146 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

I prefer the way DA:O plays on my Xbox to DA2. I like the fights better, the animations better, the skills better. For me it's more fun to play.

[erynnar]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer the way DA:O plays on my Xbox to DA2. I like the fights better, the animations better, the skills better. For me it's more fun to play.

I never heard any of my friends who have consoles complain. Not ever, though I am sure there aer some things about DAO on the consoles that must be at least annoying. But they all seemed to overlook any flaws and enjoy it.

[ademska]

erynnar wrote...

I never heard any of my friends who have consoles complain. Not ever, though I am sure there aer some things about DAO on the consoles that must be at least annoying. But they all seemed to overlook any flaws and enjoy it.

i had plenty of issues with it on console, almost all of  them UI-related, and the lower review scores for the console versions all center on this as well... but it's such a good game that we all overlook them, yes.

as to the question, nope, loved da2, love the direction. voiced protags, cinematics, and dialogue wheels are how i roll.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

No. Awakening wasn't a very good game, and it stripped out everything that made DA:O worth playing (the origins, the meaningful interactions with companions, significant choice). I don't think DA2 was different from Awakening. It just had different potentially saving graces (depending on where you're standing re: your preferences). 

Eh?  I thought you had more choice in Awakening than in Origins, in terms of outcome- destroying (mumble spoilers) versus saving (mumble spoilers), for instance.  You could determine the fate of several companions.  You also could play origins, and these were acknowledged at least as much as in DAO.  People commented on my PC being an elf, Velanna reacted to you being Dalish etc.

To the OP question, all in all I got more out of Awakening than DA2, but Bioware got 20 more bucks out of me for the latter and Awakening was already overpriced.  I would guess they consider that a win.

Modifié par Addai67, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:33 .

[_Aine_]

erynnar wrote...


I never heard any of my friends who have consoles complain. Not ever, though I am sure there aer some things about DAO on the consoles that must be at least annoying. But they all seemed to overlook any flaws and enjoy it.

I hated DAO on the PS3, personally.  Nothing was automatically, or even remotely easily accessible, and not at all intuitive (to me).   I switched to PC.  Don't regret the switch either.  

There are certain games where I can utilize an enormous menu of spells, abilities etc and want them to simply be available with a single/double click, and those games I just prefer on PC. 

All I would have prefered IF they had to change a ton, was a better, smoother, more graceful transition.  

A punch to the jaw, even when stylishly done, will not be well accepted by all.    (Some people like it rough.)  

The amount of hate, imho, shows an inability to transition styles more so than it proves a horrible/poor game per se.  It did not transition as well as they hoped, I imagine...  

[Nashiktal]

Actually I appreciated Biowares attempt at something new. If DA2 had proper time to develop I think it could have been a great game instead of an ok one. While I loved DAO it felt a bit stale in some areas.

While I won't mind if they do another DAO, I am interested in seeing what Bioware can do in the direction their going, WITH proper development and backing. (Hear that EA? Back off!)

[Kandid001]

Are you ****ing kidding me? Of course.

[Realmzmaster]

No, I would not have preferred another DAO styled game. I like the premise that DA2 took. The execution was lacking. It was interesting IMHO to have a story that was not save the world. I like the sense of helplessness that Hawke encounters. I like that that Hawke can only at times react to the situation rather than in control of every situation. But this is my personal opinion, YMMV.

[Luke Bioware]

I didn't necessarily dislike the things you describe, Realmzmaster, but the gameplay itself was lacking in my opinion. I hope the third Dragon Age can combine the best of both world.

By the way: I had e-mail-notifications on for this site. Ouch .

[Captain_Obvious]

[quote]Luke Bioware wrote...

I was just wondering about this, and sorry if it has been discussed before. I would've rather had something like Awakening again to be honest, if they truly didn't get much time from EA to make a new classic. Much like Baldur's Gate II was to Baldur's Gate I mean: subtle changes, which made the game somewhat better than its predecessor in the end.

[quote]

No, I really didn't want another Origins or Awakening.  I wanted a new game.  I also hope that DA3 will be different than both Origins and DA2.  I never played Baldur's Gate.  That game never really interested me, and that was way back in my FPS days. 

[quote]

Personally I really hated the dumbed down combat. Easier to handle for consoles is great and all that, but if you need new mobs coming out of nowhere to make things 'interesting', there is something wrong. (I suppose I don't have to talk about the rehashed areas, abscence of many monsters and creatures that did exist in the original and so on and so on.)

[quote]

I play on a console, and I thought both Origins and DA2 were fine on the consoles.  Combat was pretty slow in DA:O, but I really liked the combat in DA2.  It made it seem more like, well, combat.  If I had to pick one style, I prefer DA2.  I played on PCs for years, and made the switch to consoles with the PS2.  Say what you like, but consoles have saved me from having to have carpal tunnel surgery.  For that reason alone, I will play games on consoles from now on.  PC gamers can crow about dumbing-down all they want. 

[quote]

To long, didn't read: I would've been more happier with a revamped DAO, so that the focus could've been placed on the story and more important things than the redesign.

[/quote]

I'm sorry you didn't get the game you wanted, but I'm okay with some of the changes that they made.  Not all of them, but some of them.  What I really do not want is a re-skinned DA:O.  My preference is that each game needs to feel like a different experience in order to be a game in it's own right. 

[ItsTheTruth]

LeBurns wrote...

YES. They already have everything they needed, models, textures, etc. With the little development time they had they could have used what they had, polish it up a little bit, add another great and epic story, and easy WIN. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS!!!!

Exactly. Instead of half-finished horrible game.

[erynnar]

shantisands wrote...

erynnar wrote...


I never heard any of my friends who have consoles complain. Not ever, though I am sure there aer some things about DAO on the consoles that must be at least annoying. But they all seemed to overlook any flaws and enjoy it.

I hated DAO on the PS3, personally.  Nothing was automatically, or even remotely easily accessible, and not at all intuitive (to me).   I switched to PC.  Don't regret the switch either.  

There are certain games where I can utilize an enormous menu of spells, abilities etc and want them to simply be available with a single/double click, and those games I just prefer on PC. 

All I would have prefered IF they had to change a ton, was a better, smoother, more graceful transition.  

A punch to the jaw, even when stylishly done, will not be well accepted by all.    (Some people like it rough.)  

The amount of hate, imho, shows an inability to transition styles more so than it proves a horrible/poor game per se.  It did not transition as well as they hoped, I imagine...  

Sorry it sucked on PS3 for you! Bleh!  Not sure what you mean by transition styles, elaborate for this ignorant one?

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Eh?  I thought you had more choice in Awakening than in Origins, in terms of outcome- destroying (mumble spoilers) versus saving (mumble spoilers), for instance.

Each DA:O area had a choice. DA:A lacks that. You have that choice, and you have the choice to kill someone else or not, but not much else.

You could determine the fate of several companions.

But that's a direct result of the choice you mentioned, saving (mumble) versus (mumble muble). 

You also could play origins, and these were acknowledged at least as much as in DAO.  People commented on my PC being an elf, Velanna reacted to you being Dalish etc.

You're locked into I <3 Wardens, so many times worse than DA:O.

We lost romances, the ability to speak to our companions completely unless they were in the party (even DA2 had more than that), approval is a little b0rked, and the whole plot just revolved around darkspawn. 

[erynnar]

ademska wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I never heard any of my friends who have consoles complain. Not ever, though I am sure there aer some things about DAO on the consoles that must be at least annoying. But they all seemed to overlook any flaws and enjoy it.

i had plenty of issues with it on console, almost all of  them UI-related, and the lower review scores for the console versions all center on this as well... but it's such a good game that we all overlook them, yes.

as to the question, nope, loved da2, love the direction. voiced protags, cinematics, and dialogue wheels are how i roll.

Fair enough. Not how I roll. Now the question that is on everyone's mind...did they win enough of the group that roll like you to make up for the group that rolls like me, to make up the difference. ROFL!

[Deganis76]

erynnar wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...
Some of us preferred having vastly more conversation options and immersing ourselves into it more by speaking it for ourselves instead of someone else doing it for us.

You got the secret experimental version of DA:O where you talked into the microphone instead of picking predefined and prewritten dialogue options from a list?

Tree vs happy face/angry face/attempt at humour.

Nuff said.

Apparently the concept of reading and putting yourself in the role as part of the rpg is lost on you.

No, but that only works if every other character in the game is silent as well. It breaks immersrion for me, besides as a man when I have try to sound like a woman that isn't exactly a pleasant experince for me.

I understand it can be immersion breaking for some. But for me to have a voiced protagonist in DA it bacame a clicky interactive movie with Hawke opening her mouth and saying ridiculous things sometimes.  I prefer less cinematics and to imagine the voice of my PC (all my Wardens are very different in temprament and voice). It means I get to be the character. But everyone's different.

Though I don't see how they can do the voiced if they bring back different origin choices again. 

BW already stated that the "strong, silent" protagonist will not be returning.  Voice acted protagonists from here on out, for better or for worse.

[Deganis76]

Deganis76 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...
Some of us preferred having vastly more conversation options and immersing ourselves into it more by speaking it for ourselves instead of someone else doing it for us.

You got the secret experimental version of DA:O where you talked into the microphone instead of picking predefined and prewritten dialogue options from a list?

Tree vs happy face/angry face/attempt at humour.

Nuff said.

Apparently the concept of reading and putting yourself in the role as part of the rpg is lost on you.

No, but that only works if every other character in the game is silent as well. It breaks immersrion for me, besides as a man when I have try to sound like a woman that isn't exactly a pleasant experince for me.

I understand it can be immersion breaking for some. But for me to have a voiced protagonist in DA it bacame a clicky interactive movie with Hawke opening her mouth and saying ridiculous things sometimes.  I prefer less cinematics and to imagine the voice of my PC (all my Wardens are very different in temprament and voice). It means I get to be the character. But everyone's different.

Though I don't see how they can do the voiced if they bring back different origin choices again. 

BW already stated that the "strong, silent" protagonist will not be returning.  Voice acted protagonists from here on out, for better or for worse.

Speaking of the voiced protagonist, I was actually pretty impressed
on how DA2 tracked your response style (Noble/Snarky/Aggressive) and
tailored certain canned dialogue (which you have no direct control) to
your characters personality determined by those tracked choices.  To my
knowledge, this is the first game to have done this, and actually
surpasses ME in this regard.

Modifié par Deganis76, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:30 .

[OdanUrr]

I think it's more a question of where Bioware decided to cut Hawke's story for DA2. They've probably written all of Hawke's story for DA2 and beyond, or at least have a pretty good idea of what that "beyond" will entail. Since they seem to have set up Hawke much like Shepard, that is following a single character's story throughout multiple installments, the question for DA2 was probably how to strike a balance between telling part of Hawke's story while setting it up for a sequel. Where exactly do you cut and insert "to be continued"?

This is one of my heavier complaints about DA2. DAO has a beginning, a middle, and an end. DA2 is just a beginning that could have been better framed to have a beginning-middle-end of its own (Mass Effect does this pretty well). And it's a pity since it's neatly broken into three acts that could do this, I believe they try, but ultimately don't.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:36 .

[erynnar]

Deganis76 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...
Some of us preferred having vastly more conversation options and immersing ourselves into it more by speaking it for ourselves instead of someone else doing it for us.

You got the secret experimental version of DA:O where you talked into the microphone instead of picking predefined and prewritten dialogue options from a list?

Tree vs happy face/angry face/attempt at humour.

Nuff said.

Apparently the concept of reading and putting yourself in the role as part of the rpg is lost on you.

No, but that only works if every other character in the game is silent as well. It breaks immersrion for me, besides as a man when I have try to sound like a woman that isn't exactly a pleasant experince for me.

I understand it can be immersion breaking for some. But for me to have a voiced protagonist in DA it bacame a clicky interactive movie with Hawke opening her mouth and saying ridiculous things sometimes.  I prefer less cinematics and to imagine the voice of my PC (all my Wardens are very different in temprament and voice). It means I get to be the character. But everyone's different.

Though I don't see how they can do the voiced if they bring back different origin choices again. 

BW already stated that the "strong, silent" protagonist will not be returning.  Voice acted protagonists from here on out, for better or for worse.

Well, then say good bye to different origins. And I have to admit, I am disappointed. I want more game play not an interactive movie. I hope they tone it down some on the cinematics.

[Fhaileas]

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[thedistortedchild]

I would definitely have preferred a more origins like game on the basis of choices and impact of choices, amount of dialogue,character customization, etc.
DA2 was prettier and the combat was more reactive, and that's all I liked about DA2.

[b09boy]

Yes, without a doubt. I would have liked Origins to have been improved upon rather than a reinvention of the series.

Hell, I like to think about the idea of Awakening being a full-fledged sequel instead of just an expansion. Think about that for a second. The game took place in a smaller region over a smaller period of time, but had a lot of concepts for a great story and a lot of choices and consequences within the world. Problem was parts of the story didn't get developed enough and were rushed, such as the Joining, the Architect and Utha, the conspiracy, and the ending sequence beyond the final boss. Imagine for a moment that it had been given the same two years as DA2. Or even one year. One full year rather than the six or so months it took to develop. The game could have been considered a better RPG than Origins even.

[KLUME777]

This is what i'm hoping DA3 will be.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Fhaileas wrote...

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[Hello There]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Well, then say good bye to different origins. And I have to admit, I am disappointed. I want more game play not an interactive movie. I hope they tone it down some on the cinematics.

Funny thing is I think DA2 was more videogame-y and DA:O a lot more cinematic. The production values sought in movie making were to be found in DA:O, but not the successor (or to a much lesser degree) - DA2 would have been a very tedious movie. An animated cartoon, to be more precise. Only the interaction with the Qunari Arishok had any kind of cinematic quality to me - and that was because of the "performance" of the Arishok (great voice acting, many interesting gestures to support what was being said, standing up to demonstrate aggression etc.). I am not certain if the voiced protagonist is an improvement over the silent protagonist. With a good voice actor (unlike male Hawke) and an improvement of the dialogue wheel, it may be - but I am not really convinced.

Voiced protagonist and linear choice which leads to the same ending no matter what is more like a movie than what DAO had.