EA will receive after the polarized reception of DA2, it will be in this form.

The success of a sequel is carried on the back of its predecessor.  

[erynnar]

jds1bio wrote...

Avilia wrote...

To me, DA2 isn't a bad game, it just isn't a very good one either. I'm not a Bioware or 'Origins is perfect' fangirl. There was a lot I didn't care for in Origins but it kept me replaying over and over for the best part of a year.

After three complete playthroughs and few false starts DA2 lost my interest. I suppose in the long run that doesn't matter to anyone - the game is only purchased once. How many times I played it after that is moot to the distributor.

It does mean I won't bother preording DA3, it can wait until its on sale on Steam. Which oddly is the same way I bought Origins.

If there's a punch to the gut that BioWare/EA will receive after the polarized reception of DA2, it will be in this form.

Yeah, and that makes me sad, but I will be one of those not pre-ording. EEP!

[rwscissors702]

DA2 was okay. If I had it for a console though I'd have sold it back to the game shop for store credit. I can still imagine playing DAO again, DA2... well, we'll see.

[Chromie]

I was. Then Witcher 2 came out an rpg I had been awaiting for four years. It's made me see how a sequel should be. You know improved on the original and not streamlined to hell.

[bduff4545]

the graphics in DA:2 are barely better than the graphics in origins.

[erynnar]

bduff4545 wrote...

the graphics in DA:2 are barely better than the graphics in origins.

DA2 graphics were not better when I had mushed low-res faced NPCs in grey all around Kirkwall. Or as I call them, "furniture people."

And the artstyle rninded me of World of Warcraft.

Edited due to broad comparison. My apologies.

Modifié par erynnar, 11 juillet 2011 - 09:46 .

[Stardusk78]

bduff4545 wrote...

 GO TO LINK AT BOTTOM FOR REVIEW: MANDATORY!!!!


I was so happy when I got Dragon Age 2. Then after 4 hours of playing it, I got bored and played Mass Effect 2. A couple days later I started playing it again and beat it only because in my head I kept on telling myself it was a good game because origins was so good. Did any of you have my same experience?

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: 

Yes, same thing happened to me...never finished it though.

[yodasmith00]

I think it is a very good game.

[Yrkoon]

erynnar wrote...

bduff4545 wrote...

the graphics in DA:2 are barely better than the graphics in origins.

DA2 graphics were not better when I had mushed low-res faced NPCs in grey all around Kirkwall. Or as I call them, "furniture people."

And the artstyle rninded me of World of Warcraft.

Edited due to broad comparison. My apologies.

I agree.  But again, we are a very tiny minority.   Almost completely across the board people seem to be in agreement that DA2's graphics are a step up from Origins'.

And maybe they are... IF you're playing on an Xbox or a PS3.  But if you're playing on a mid-to-high end PC like I am, this isn't the case. Things simply do NOT look as realistic  in DA2.  They look cartoonish. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:08 .

[Eurhetemec]

Yrkoon wrote...

I agree.  But again, we are a very tiny minority.   Almost completely across the board people seem to be in agreement that DA2's graphics are a step up from Origins'.

And maybe they are... IF you're playing on an Xbox or a PS3.  But if you're playing on a mid-to-high end PC like I am, this isn't the case. Things simply do NOT look as realistic  in DA2.  They look cartoonish. 

It's not a "graphics" issue, dude. You don't seem to know what "graphics" means - which is why you're in a tiny minority. Trying to argue that DA2 has worse graphics than DA:O is like trying to argue that the Moon is brighter than the Sun. It's just illogical. Especially on PC, with the high-res graphics pack and DX11, DA2's graphics, especially spell FX, are wildly better than DA:O.

What you're talking about is stylization. DA:O went for a very lightly stylized heavily-Lord-of-the-Rings-the-movie-inspired look. There wasn't a lot of stylization, though it was present in the armour and weapon designs.

DA2 went for much heavier stylization. This wasn't an accident. It's fine to dislike it, it's not fine to say it's "worse graphics". Stylization isn't graphics, it's visual design, it's a whole other issue.

As for the guy saying "it looked like WoW!", well, dude, it's stylized, but it's extremely different to WoW. If DA2 looks like "WoW" to you, every single fantasy game from America or Japan that isn't either DA:O or Eurofantasy must "look like WoW". That's just damn silly.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:53 .

[Yrkoon]

Uh, no "Dude". We're not talking about stylization. We're talking about the Graphics.   Plastic-looking Faces with no lines and wrinkles. Weapons and armor with  *much* lower  resolution textures. Fire that looks more like neon light than fire. And don't get me started on how 1999ish even the blood splatter looks in DA2.

If you want to  dismiss all this away as  "intentional art design", or "stylization" you go right ahead.  But it won't be us who are being silly here.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:28 .

[DarthKaldriss]

I enjoyed DA 2, hence I think it's a good game but you know thats my opinion.  

[Eurhetemec]

Yrkoon wrote...

Uh, no "Dude". We're not talking about stylization. We're talking about the Graphics.   Plastic-looking Faces with no lines and wrinkles. Weapons and armor with  *much* lower  resolution textures. Fire that looks more like neon light than fire. And don't get me started on how 1999ish even the blood splatter looks in DA2.

If you want to  dismiss all this away as  "intentional art design", or "stylization" you go right ahead.  But it won't be us who are being silly here.

Oh really? Can you tell me what size textures a weapon uses in DA2 vs. DA:O? With the high-res pack in? What res textures the faces use with the high-res pack in? Let's both look it up and get back to this thread later.

This should be interesting.

[Yrkoon]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Uh, no "Dude". We're not talking about stylization. We're talking about the Graphics.   Plastic-looking Faces with no lines and wrinkles. Weapons and armor with  *much* lower  resolution textures. Fire that looks more like neon light than fire. And don't get me started on how 1999ish even the blood splatter looks in DA2.

If you want to  dismiss all this away as  "intentional art design", or "stylization" you go right ahead.  But it won't be us who are being silly here.

Oh really? Can you tell me what size textures a weapon uses in DA2 vs. DA:O? With the high-res pack in? What res textures the faces use with the high-res pack in? Let's both look it up and get back to this thread later.

This should be interesting.

It should also be your desperate attempt to muddle the discussion with pointless drivel lawyer-speak, simply because you  refuse to believe  what your own eyes are seeing.

I've got a better Idea, since we're  talking about Graphics, ie.   the VISUAL.  why don't we play a game.  I'll post a pic  from DA:O's game play, and you try and counter it with a pic from DA2's game play, then we can ALL judge the graphics for ourselves.      Then we'll do it again.  And again, for every aspect... weapons, Spell effects, face textures, armor and weapon textures etc.

Ready?

I'll start.

Engulfed in Fire and Smoke...and it LOOKS like it too:





And in high res.  now   you show me how DA2's graphics handle such a situation.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:00 .

[Chromie]

Honestly that fire looks pretty bad. But still better then in DA2.